In addition to this article, I will also post a second one in which I take Green's post at IIDB and reply to it in detail. Unavoidably, there will be some repetition in the second article, but if Green really wants to see Turkel taken to the woodshed on the issues that Green claims is bothering him, he will get what he wants in the article below. The second one will just be frosting on the cake.
In compiling the article below, I have kept everything as it was posted on the Theology Web except for a few corrections in punctuation and typographical errors. I have also inserted links to all biblical citations so that those who want to read them can easily do so. Because "monitors" of this website would censor my posts if I used Turkel's real name, I referred to him as "Skippy," a name that was appropriate for someone who skipped and ignored as many of my arguments as he did.]
Posted: April 29th 2003, 12:51 AM, on The Theology Web.
Skippy:
Farrell Till's Goofy Gaffe of the Week, 4/25/03
We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead [sic] gaffe by F Till - not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.
Till:
I will ask everyone to take notice of the way that I reply to Skippy as
opposed to the way he
evades my arguments/rebuttals with unsupported claims that he has
"already" answered "that."
I will skip nothing in my reply, but Skippy will not reply to me in
kind. After seeing my
point-by-point replies, I think readers will be able to see just who is
the one who should
be laughed at.
Skippy:
Goofy’s Gaffe for this week comes of an attempt he made in the Land
Promise debate to make
land areas in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlap.
Till:
Why did Skippy, uh, well, skip
Joshua 12?
We will see that
this chapter was also analyzed in the section of my reply in which he
thinks he found a
"goofy gaffe." It is an important passage that I will be quoting from
again to show that no
"goofy gaffe" was made.
Skippy:
Please note the following:
This thread is specifically about this particular gaffe. Goofy and his fans will undoubtedly try to distract the reader with other issues while never addressing this particular one. Such diversionary tactics should be taken as an admission that the gaffe is admitted to, and that they have no resolution but to cover up for this embarrassing error.
Till:
Skippy should know better than to say that I will "never" address this
issue, because he has
seen enough of me to know that I reply to him point by point and skip
nothing. I will let
the readers judge for themselves whether I address "this particular
one." I predict that he
will be the one who won't address issues and will try to shift the
subject to something
else. In fact, that is the entire reason for this new thread he has
started. On his other
"gaffe" claim, I have nailed his hide to the wall again by requoting
rebuttals that he
evaded in our land-promise debate, and so he is eager to distract
attention to something
else. He will see, however, that I will simply requote here what he has
evaded in the
land-promise thread.
Skippy:
So now to the Gaffe. I initially noted, in reply to a claim that
passages in Josh. 10 and 11
were in conflict with Josh. 13:1:
Josh. 10:40-3 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. And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.
Josh. 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
Josh 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.
Re Josh. 10:40-43, 11:6-15, and 11:23 versus Joshua 13:1, which says there was "yet very much land to be possessed": In context these refer to the "whole land" of the particular nations being attacked in each section. Josh. 10:40-43 refers only to the land of the specific kings and cities being battled in Josh. 10, whose territory comprised a specific swath of land west of the northern half of the Dead Sea.
Goofy replied that he would show that “the ‘specific kings and cities’ encompassed in the descriptions of Joshua’s victories will show that they were inclusive of all the land promised to the Israelites.”
Till:
I'll interrupt Skippy to remind him of a rebuttal argument that he
has repeatedly tiptoed
around. Before I requote it, I'll tell readers what to look for. First,
if Skippy could
prove--and he can't--that the land listed and described in Joshua 10,
11, and 13 was not
"all encompassing" of the land that Yahweh had promised the Israelites,
he would accomplish
nothing, because the argument I will be requoting below shows that the
book of Joshua said
that the Israelites received all the land Yahweh had promised them and
dwelt in it, but
after this claim of the complete fulfillment of Yahweh's land promise,
the book of Joshua
said that the Israelites had not received all of the land promised but
that "much land"
remained to be possessed. Proof of the contradiction is in the rebuttal
argument that he
ignored in the land-promise thread, so here is that argument again.
Till in first round: First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then [it said that] they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true.Skippy in second round: We have shown that the formula is not "X" versus "not X", [sic] but "X plus Y" (giving land plus fulfilling conditions) versus "X plus Z" (giving land plus not fulfilling conditions).
Till:
Skippy has shown no such thing. He can't even recognize the difference
in apples and oranges.
When I say that the Bible says X and not X (or P and ~P), I'm not
talking about what was said
in the original land promise but what the books of Joshua and Judges
said about the
fulfillment of the promise. First, Joshua claimed that the Israelites
had been given all the
land that Yahweh had promised.
Joshua 21:43 So Yahweh 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. 44 Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.
This passage is clear enough that even Skippy should be able to understand it. The passage flatly says that Yahweh had given to Israel all the land that he had sworn to their fathers to give to them and that they took possession of it and dwelt in it. It even explicitly says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel." It then went on to say that "all came to pass."
Yet we read something entirely different in another passage.
Joshua 13:1 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him: "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed...."
Skippy, being Skippy, will probably try to argue that the statement in Joshua 13:1 was made before the one in Joshua 21, and so at the time of Joshua 13, the Israelites had not taken all of the land but had done so in Joshua 21. Notice, however, that 13:1 was said when Joshua was "old, advanced in years." What we have, then, is a typical problem of inconsistencies that resulted from the patchwork method that was used in putting the hexateuch together from different documents and/or traditions. That this is the explanation for why a text about Joshua's "advanced" years would have preceded one about his earlier years is evident from a statement in chapter 21. The chapters following Joshua 13 recorded the dividing of the land among the tribes, and it was in this context that the claim was made that "Yahweh gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers," but after two more chapters that described the division of the land, this statement was made about Joshua's age.
Joshua 23:1 Now it came to pass, a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. 2 And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them: "I am old, advanced in age...."
The text in Joshua 21, which said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had sworn to their father to give to them, also said that "Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers" (v:44), so after the time that it was claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, it was said two chapters later that "a long time after Yahweh had given rest to Israel" Joshua was "old, advanced in age," so at the time of the claim in Joshua 21:43 that Yahweh had given all the land promised to the Israelites, Joshua was younger but later became old and advanced in years. Hence, the reference in 13:1 to the "much land" that remained to be possessed could not have chronologically preceded the claim in 21:43 that all of the land promised had been given to the Israelites, because in 13:1 Joshua was old and advanced in age, but in 21:43, he wasn't yet old and advanced in years but became so "a long time after" this. In 21:43, however, before Joshua was old and advanced in years, it was said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers and that they possessed it and dwelt in it.
Clearly, then, we have a case of X and not X (or P and ~P), because one text says X (Yahweh gave the Israelites all the land he had promised them) but another text says not X (Yahweh did not give the Israelites all the land he had promised them). So this is not a matter of X (giving the land) plus Y (keeping the land), as Skippy is trying to claim, but both X and not X (P and ~P) pertain to the giving of the land and not to the keeping of it. One text says that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised, and that they possessed it and dwelt in it, and the other text says that all the land had not been given to the Israelites. This is a clear case of X and not X (P and ~P), so Skippy has not explained this contradiction.
In case Skippy still wants to quibble that Joshua 13:1 (the not X text) was written before 21:43 (the X text), I will point out that even if he could establish this, he would still have the same X and not X problem, because the book of Judges claimed that the Israelites could not take all of the land.
Judges 1:19 And Yahweh was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.
Furthermore, Joshua 21:44 said that "there stood not a man of all their enemies before them," and the next verse says that "not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel" but that "all came to pass." One of the good things that Yahweh promised was that the Israelites would drive out all the nations in Canaan (Deut. 7:1-2; 9:20-24), but Judges is filled with examples of where the Israelites had been unable to drive out the original inhabitants of the land.
Judges 1:21 But the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; so the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.
Judges 1:27 However, Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; for the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land.
Judges 3:1-3 Now these are the nations which Yahweh left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), 3 namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. 4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of Yahweh, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.
We see a lot of retrospective rationalization in the last passage, but these texts clearly contradict Joshua 21:43ff, which claimed that everything Yahweh had promised to the Israelites had been fulfilled at that time, but one of Yahweh's promises was that he would drive out all of the nations in Canaan and that not a man would be able to stand against them. Judges 3:1-3 claims that this didn't happen. Some nations did stand against the Israelites.
This too becomes an X and not X problem that Skippy must solve to resolve the inconsistency problem. He does not solve it by saying that it was a matter of X [getting the land] plus Y [keeping the land], because the scriptures cited above all pertain to getting the land. Some texts say X [the Israelites got all the land promised to them and dwelt in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the land promised to them].
Thus Skippy has hopped, skipped, and jumped over another argument.
Till in first round:
Where has Skippy said anything that explains away these inconsistencies?
Skippy:
Our opponent's pretense is no more than a play to influence his
skeptical readership into
thinking there is no explanation.
Till:
So Skippy is going to evade the argument again. My explication of the
problem (above) clearly
shows that there is an X and not X (P and ~P) problem in the books of
Joshua and Judges. Some
texts say X [the Israelites got all of the land promised to them and
possessed it and dwelt
in it], but other texts say not X [the Israelites did not get all the
land promised to
them].
If Skippy really thinks that I am just presenting a ploy to make readers think that the problem has no explanation, why doesn't he embarrass me by just posting the explanation? Instead, he attempts to draw attention away from his failure to reply by cutting and pasting the worn-out evasive comment below, which we have seen umpteen times, and which I have repeatedly replied to.
The argument requoted above shows the irony of Skippy's attempt to show that I erred in saying that Joshua 10,11, and 13 claimed the conquest of all the land Yahweh had promised to the Israelites, for even if he can show that this was the "goofy gaffe" that he claims it was, this would in no way remove the facts that (1) the book of Joshua said that during the younger years of Joshua, the Israelites were given all the land that Yahweh promised their fathers and that they took possession of it and dwelt in it, but (2) when Joshua was old and advanced in years, the book of Joshua said that the Israelites had not received all the land Yahweh had promised them. Hence, there is still a P and ~P statement in Joshua even if Skippy can prove his claim that I made a "goofy gaffe."
I will show later that I made no such gaffe, but before I proceed to that, I have some questions for Skippy. Are the following statements true or false.
So now it is time for yes or no questions.
Folks, watch Skippy ignore these questions and make some excuse for not answering them. Expect to hear a lot of talk about "fluff" and "excess verbiage," but don't expect any answers. You won't get them.
Part Two:
Poor Skippy continues to present what he thinks was my "goofy gaffe,"
and in so doing, he
shows that he has not yet recovered from his foot-in-mouth disease. If
he weren't so cocky
and arrogant, I would almost feel sorry for him.
Those who want to read the entirety of this section of my original reply to Skippy can go to Part Five of my land-promise replies to his quibbles and evasions. If you go there, you will find Skippy's hide nailed to the wall.
Skippy:
He [Till] began:
First, let’s notice that Joshua 10:43 says that Joshua struck “all the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes.” That sounds pretty inclusive, but statements made later in this text claim that “Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen, even to Gibeon” (v:41). Now this gives us some specific locations to use as geographical references. Goshen, of course, could hardly have been the land of Goshen in Egypt, where the Israelites had lived when they were in bondage. The geographical reference points would put this “land of Goshen” somewhere in the hill country of Judah. Kadesh-barnea was one of the stopping points for the Israelites during their 40-year wanderings (Num. 20:14-16; 33:36-37). This was an oasis on the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness, so the passage in Joshua 10 located the southern edge of the Israelite strike against the kings of this area at the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness. The division of the land in Joshua 15 referred to towns in the region of Gaza along “the brook of Egypt” (v:47). The “brook of Egypt” was either a tributary of the Nile or, more likely, the wadi el-‘Arish, a stream that begins in the central Sinai and flows into the Mediterranean Sea south of Gaza. With this information, we can pretty well fix the southern extent of Joshua’s attack claimed in Joshua 10 at the extreme southern end of Judah or probably even into the northern regions of the Sinai wilderness.
Skippy:
With all of this so far we had no disagreement. Here is where Goofy’s
Gaffe on Josh. 10
begins:
Joshua 10:41 says that the strike went from Kadesh-barnea “even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen,” so this would take the extent of the claimed attack to the Mediterranean Sea.
This is false. If the attack was to Gaza it does not include Gaza, on the sea, which was Philistine territory. But there is more.
Till:
My, my, Skippy, accused me of... what was it? Oh, yes, here it is. It
was at the beginning of
his imaginary "Goofy Gaffe #1."
Skippy:
We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead [sic] gaffe by F Till _ not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship.
So let's just see now who has made a "honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship." Notice that Joshua 10:41 said that Joshua struck them [enemy forces] from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen. So Joshua's strike even unto Gaza went also unto "all the country of Goshen," but how could Joshua have struck unto all the country of Goshen unless his forces had penetrated into the country of Goshen? The fact that the writer said that Joshua's strike extended unto all the country of Goshen shows that he did not mean that Joshua took his army up to the border of Goshen and stopped. How could he have taken his army up to "all the country of Goshen" unless he entered it? Obviously, then, this meant that his army had struck all through the country of Goshen. If that isn't what the text meant, then perhaps Skippy can explain this verse to us.
Joshua 11:16 Thus Joshua took all this land: the mountain country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland and the Jordan plain--the mountains of Israel and its lowland.
Gee, that sounds rather inclusive, Skippy, but if you want to quibble that this would not include all the land in the southern part of Palestine, you can at least tell us if Joshua took all the land of Goshen. That's what it says, isn't it? So if Joshua took all the land of Goshen, the expression striking "unto all the country of Goshen" (used later in this same chapter) must have meant that Joshua's forces went into Goshen and captured it. If not, why not?
Then if striking "unto all the country of Goshen" meant that Joshua took all the country of Goshen, why wouldn't striking "even unto Gaza" have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza? Give us the benefit of your "relevant study and scholarship" and let us know, will you?
Anyway, whenever I take a position that has been derived from the clear meaning of a text, Skippy likes to call me the "hyperliteralist" if that position is inconsistent with other scriptures, but I would like to know when I have ever taken a position as "hyperliteralist" as his attempt to claim that striking enemy forces even unto Gaza would not mean that Joshua's forces entered Gaza and captured it.
Furthermore, the same text in question also says that Joshua struck "even unto Gibeon." If striking "unto Gaza" meant only that Joshua's army went up to the border of Gaza and stopped, then striking "even unto Gibeon" would mean that Joshua's forces went up to the city limits of Gibeon and stopped. If that is what Skippy thinks that striking "even unto Gaza or Gibeon" meant, then how does he explain this text, which is in the same chapter as the passage about striking unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen?
Joshua 10:9-10 Joshua therefore came upon them [the Amorites gathered at Gibeon], having marched all night from Gilgal. So Yahweh routed them before Israel, killed them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, chased them along the road that goes to Beth Horon, and struck them down as far as Azerek and Makkedah.
So I have quoted separate texts that claim the forces of Joshua captured all the land of Goshen and Gibeon, so if striking even "unto" all the land of Goshen and even "unto" Gibeon meant capturing these places, then why would striking even "unto" Gaza not have meant that Joshua had captured Gaza?
Hey, folks, pay careful attention and watch how much of this Skippy jumps over.
What was that you said about "relevant study and scholarship," Skippy?
Don't you ever tire of looking silly?
Skippy:
Goofy went on:
The same verse says that the strike extended “unto Gibeon,” which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem, so if Joshua had routed all the kings of this region and utterly destroyed all that breathed (v:40), he would have driven out and destroyed the Jebusites, who lived in and around Jerusalem, and this would have happened early in Joshua’s invasion of Canaan, yet texts describing events after this time specifically noted that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites.
This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east.
Till:
Others have pointed out that Gibeon was actually north northwest of
Jerusalem, so what
was that that you have said about my hyperliteralism, Skippy? As I said
in a brief post
elsewhere in this thread, if the Bible had said that Gibeon was north
of Jerusalem, I can
imagine the ridicule you would heap on any skeptic who would claim that
this was a mistake
on the grounds that Gibeon was actually north northwest of Jerusalem.
You do have double
standards, don't you, Skippy?
Skippy:
The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a
river, a natural barrier.
Till:
I do hope that everyone will take the time to get a Bible atlas and
check into Skippy's
quibble. I am using Holman's PC Bible Atlas for my source of
information. There was a river
(more like a stream) between Jerusalem and Gibeon, but Jerusalem was on
the south side of
the river, and Gibeon was on the north side. To get to Gibeon, which we
have already seen
that Joshua captured, the Israelite army would have had to cross this
river, but since the
Israelites were advancing from the south, they could have attacked
Jerusalem without crossing
the river. If this river were such a "natural barrier," then how were
the Israelites able to
cross it to strike their enemies "even unto Gibeon" and slaughter them
with a great
slaughter?
Furthermore, Joshua's southern assault began at Kadesh-barnea 10:41, which was in the extreme southern region of the land. To get from there to the other places that were defeated (Gaza, Goshen, Debir, Eglon, etc., etc., etc.), the Israelites would have had to cross eight rivers (streams), so these "natural barriers" were apparently not the formidable impediments that Skippy would have us believe. Furthermore, why would a river have been any kind of "natural barrier" for the forces of Yahweh, since the Bible claims that Yahweh fought with Israel?
Joshua 10:14 For there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that Yahweh heeded the voice of a man; for Yahweh fought for Israel.
Joshua 10:42 All these kings and their land Joshua took at one time, because Yahweh God of Israel fought for Israel.
So if Yahweh was fighting for Israel, how could a little stream have impeded them from taking Jerusalem, especially since that stream was north of Jerusalem, and Joshua's army was coming from the south? Does Skippy ever stop to think before he writes? Probably not, because if he had thought before posting this ridiculous claim of a "gaffe," he would have remembered that Yahweh parted the waters of the Jordan River so that the Israelites could cross it and enter Canaan (Josh. 3:14-17). If Yahweh did this upon the initial entry of the Israelites into Canaan, why would he, if he were indeed fighting for Israel, have later allowed a stream to hold back the advancement of Joshua's army?
I'll ask again if Skippy ever stops to think before he writes.
One more observation about the last text quoted above is in order. This is the verse that comes immediately after the one that said that Joshua struck "them" from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza and all the land of Goshen. Notice that this verse specifically says that Joshua "took" all these kings and their land, but how could he have taken the land of these kings if he had just gone up to the borders of their land and then turned back?
Hey, Skippy, do you still think that I will "never address this particular one [gaffe]"?
Steve Carr has contributed something to this thread that deserves mentioning here. Glenn Miller is frequently cited by Skippy in his articles. In my debates with him, he cited an article on Miller's website as a "reply" to my claim that 2 Peter was written well after AD 70, and he has cited and defended one of Miller's website articles as a solution to the "staff/no staff" problem posed by Matthew 10:9-10 and Mark 6:8, so I would assume that Skippy holds Miller in high esteem and would never accuse him of "a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship."
I point this out, because Steve Carr has found that Miller's position on the capturing of Jerusalem is the same as mine. This quotation became a point of controversy on the Theology Web, because the quotation was actually from The Archeology of Ancient Israel, but when he introduced it in the article linked to below, Miller referred to it as "confirming/non-contradicting data" for the point he was arguing in his article. Hence, he apparently agreed with what was said in the quotation.
Chapter 10 of the book of Joshua tells of the battle with a coalition of kings of the Shephelah and the hill country--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Yarmut, Lachish, and Eglon. In the course of this battle Joshua conquers Makkedah, Libneh, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, and at the conclusion of the tale, the conquest of wide areas is described: "the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes... from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon" (Jos. 10:40-41). The location of some of the towns (Makkedah, Libneh, and Eglon) is not established. The other towns may be identified with certainty, and among them, Jerusalem, Lachish, Hebron (Tell Rumeideh), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud in the southern Hebron hills) have been excavated.
So Glenn Miller agrees that Joshua 10, properly interpreted, shows that Jerusalem was captured by the Israelites during their southern campaign. This means that it is time to ask Skippy a few more questions.
You won't forget to answer these questions, will you, Skippy?
In defense of Miller's position, let's notice that Joshua 12 listed the "king of Jerusalem" as one of the many kings that Joshua defeated in his assaults from the wilderness "in the south" to the valley of Lebanon in the north. Keep in mind that Joshua 10:42, quoted above, claimed that Joshua took "all these kings and their land."
Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land, which the children of Israel smote, and possessed their land on the other side Jordan toward the rising of the sun, from the river Arnon unto mount Hermon, and all the plain on the east: 2 Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is upon the bank of the river Arnon, and from the middle of the river, and from half Gilead, even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon; 3 And from the plain to the sea of Chinneroth on the east, and unto the sea of the plain, even the salt sea on the east, the way to Bethjeshimoth; and from the south, under Ashdothpisgah: 4 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, 5 And reigned in mount Hermon, and in Salcah, and in all Bashan, unto the border of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and half Gilead, the border of Sihon king of Heshbon. 6 Them did Moses the servant of Yahweh and the children of Israel smite: and Moses the servant of Yahweh gave it for a possession unto the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh.7 And these are the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel smote on this side Jordan on the west, from Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon even unto the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir; which Joshua gave unto the tribes of Israel for a possession according to their divisions; 8 In the mountains, and in the valleys, and in the plains, and in the springs, and in the wilderness, and in the south country; the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites:
In my complete rebuttal of Skippy's quibbles in Part Five of my land-promise replies to his quibbles, I analyzed all of the place names in this passages to show how inclusive they were of the territory in the defined borders of Yahweh's land promise, but some in this forum don't like thoroughness, so I will eliminate that part for the sake of brevity. However, as this passage continues, notice that the "king of Jerusalem" was listed in verse 10 as one of the kings that Joshua defeated in his southern campaign.
Joshua 12:9 The king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one; 10 The king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one; 11 The king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one 12 The king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one; 13 The king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one; 14 The king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one; 15 The king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one; 16 The king of Makkedah, one; the king of Bethel, one; 17 The king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one; 18 The king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one; 19 The king of Madon, one; the king of Hazor, one; 20 The king of Shimronmeron, one; the king of Achshaph, one; 21 The king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one; 22 The king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam of Carmel, one.
Earlier, I asked why Skippy omitted all of my references to Joshua 12, so I have to wonder if he didn't want readers to see the part that said that the king of Jerusalem was one of the kings that Joshua defeated in his southern campaign in which he took all their land. If he defeated the king of Jerusalem, which had no river south of it to present a "natural barrier" to Joshua's forces during their advance to the north, then why wouldn't Joshua, while he was on a roll, have taken Jerusalem too? Well, Judges 1:8 says that the "children of Judah" did take Jerusalem.
Now the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it; they struck it with the edge of the sword and set the city on fire.
But the same chapter says later that the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem (v:21), and so the Jebusites dwell in Jerusalem until this day. In fact, the Bible claims elsewhere that the Jebusites controlled Jerusalem until David captured it in 2 Samuel 5:6, but, hey, there aren't any inconsistencies in the Bible.
Just ask Skippy; he'll tell you.
Skippy:
Goofy desperately wishes to erase these five miles in a different
direction, as well as
disregard any issue of delineating geographical features, which would
clearly exclude
Jerusalem from the range between Kadesh-Barnea and Gibeon, but that
geographical equivocation
will not float in this ocean.
Till:
I suggest that Skippy take this up with his hero Glenn Miller.
Skippy:
To this we can add that Goofy has also naively assumed, even if he were
correct, that the
delineation in Joshua 10 would be a straight line, when it would more
likely be drawn, in
this era before maps, along natural barriers like rivers, mountains,
and wilderness.
Till:
My comments above show the futility of Skippy's attempt to show that
the details in
Joshua 10-12 did not mean that the Israelites had captured all the
territory in the south,
including Jerusalem (which had no "natural barrier" between it and
Joshua's advancing
forces.). Those who will go to
this
section of
Part Five of my land-promise rebuttals will also see a thorough
explication of the texts in
Joshua 10-12, which will show that, if true, claims of all of the kings
defeated and land
conquered would have encompassed all of the land that Yahweh had
promised the Israelites.
Skippy, of course, is... well, skipping over these.
Anyway, Skippy's approach in this section of his attempt to find a "gaffe" in my articles baffles me. Joshua 21:43-45 says that (1) Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers and that (2) they possessed it and dwelt in it, but all the land that Yahweh promised Abraham's seed would have included all the land from the river of Egypt, to the south, to the Mediterranean Sea, to the east, and to the Euphrates River, to the north. Jerusalem and Gaza were both within those borders, so if Yahweh did indeed give to the Israelites all the land he had promised, he would have had to have given them both Gaza and Jerusalem. Hence, Skippy should be trying to prove that Gaza and Jerusalem were both within the land area conquered by the Israelites, but instead he is pedaling hard to try to prove that neither Jerusalem nor Gaza were within the conquered territories. In other words, he is doing the opposite of what he should be doing, so apparently he would rather find some "gaffe" that I have made rather than prove the inerrancy of the Bible.
Strange indeed!
Skippy:
Joshua 10 indicates this with respect to Jerusalem: It's king came out
to fight with others,
and he was captured
(10:23,
12:10)
and executed. But
the city by itself remains conspicuously uncaptured and unattacked, and
unaddressed, until
Ch. 15.
Till:
Well, I suppose that Skippy expects us to think that just the king of
Jerusalem had come out
alone without his army, and so just the king was killed. That scenario
is so stupid that it
hardly deserves serious comment, but Skippy said that I would never
address the issues he
raised here in his presentation of "Goofy Gaffe #1," so I will follow
him wherever he leads
us in his silly attempt to find a gaffe in my articles.
The "smiting" of the king of Jerusalem was in a text that listed several other kings who were defeated, but the chapter in which this list is found began with this statement.
Joshua 12:1 These are the kings of the land whom the children of Israel defeated and whose land they possessed on the other side of the Jordan toward the rising of the sun.
The king of Jerusalem was in this list of defeated kings, so this text requires readers who don't have a pet belief in biblical inerrancy to understand that the writer was saying that after the king of Jerusalem was defeated, the children of Israel possessed his land. If not, why not?
If readers will take the time to study Joshua 12, they should be able to see that the writer was being very thorough in his description of the geographical boundaries of the land that Joshua conquered. I'll quote just a few verses at the beginning of the chapter.
Joshua 12:1 These are the kings of the land whom the children of Israel defeated, and whose land they possessed on the other side of the Jordan toward the rising of the sun, from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon, and all the eastern Jordan plain: 2 One king was Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon and ruled half of Gilead, from Aroer, which is on the bank of the River Arnon, from the middle of that river, even as far as the River Jabbok, which is the border of the Ammonites, 3 and the eastern Jordan plain from the Sea of Chinneroth as far as the Sea of the Arabah (the Salt Sea), the road to Beth Jeshimoth, and southward below the slopes of Pisgah. 4 The other king was Og king of Bashan and his territory, who was of the remnant of the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, 5 and reigned over Mount Hermon, over Salcah, over all Bashan, as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and over half of Gilead to the border of Sihon king of Heshbon.
An analysis of these place names and those that follow will show that the writer was claiming that all the territory from Kadesh-barnea, in the south, to Mt. Hermon, in the north, and from the Salt {Dead} Sea, on the east, to Gaza, on the Mediterranean Sea, was conquered in Joshua's sweep through the Levant. In other words, these passages claim that all of the land within the borders that Yahweh defined in his original promise had been taken and possessed by the Israelites except for the extreme northern border (the Euphrates River), which seems to be the focus of the last part of Skippy's post, so I will discuss that in Part Three.
I'll conclude this part by reminding everyone that the more territory Skippy tries to exclude in his attempt to find a "gaffe," the more damage he does to his inerrancy position, because Joshua 21:43 clearly claims that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised their fathers, and they possessed it and dwelt in it. The Israelites never did possess all of the land within the promised borders, so if Skippy wants to agree to that, all he will be accomplishing is to show that an erroneous statement was made in Joshua 21:43.
[Editor's Note: The third part that I referred to above was rejected by the "monitors" of the Theology Web on the grounds that I was posting too much too often, so I am going to insert here my rebuttal of what Turkel considered a "reply" to what I said above. In replying to it, I managed to sneak my previously censored Part Three in at the beginning. In reading this, no one should have any problems seeing that Turkel evaded far more than he tried to answer. When Matt Green reads this, he should see that I am not the one who needs to reply to Turkel; he needs to reply to me. I urge him and other readers to notice how often Turkel evaded my arguments with the claim that he had "already answered this" but would never show where exactly he had answered it.
By this time the part below was posted, some members of the forum had complained about posters using derogatory epithets, so I agreed to use Opponent instead of Skippy to identify Turkel, a name that the "monitors" of this forum would not allow me to use. When I had used it prior to this, they had censored my posts. You will notice that the request to refrain from derision had no effect on Turkel. He referred to me as MFPB (My Favorite Punching Bag).]
My opponent:
Message to all:
It's time for a reminder of what this thread was started for, and to show that MFPB is playing his usual game of obfuscation and manipulation by repeatedly posting the same irrelevant questions. It's his way of avoiding the main subject and getting out of answering for a huge error that he doesn't want to admit to.
Till:
Since my opponent has posted this in reply to me, I assume that I can
now post my Part Three,
which was not allowed earlier because of a rule that disallows two
consecutive posts. My Part
3 addresses many points that my opponent brought up here, but after he
has replied to this,
if he does, I will then reply point by point to the rest of his post
introduced by the
paragraph above.
Part Three:
My opponent has obviously become obsessed with finding an error in my
rebuttals, but as we
have seen, the only thing he has accomplished is the personal
embarrassment that he has
brought upon himself.
My Opponent:
So Goofy strained for a camel here, but spat out a gnat, with respect
to
Josh. 10.
Till:
My rebuttals in Part One and Part Two showed who was really straining
at
the camel. Sometimes, I
honestly wonder why my opponent seems so intent on embarrassing himself.
My Opponent:
Now to Josh. 11. Josh. 11:23 also refers to a specific parcel of land,
much larger, but not
the entirety of the land in the grant.
Till:
Joshua
10-12 gives a
continuous narrative of Joshua's conquests. When all the place names
are identified, they
show a dispersion from south to north and east to west. Of course, the
Israelites never
occupied the western seaboard, which was in Philistine and Phoenician
control, so the claims
of conquest and occupation in Joshua 10-12 are inconsistent with the
"historical" narratives,
which told of a perpetual conflict with the western inhabitants of the
Levant, whom the
Israelites were never able to drive out. Likewise, the Israelites never
possessed the land
in northern Lebanon up to the Euphrates River, but I will discuss that
in more detail below.
Hence, Joshua
21:43
presents a problem that my opponent must resolve in order to show
inerrancy in the biblical
narratives.
My Opponent:
Goofy tried to wind his way out with the following:
Till:
Joshua 11:1 When Jabin king of Hazor heard of this, he sent word to Jobab king of Madon, to the kings of Shimron and Achsaph, 2 and to the northern kings who were in the mountains, in the Arabah south of Kinnereth, in the western foothills and in Naphoth Dor on the west; 3 to the Canaanites in the east and west; to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and Jebusites in the hill country; and to the Hivites below Hermon in the region of Mizpah.
The place names will again give us geographical references to determine what regions were involved in this conflict. Hazor was located about 8 miles north of the Sea of Galilee. The location of Madon hasn’t been determined with certitude, but it is generally thought to be what is now called Qarn Hattin, which is about five miles northwest of Tiberias, which was located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Shimron’s location has also not been determined for sure, but when the land was divided among the tribes, Shimron was given to Zebulun, whose tribal land was in the northern region, west of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], between the territory of Asher and Naphtali (Josh. 19:10-16). Achsaph was assigned to Asher (Josh. 19:25), so it too was located in the northern part of the land. The fact that king Jabin sent word “to the northern kings” (v:2) would indicate that all of these places were located in the northern part of the land, so “the Arabah south of Kinnereth [Chinnereth]” was also a northern location adjacent to the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth]. Naphoth Dor Hermon, and Mizpah were also located in this region, so keep these northern locations in mind as I go on through the rest of the passage.
11:4 They came out with all their troops and a large number of horses and chariots--a huge army, as numerous as the sand on the seashore. 5 All these kings joined forces and made camp together at the Waters of Merom, to fight against Israel. 6 Yahweh said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them, because by this time tomorrow I will hand all of them over to Israel, slain. You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots." 7 So Joshua and his whole army came against them suddenly at the Waters of Merom and attacked them, 8 and Yahweh gave them into the hand of Israel. They defeated them and pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah on the east, until no survivors were left. And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire.
The “Waters of Merom” has been identified with Lake Huleh, which was located 10 miles north of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], although some think that it referred to a stream that ran into the Sea of Galilee. Regardless of what the location was, the battle took place in the northern region of the land after Joshua had allegedly driven out all the kings from Kadesh-Barnea to Gaza and up to Gibeon, at which time he utterly destroyed all that breathed (Josh. 10:40-43).
My Opponent:
Thus far none of this is disagreeable.
Till:
Then why did my opponent, who complains so often about the "fluff" in
my articles bother us
with material that he doesn't disagree with?
My Opponent:
It is here that Goofy tries to fudge his way out of an embarrassing
geographical gaffe:
Till:
The kings of the north, under the leadership of Jabin, gathered their forces against Joshua to try to defeat him, but after they were defeated at the “Waters of Merom,” the Israelites pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah. Sidon was located in Lebanon, north of Tyre, on the coast of “the Great [Mediterranean} Sea, and Misrephoth Main was located on the Phoenician coast. These locations mean that Joshua 11 claimed that the Israelites had routed their enemies to both the Mediterranean Sea and the northern borders of the land that Yahweh had promised to give them, so this is perhaps why Joshua 11:23 claimed that the Israelites had taken “all the land that [Yahweh] swore to give to their fathers.”
This is false. None of the indicated territory overlaps with that specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13.
Till:
Oh, it doesn't? Well, let's just see. First, I'll have to point out
that my opponent is
"spot quoting" again. The section that he quoted above came from a
larger context that I
quoted in which some of the very places that
Joshua 13
said had not yet
been taken were identified as places that the Israelites had conquered.
A juxtaposition of
the passages that my opponent skipped with parallels in Joshua 13 will
show that my opponent
has put his foot into his mouth again. In the context from which my
opponent cut and pasted
the passage above, for example, I quoted Joshua 11:16-17.
16 So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same; Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he [Joshua] took, and smote them, and slew them.
Joshua 12:7 also listed areas from Mount Halak to Baal-gad and the valley of Lebanon "under Mount Hermon" as parts of all the land that Joshua took in his military campaign. Mount Halak was in the extreme southern limits of Joshua's invasion of Canaan, and the valley of Lebanon and mount Hermon were in the extreme northern limits. Hence, this passage was obviously saying that Joshua had taken all the land from the extreme southern part of Canaan to the extreme north. It was sort of like the expression "from Dan to Beersheeba," which was often used in the OT to convey the idea of all the land of Israel, since Dan was in the extreme north and Beersheeba the extreme south. So now I'll juxtapose Joshua 13:2-5 to show that some of the very places that were listed as conquests in Joshua 10-12 were listed in Joshua 13 as places that had not yet been conquered.
Joshua 13:1b You [Joshua] are old, advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that still remains... 5 and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath, 6 all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians. I will myself drive them out from before the Israelites; only allot the land to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.
Notice that this "not yet taken" text listed in verse 5 all Lebanon as part of the land that remained to be possessed, but Joshua 12, which my opponent has omitted from his reply but which was quoted in my article, clearly said that Joshua's campaign had swept up into Lebanon as far as "the valley of Lebanon" at Mount Halak.
Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments....
So this text says that the Israelites defeated kings on the west side of the Jordan from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, but the "not yet taken" text in the very next chapter said that all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon had not yet been taken. Hence, my opponent is not only wrong in saying that there was no "overlap" in the lands mentioned in Joshua's conquests and the lands listed as those that had not yet been taken, but he is confronted with another P and ~P statement.
P: Joshua smote the kings from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon even unto Mount Halak and gave their land as a possession to the Israelites (Josh. 12:7).
~ P: All Lebanon from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath remained to be possessed.
There is a clear "overlap" here and a P and ~P problem for my opponent to solve.
I have also shown that Joshua 10:41 requires the understanding that Joshua captured Gaza in his southern campaign, which would make the land of the "Gazites" in Joshua 13:2-3, listed as territory yet to be possessed, an inconsistency, but my opponent is still wrestling to harmonize his "unto Gaza" claim with the realities of the biblical text as they have been repeatedly explicated. At any rate, I have shown above one "overlap" in the lands first claimed as conquests and the lands listed as "not yet taken" in another text. Hence, I have shown that my opponent is wrong in claiming that there was no overlap.
My Opponent:
The description does not bring the conquests to the northern borders of
the land grant. The
grant went as far as the Euphrates River
(Gen.
15:18), and
Josh.
13:5 specifies as
yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the
sunrising, from
Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad
unto the entering of
Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that
is farther north
than what Goofy claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant.
Till:
I have just shown that
Joshua
12:7 said that the
Israelites defeated the kings from Baal-gad to the valley of Lebanon
and Mount Hermon and
took possession of them but that
Joshua
13:5 lists these
very names as places that remained to be possessed, so I will confine
my remarks here to my
opponent's incredible blunder in trying to prove that the Israelite
conquest did not extend
to the Euphrates River.
I agree with him, as I will show later, but in denying that the Israelite conquests extended as far north as the Euphrates River, he is simply confirming that an error was made in Joshua 21:43-45, which claimed that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised to their fathers. We have seen it before, but I want to put this text before our readers as I explicate this blunder of my opponent.
Joshua 21:43 Thus Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. 44 And Yahweh gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for Yahweh had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one of all the good promises that Yahweh had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.
So this text claims that the Israelites had taken possession of and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers, but the borders of the land that Yahweh promised to the Israelites extended to the Euphrates River in the north.
Genesis 15:18 On the same day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."
Deuteronomy 1:6 “Yahweh our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: ‘You have dwelt long enough at this mountain. 7 Turn and take your journey, and go to the mountains of the Amorites, to all the neighboring places in the plain, in the mountains and in the lowland, in the South and on the seacoast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the River Euphrates. 8 See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—to give to them and their descendants after them.’”
Joshua 1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.
My opponent seems so obsessed with trying to find a "gaffe" that I made that he can't seem to realize that he is taking positions that are irreparably damaging to his quest to prove that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the OT concerning Yahweh's land promise, for if, as he correctly says, the Israelites didn't conquer land all the way to the Euphrates River, he must explain why Joshua 21:43 said that they had taken possession of all the land that Yahweh had promised.
As for my position on the northern boundary of the
land promise, I have always said that
the Israelites never did possess land as far as the Euphrates River. I
made that clear in my
first-round rebuttals of my opponent's reply to my article
The problem for Turkel is that (1) the Israelites never did, even temporarily, possess all the land the soles of their feet had trod upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea, and (2) the books of Joshua and Judges are on-again, off-again about the fulfillment. First, the Israelites were given all the land and everything Yahweh had promised them, and then they were not given all of the land. X and not X cannot both be true (Part Four, emphasis added).
Now after emphasizing that “the role of people was that of a tenant,” he [my opponent] needs to go a step further and show us how this “ancient concept” explains why Yahweh promised the Israelites that he would “give” [nathan] every scrap of land that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea to “possess“ [yarash], and then didn’t do it (Part Six).
The same answer would explain why (1) some of the Canaanite nations were able to withstand the Israelite invasion when Yahweh's promise was that no man would be able to stand against them, (2) Yahweh would utterly destroy all of the nations in the land, yet some of these people were still in the land as late as the reign of Solomon, and (3) the land from the Red Sea to the River Euphrates and to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea would be given to the Israelites, yet their borders were never that extensive (Part Four).
1. Yahweh, a presumably [there’s that cuss word again] omniscient god, told the Israelites [presumably] that he would give them all the land to possess [use, rent, occupy] that their feet would tread upon from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea.
2. This didn’t happen (Part Eight).
When, then, did the Israelites occupy all of the land of Canaan from the Euphrates River to the river of Egypt up to the Mediterranean Sea? If Turkel had any evidence that the Israelites had occupied this land, he would have cited it. Without the evidence, all he could do was assert that "(t)he descendants of Abraham did indeed exercise tenancy over the land as described" and hope that those who know no better would buy it (Part Sixteen).
So my position all along has been that the Israelites never possessed all the land of Canaan as far north as the Euphrates River. Two areas in particular pose insurmountable problems for anyone who tries to claim that Joshua 21:43-45 is historically accurate in that the Israelites possessed all the land within the borders defined in Yahweh's land promise. Those two areas are the Mediterranean coast and the northern area up to the Euphrates River.
My opponent's attempt to find a "gaffe" where I said that the descriptions of Joshua's conquests would be inclusive of all the land that Yahweh had promised seems to be based on this statement.
These locations mean that Joshua 11 claimed that the Israelites had routed their enemies to both the Mediterranean Sea and the northern borders of the land that Yahweh had promised to give them, so this is perhaps why Joshua 11:23 claimed that the Israelites had taken “all the land that [Yahweh] swore to give to their fathers.”
What my opponent apparently can't understand is that when skeptics like me quote or paraphrase the Bible, we don't mean for our readers to understand that we think that everything within the quotation really happened. For example, I have made frequent references to the land that Yahweh promised to Abraham's descendants, but surely when my opponent reads a statement like this, he doesn't think that I believe that Yahweh actually existed and made such a promise. I am simply writing accommodatively in order to spare myself the task of having to preface such statements as these with notices that I don't believe that any of this happened. It was certainly the writers' intention to convey that the Hebrew god had promised land to Abraham's descendants, so when I make references to the land that Yahweh promised, I am simply writing from the point of view of what the writers intended their readers to understand.
I do the same in referring to the conquests of Joshua. More and more biblical scholars are joining the camp of those who think that the book of Joshua is fictionalized history, and I share their opinions. Thus, when I speak of land that Joshua conquered, I don't intend for my readers to mean that I think he actually made these conquests. I am speaking from the point of view of what the writer(s) meant for their readers to understand.
Now if we examine the descriptions of the Israelite conquests in Joshua 10-12, we find that many places within the land area that Yahweh promised to Abraham and his descendants were not mentioned. Ashkelon and Gerar, for example, were not mentioned as places the Israelites conquered, and neither were Ashdod or Ekron, but on the basis of the places that were mentioned (Gaza, Eglon, Gezer, Heper, Dor, etc.), which were all located in the western coastal area and some of them (Heper, Gaza, and Dor) either on or adjacent to the coast, sensible readers will understand that the writer was claiming that the Israelite conquests had extended as far as the Great (Mediterranean) Sea. The same would apply to the places mentioned in the northern area of the Israelite conquests. Not every single place was mentioned. After all, my opponent should remember one of his own premises, i. e., a shortage of writing materials in those days required writers to leave out information. However, the long lists of place names from west to east and from south to north show that the writer's intention was to convey that the conquests had been inclusive of all the land Yahweh had promised the Israelites. What else can we conclude about the writer's intention when we see summary passages like those below, which concluded descriptions of conquests from south to north and west to east?
Joshua 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh had spoken to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.
Joshua 21:43 Thus Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there.
So if my opponent is so obsessed with finding a "gaffe" in my articles, I will gladly admit that while I was presenting what the writer(s) of Joshua intended readers to understand, I said something that wasn't literally true, even though the writer(s) apparently thought it was.
Now that he has that concession, let him explain to us when the Israelites ever possessed the land on the Mediterranean coast and land in northern Lebanon that extended to the Euphrates River. If he cannot show us that they ever possessed this land, then he must explain why Joshua 21:43 said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised their fathers.
Space will not permit me to reply to the last part of my opponent's attempt to find a goofy gaffe in my rebuttals of his land-promise articles, so I will post this, wait until he posts some kind of reply, and then post a Part Four. Otherwise, I will be censored for posting two consecutive replies to him. Eventually, I will address all of his points.
[Editor's Note; Turkel did post an evasive reply to the section above, and here is my reply to it. Readers can find it at the link in the title above, but since I reply to him point by point, readers will find his evasive comments embedded below.]
Till:
My opponent continues to ignore a fact that has been posted several
times.
Joshua
12, which lists
the king of Jerusalem, as one of the many kings that the Israelites
defeated, begins with
this statement:
My Opponent:
Gee. I didn't know occupying a land meant you had someone on every
square inch of that land.
Tell me, do you think that the city proper of Jerusalem was the only
land the king of
Jerusalem had under his sway?
Till:
I keep pointing out to everyone that my opponent has a bad habit of
just selectively quoting
what he thinks he has answers for, so I will repost here what he
omitted from my statement
above. I can only assume that he omitted it in hopes that readers
wouldn't remember what it
said.
Joshua 12:1 Now these are the kings of the land, whom the Israelites defeated, whose land they occupied beyond the Jordan toward the east, from the Wadi Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward.
To this text, I could have also added the following, which I have at times included in other posts in this thread.
Joshua 12:7-8 These are the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel conquered on this side of the Jordan, on the west, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon as far as Mount Halak and the ascent to Seir, which Joshua gave to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their divisions.
As I will notice later, the obvious intention of these passages was to convey that Joshua's conquest had been extensive and inclusive of all the land within the areas specified, which had previously been controlled by the defeated kings, but first I will answer my opponent's question. Do I think that the city proper of Jerusalem was the only land the king of Jerusalem had under his sway? No, of course not; the king of Jerusalem was a Jebusite, who undoubtedly controlled land that was outside of Jerusalem proper, because the Jebusites were one of the seven nations that Yahweh promised to drive out before the Israelites (Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Ex. 23:23; Joshua 3:10), so certainly the Jeubusites would have controlled more than just the city of Jerusalem. However, Joshua 12:1, quoted above, states that the children of Israel defeated the kings listed thereafter and occupied their land. Joshua 12:7, also quoted above, states that, Joshua gave the land of the conquered kings to the tribes of Israel as a possession. Joshua 10:1-5 listed Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, as one of the five kings whose armies allied themselves against the Israelites. Verses 7-14 described their complete rout from Gibeon to Azeka and Makkedah. The rest of the chapter describes the slaughter of the five kings and the people in their territories. Verse 39 says that the Israelites left "none remaining," and then the chapter concludes with the claim that Joshua conquered all the land in the hill country, the south, the lowland, the slopes and all their kings.
To argue that this meant that the Israelites conquered only some of the land of these kings would be a position contrary to the obvious intention of the writer in Joshua 10-12 to convey that the Israelites had conquered all of the land within the areas specified.
Joshua 10:40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded. 41 And Joshua defeated them from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, as far as Gibeon. 42 Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because Yahweh God of Israel fought for Israel.
Joshua 11:14 All the spoil of these towns, and the livestock, the Israelites took for their booty; but all the people they struck down with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who breathed. 15 As Yahweh had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh had commanded Moses. 16 So Joshua took all that land: the hill country and all the Negeb and all the land of Goshen and the lowland and the Arabah and the hill country of Israel and its lowland, 17 from Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, as far as Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He took all their kings, struck them down, and put them to death. 18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.
The writer repeatedly stated the thoroughness of the Israelite conquests to emphasize that all the land had been conquered and that the Israelites had killed all the inhabitants of these lands and left nothing alive to breathe, so how likely is it that he made an exception in the case of the king of Jerusalem? In fact, the king of Jerusalem was one of the five kings who hid in a cave and were later capured and hanged (Josh. 10:23).
Let's just take a run through the list of kings in Joshua 12 whose land "Joshua gave to the tribes of Israel as a possession" (v:7).
I can quote passages before Joshua 12, which show that all of the land of these kings was taken. I'll cite just one example and highlight the verses in Joshua 12 that name the kings also listed in the total routing described in the passage below. Other highlighted sections will describe the extent of Joshua's conquests.
Joshua 10:28 Joshua took Makkedah [12:16] on that day, and struck it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. 29 Then Joshua passed on from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah [12:15], and fought against Libnah. 30 Yahweh gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left no one remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. 31 Next Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish [12:10,] and laid siege to it, and assaulted it. 32 Yahweh gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. 33 Then King Horam of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck him and his people, leaving him no survivors. 34 From Lachish Joshua passed on with all Israel to Eglon [12:12; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; 35 and they took it that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish. 36 Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron [12:10;] they assaulted it, 37 and took it, and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left no one remaining, just as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. 38 Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir [12:13] and assaulted it, 39 and he took it with its king and all its towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining; just as he had done to Hebron, and, as he had done to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and its king. 40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded.
So now it is time to ask a couple of more questions.
My Opponent:
But anyway:
Till:
Did the Israelites occupy the land of the kings of the land whom they defeated in this context?
My Opponent:
...you have my answer above. I think you can figure it out.
Till:
This was my opponent's answer "above."
Gee. I didn't know occupying a land meant you had someone on every square inch of that land.
Such quibbling as this has been typical of my opponent from the time that we began verbally sparring on the internet. I quoted the passage above--which was just one of many I could have quoted--to show that the writer's intention was to convey that the Israelites had completely routed the kings that joined forces against them. If these kings were utterly destroyed, as claimed in the text quoted above, and if the Israelites left none of the people alive to breathe and if the Israelites took all of their land, why would this not mean that the Israelites had captured all of the land previously controlled by these kings?
I predict that my opponent will skip over 90% of my rebuttals above and dismiss it as "fluff" that doesn't need to be answered.
Till:
so I would like to ask him again if he thinks that Miller committed a "goofy gaffe" when he analyzed this same chapter of Joshua and concluded that Jerusalem was captured during this military campaign of the Israelites.
My Opponent:
I rather don't see him saying that.
Till:
I will just quote again what Miller said about this (with emphasis
added).
Miller:
Chapter 10 of the book of Joshua tells of the battle with a coalition of kings of the Shephelah and the hill country--the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Yarmut, Lachish, and Eglon. In the course of this battle Joshua conquers Makkedah, Libneh, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, and at the conclusion of the tale, the conquest of wide areas is described: "the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes... from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon" (Jos. 10:40-41). The location of some of the towns (Makkedah, Libneh, and Eglon) is not established. The other towns may be identified with certainty, and among them, Jerusalem, Lachish, Hebron (Tell Rumeideh), and Debir (Khirbet Rabud in the southern Hebron hills) have been excavated.
Obviously, then, Miller counted Jerusalem among the cities that had been conquered during Joshua's campaign described in chapter 10, so it is time to repeat my question.
Does my opponent think that Miller committed a "goofy gaffe" when he analyzed this same chapter of Joshua and concluded that Jerusalem was captured during this military campaign of the Israelites?
Till:
The issue about the capture of Jerusalem is not a "new diversion,"My Opponent:
That isn't. The rest of it was. You only had about 8-9 questions that had nothing to do with the specific territories in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlapping.Till:
My opponent seems not to understand the biblical inerrancy issue. My intention in posting examples of biblical inerrancy is always, whether the issue is the land-promise question or something else, to show that biblical fundamentalists are patently wrong when they say that the Bible is inerrant. I find that my opponent in the land-promise matter is making the same mistake that is frequently made by would-be apologists. He, in this case, is trying to resolve a discrepancy by postulating a far-fetched explanation without giving any consideration at all to whether his "explanation" is consistent with the rest of the Bible. That is important, because an "apologist" has accomplished nothing if he posits an explanation that is inconsistent with other biblical texts.That is exactly what has happened with my opponent's attempts to make rather clear passages not mean that Gaza and Jerusalem were captured during Joshua's southern campaign. Of course, his reason for denying the obvious meanings of the texts in question is that he wants to find a "gaffe" in my writing. In so doing, he has posited "explanations" that create other inconsistencies, for if Joshua did not conquer Gaza and Jerusalem, there is an error in Joshua 21:43-45, which clearly says that the Israelites received all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers, and possessed it and dwelt in it. This is why the other "8-9 questions," which my opponent has repeatedly evaded, are relevant.
So I will just ask them again so that everyone can see my opponent evade them again.
Are the following statements true or false.
- The Israelites received all the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.
- Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.
- All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.
- Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.
- Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.
So now it is time for yes or no questions.
- Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?
- Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?
- Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?
- Did everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?
I'm sure that reasonable people in this forum can see why my opponent keeps evading these questions. He wants to claim that Gaza and Jerusalem were not captured in the Joshua 10-12 campaigns (for no reason but to catch me in a "gaffe"), but Gaza and Jerusalem were both in the borders of land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River and from beyond the Salt [Dead] Sea to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea. Hence, if Jerusalem and Gaza were not captured and possessed, the writer of Joshua erred when he said that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised their fathers, and they possessed it and dwelt in it (Josh. 21:43-45).
If my opponent wants to keep quibbling and claim that I made a "gaffe" so that he can give himself a sense of satisfaction, he is welcome to do so, but after he has congratulated himself, he must explain the inconsistency in his "explanation" of the Gaza/Jerusalem problem and the claim that the Israelites possessed and dwelt in all the land Yahweh had promised their fathers.
I predict he will ignore this problem again.
As for the "overlap," I have shown that there were overlaps in the land conquered according to Joshua 10-12 and the land "not yet taken" in Joshua 13. My opponent has tried to quibble his way around this in another post, so I will be replying to that separately. Right now, he has his hands full trying to reconcile his claim that Gaza and Jerusalem were not taken in Joshua 10-12 with Joshua 21:43-45, which says that the Israelites possessed and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers.
Till:
We have here another example of how my opponent will resort to ad hominem attacks to divert attention from his inability to answer an argument.My Opponent:
He's not your son? [derogatory emotocon wouldn't copy]Till:
No further comment is necessary, because such comments as this show that my opponent will try to hide his evasions behind sarcasm and insults.My Opponent:
Oh. Gaffe thread #2 goes up soon. If you really are in a better mood, I expect you to behave yourself better. If not the gloves go back on for a while.Till:
It appears that my opponent will be trying to shift the subject away from the first alleged "gaffe" that in failing to sustain, he created the inconsistency with Joshua 21:43-45.The longer this goes, the more he confirms my claim that his stock in trade is evasion, which he tries to hide beneath tirades of sarcasm and insults. It is regrettable that some are taken in by it.
[Editor's Note: In the fourth round of our exchanges on The Theology Web, Turkel tried to shift the subject to what he thought was another "gaffe" that I had made in our original land promise exchanges. Since that thread does not relate to the issues above, which everyone, including Matt Green, should see that Turkel consistently evaded, I am going to end this article here. Those who want to see the rest of our exchanges can go to this URL and continue reading. I hope that Matt Green will take the time to read the rest of those exchanges. If he does, he should see, as I noted earlier, that I am not the one who needs to reply to Turkel; he should reply to my rebuttal arguments that he has flagrantly evaded ever since the land-promise exchanges began. I am still working to complete my point-by-point replies to the rest of Turkel's original quibbles, but the exchanges on the Theology Web that you see above are the reason why I have given a low priority to "debating" this issue with Turkel. It became evident to me that he was going to do little more than evade, so I saw little value in taking a large chunk out of my work days to write detailed, point-by-point replies that he wasn't going to answer or link his readers to. On his website, this guy will rarely even let his readers know the names of those he is replying to. He refers to me as Skeptic X.]
Go to the companion article in which Green's article on the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum was answered point by point.
