After Green joined the Errancy forum in December 2002, he sent a post on December 20th entitled Robert Turkel in which he indicated his belief that I had thoroughly trounced Turkel in my debates with him and especially so in the land-promise debate.

As a former Turkel fan. I have alot [sic] of his papers printed out from his site. When I discovered Bible contradictions that his site didn't address or addressed very poorly I began to study some debates between Turkel and Till. I began with the "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise". [sic] It was a real eye-opener. I have never seen anyone act so childish and un-professional [sic] as Turkel did. I didn't even read the rest of the debate since Turkel seemed more interested in nausiating [sic] everyone with cleverly phrased straw man arguments. I thought Till acted very professional and furthermore that Turkel could definitely have benefited from Till's writing classes.

I didn't finish the first debate because I was so disgusted at Turkel's unprofessionalism. However when I read the "Dear Abiathar" debate, I thought Till won hands down. It's amazing considering that I thought this contradiction had already been answered by Archer and Norman Geisler. Once I saw the arguments from Greek Lexicons that Till put forward--I knew Turkel was done for. I suspected Till would win.

I very much enjoyed watching Till mop the floor with Turkel. I hope they have a lot more debates. Perhaps they should debate over an issue that will really grill fundamentalists like the resurrection contradictions, the temptation of Christ problem, or even one about Jacob's flawed mating technique in Genesis 30:37-43.

I wish for Till to have a lot more debates with Turkel and really smash Turkel for the ignoramous I percieve [sic] him to be. Forget about all other biblicists, just mainly focus on the loudest of them all!

Green clearly indicated here that he had been so convinced that Turkel had suffered a resounding defeat in the land-promise debate that he didn't even finish reading it. Green sent more posts that clearly indicated his deconversion, and on December 22nd, he sent a personal message to me in which he said, among other things, that "(i)t has been your work more than anything that has really helped me shake off the shakles [sic] of all organized religion and helped me to think for myself and embrace freethought." Of course, I was pleased to learn that I had helped another biblicist to find his way out of religious superstition, but later Green began to indicate that his deconversion may not have been as thorough as he had claimed when he first joined us. This about face came after members of the list did not rush to devote themselves full time to answering questions that Green was sending to the list. Then on February 4, 2003, he posted Second Thoughts in which he basically took back everything he had previously said.

I wanted to take the time to air my thoughts. I feel that I made a grave error regarding my conclusions of the "Dear Abiathar" debate. I think I reached a conclusion way too hasty [sic]. I am going to be re-evaluating every debate I [sic] Till had with him. I thought that Till clinched the matter with the rebuttal essay "What Turkel Refuses to Answer" but Turkel did issue an addendum on his essay in response to this.

After reading some of the quotes I found from Rohrbaugh in a link that Turkel supplied, I am having serious second thoughts about wether [sic] Till really answered it. I am waiting for Rob Miles to update the Skeptical Review webpage. I am also having second thoughts about my "deconversion" and wether [sic] I really did make an informed decision.

In my next post on the subject, I will ask Till to answer some arguments that weren't answered to my satisfaction. Till is a professional debator [sic], but I would like Till to address a few questions from a member of his debate audience. But since I am posting this on a break, I don't have time to recall details of what I felt Till didn't sufficently answer.

To make a long story short, I will just summarize what happened next. Green sent questions, but I was busy with other projects at the time and apparently didn't get to his questions fast enough to please him, so he left the list with an announcement that he had never really deconverted. That was the way the situation with Green stood until he recently resurfaced with a personal message to me on September 15, 2005, in which he said that he wanted me to know that he had "never reconverted." He said that he had "stop[ped] having second thoughts a couple of years back" and had "laid all [his] remaining doubts to rest." He said that he now considered himself a "staunch atheist." After all that, he brought up the land-promise debate and urged me to complete it so that he could write a "detailed study" of it. I sent a reply to him in which I said that I still periodically work on additional replies to Turkel in this matter and would post them when I had finished them. I explained to him some personal health problems that don't allow me to spend nearly as much time at my computer as I was able to do in the past, but I received a notice that this message could not be delivered to him, although I had sent it by just clicking the "reply" option that sent it to the same address he had used to write to me. The next thing I knew, a member of the Errancy list informed me that Green had sent to IIDB the message that I am now replying to. Is it any wonder, then, that I am confused about what Green may really believe and his intentions in bringing up debates with Turkel that he had earlier said that I had won "hands down"? I have encountered people in the past who are Bible believers one day and skeptics the next, depending on whom they last discussed their religious beliefs with, but I hope that Green is not one of those. In view of my reasons for spending so much time debunking the Bible, I certainly want to believe that Green has at last "laid all of his remaining doubts to rest" and is now the "staunch atheist" that he recently assured me he is, but for the moment I have to reserve judgment about him.

Regardless of Green's intentions, I have now taken the time, at the sacrifice of other projects I was working on, to answer everything in Turkel's "replies" I could find that Green thinks I had not replied to satisfactorily. As for the "Rohrbaugh" matter, which Green alluded to above, I have noted elsewhere in these articles written for Green's benefit that I have posted "No Guilt in Biblical Times?" on the TSR website, which cited various biblical examples that show clear indications of guilt feelings by biblical characters. If after reading this, Green wants to believe that Turkel's position on this is right, he is free to believe that Turkel has proven a universal negative." Meanwhile, I intend to turn to completing projects I was working on before Green resurfaced.]

---

Green:
I am doing a study of the article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" in Farrell Till's The Skeptical Review. I am also studying Till's debate with Robert Turkel. However, Till has never completed his debate with Turkel over the Land Promise issue. I am really looking forward to Till's answers and for Till to completely answer everything Turkel has written but I think I am being way too optimistic. What I'd like to do in the meantime is look through Till's article and analyze an argument he made. Till wrote the following:

In places, the Bible is almost boringly repetitious, but this writing characteristic of the "inspired" spokesmen of God often works to the advantage of those who seek to debunk the myth that God verbally inspired the writing of the Bible. In this case, it makes it easy to establish that a complete, unqualified fulfillment of the land promises was claimed by the "inspired" men who wrote the Old Testament. Consider, for example, the clearly stated claim of the following passages:

And Yahweh said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them (the armies of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites poised for battle against the Israelites, FT); for tomorrow at this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hock their horses, and burn their chariots with fire. So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly, and fell upon them. And Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Israel, and they smote them, and chased them unto great Sidon, and unto Misrephothmaim, and unto the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire. And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor before time was the head of all those kingdoms. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; There were none left that breathed: and he burnt Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded. But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn. And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any that breathed. As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses (Joshua 11:6-15, Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had rest from war, (Joshua 11:23, Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

So Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Yahweh gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel. All came to pass.(Joshua 21:43-45, Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

These statements are fully as clear as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers, and the dimensions of that land were clearly laid out in such passages as Exodus 23:20-33 and Joshua 1:1-6. Its borders extended from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, from the wilderness, to Lebanon, and to the great river Euphrates. Furthermore, the fulfillment claims state that the Israelites left none alive to breathe and that not a man of all their enemies stood before them. Who were those enemies? Time and time again, they were named in the land prophecies: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites. Yet after audaciously claiming in the passages noted above that every aspect of Yahweh's land promise had been fulfilled, the writer(s) turned around and brazenly admitted that some parts of the land were not conquered and some of the peoples in these lands were not driven out:

Now Joshua was old and well stricken in years; and Yahweh said unto him, Thou art old and well stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. This is the land that yet remaineth: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites; from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward, which is reckoned to the Canaanites; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim, on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongeth to the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entrance of Hamath; all the inhabitants of the hill-country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allot thou it unto Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee (Joshua 13:1-6, Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).

This statement flatly contradicts the claim in Joshua 11:23 that Joshua "took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses" so that the land had rest from war. All of the territorial regions singled out in this passage as land that remained to be possessed lay within the boundaries that were laid out in Joshua 1:1-6 to specify the scope of the land that Yahweh would give to the Israelites. So if Joshua had indeed taken "the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake unto Moses," as claimed In Joshua 11:23, how could it be said later that "very much land" remained to be possessed? Perhaps some of our inerrantist readers can answer this question. They are good at coming up with far-fetched, how-it-could-have-been scenarios to "explain" obvious contradictions in the Bible.

Green:
However, Turkel has responded to this argument with the following rebuttal:

Turkel:
Our reply here was that Joshua 10, when it refers to all the land, refers only to all the land taken in Ch. 10, not the whole grant. Our opponent replied: 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.

Till:
I need to interrupt here to show everyone that Turkel is shamelessly quibbling, because an analysis of battle descriptions in Joshua and Judges will clearly show that when the writers said that the Israelites struck so-and-so "unto" this city or that city, the texts meant that the cities specified were included in the conquests. Examples of this are in the very chapter that Turkel quibbled about above. The first one I cite is the famous day when Yahweh made the sun stand still, so everyone should keep in mind that Turkel in defending the inerrancy of this chapter is by necessity defending also the long-day-of-Joshua claim. I try to accommodate my opponents by quoting whatever Bible versions they use, so the quotations below will be from the KJV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD."

Joshua 10:11 And Yahweh discomfited them [the Amorites] before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.

Now according to Turkel's quibble, this text would mean that the Israelites "chased" the Amorites up to Bethhoron, Azekah, and Makkedah but did not include the capture of these cities, but the broader context shows otherwise.

Joshua 10:28 And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho. 29 Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah....

Turkel's quibble is that when the biblical text says that the Israelites chased or pursued their enemies unto a particular location, that means that they pursued them up to that location but not into that location, but the passages cited above shows that this is not so. Joshua pursued the Amorites unto Makkedah and then utterly destroyed it and "all the souls" in it. Now let Turkel tell us why we should not understand that when verse 41 says that Joshua "smote them [the Amorites] from Kadesh-Barnea even unto Gaza," the writer meant that he had also taken Gaza. Wouldn't common sense tell everyone but Turkel that when an army has its enemy in fast retreat, it would not stop at the edge of a city and allow them safe refuge inside it?

Well, just for kicks, let's look at some more examples. At the beginning of Joshua, Yahweh [snicker, snicker] gave these instructions to Joshua.

Joshua 1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh it came to pass, that Yahweh spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.

Thanks to Turkel, we now know that Yahweh told Joshua to take the children up to the land he was giving to them but not to take them into that land. In another text, we learn that the Reubenites, Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh would be allowed to go only up to the land that Moses had given them beyond the Jordan but not into it.

Joshua 1:12 And to the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh, spake Joshua, saying, 13 Remember the word which Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you, saying, Yahweh your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. 14 Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valour, and help them; 15 Until Yahweh have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which Yahweh your God giveth them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses Yahweh's servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising. 16 And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go.

Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, the Reubenites and Gadites had asked Moses to give them their "inheritance" on the east side of the Jordan (Num. 32:1-26), which request Moses approved on the condition that the Reubenites and Gadites would agree to go into Canaan and fight with their kindred until the land had been conquered. Now we know, thanks to Turkel, that after the fighting was over, the Reubenites and Gadites would be allowed to go only up to the borders of their land but would not be permitted to reenter it.

Is everyone beginning to see the stupidity of Turkel's quibble? If not, I have more examples that should remove all doubt that unto could and often did include the object of this preposition. When Rahab sent the spies on her way, she told them to go "to the mountain." Did this mean that she was telling them to go to where the mountain began and then stop there? The full context shows otherwise.

Joshua 2:22 And they went, and came unto the mountain, and abode there three days, until the pursuers were returned: and the pursuers sought them throughout all the way, but found them not. 23 So the two men returned, and descended from the mountain, and passed over, and came to Joshua the son of Nun, and told him all things that befell them....

The spies did go unto the mountain, but the next verse says that they descended from the mountain. They could not have descended from the mountain if they had stopped where the mountain began.

Joshua 7:22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it [the booty Achan had kept for himself after the sacking of Jericho] was hid in his tent, and the silver under it. 23 And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before Yahweh. 24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? Yahweh shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 26 And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So Yahweh turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.

The messengers ran "unto the tent," but they found the booty in the tent, so by necessary implication we know that the inside of the tent was included in the reference to the messengers running "unto the tent." The penalty for Achan and his whole family was death--even though there is no indication that his family members knew anything about what Achan had done--so they were taken unto "the valley of Achor" and stoned to death. Does this mean that they were taken up to the edge of the valley and killed there? Well, since the place of their execution was called "the Valley of Achor," that would certainly imply that they were taken into the valley and killed there, because it makes no sense to think that a place would be named "the Valley of Achor" unless it was located in a valley.

Joshua 8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

The Israelites had played a trick on the people of Ai to lead them into an ambush outside of the city, but when all the people who had fallen for the trick had been killed, the Israelites returned unto Ai and smote it with the edge of the sword. Are we supposed to believe that the Israelites went up to the gates of the city and asked the people to come out so that they could be killed outside the city? Turkel may think so, but reasonable readers will have no difficulty understanding that the Israelites went into the city and massacred the other people there.

I have already cited Josh. 10:10 which told of the Israelites' pursuing the Amorites unto Makkedah, which verse 28 says that the Israelites "put to the sword" and "utterly destroyed," but the very next verse says that these Amorites were pursued unto Azekah. Since Joshua 15:35 included Azekah in the list of captured cities that were given to the tribe of Judah, we can know by necessary implication that the Israelites didn't stop in their pursuit at the edge of Azekah but went on into the city and captured it.

I apologize for the number of examples I have appealed to, but Turkel will never admit to being wrong, so replying to him always requires overkill. I will let one more example suffice, and then I will cite examples where unto did convey the meaning that Turkel is claiming for the pursuit of Amorites unto Gaza but within contexts that went on to make clear that the Israelites afterwards fought and destroyed the places they had gone unto. My final example concerns cities of refuge that those who had unintentionally killed others could flee unto to avoid the vengeance of survivors of those who had been killed.

Joshua 20:1 Yahweh also spake unto Joshua, saying, 2 Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses: 3 That the slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may flee thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. 4 And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them. 5 And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand; because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime. 6 And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled. 7 And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjatharba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah.

The first emphasized unto in this text did mean up to the city but not into it, because the person fleeing from the "avenger of blood" was to stop at the gate and present his case, after which he would be taken into the city where he could live free of fear that the "avenger of blood" would kill him. However, after the high priest of that time had died, the person was then free to return unto his city and unto his house. Surely, Turkel doesn't think that this means that he could return only up to the entries into his city and house but could not go inside them.

Now here are some examples of where unto in the sense that Turkel is claiming for the Israelite pursuit of Amorites unto Gaza was used in contexts that show that after the Israelites arrived at the city or town specified, they went on to destroy it.

Joshua 10:29 Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: 30 And Yahweh delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho. 31 And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it: 32 And Yahweh delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah. 33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining. 34 And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it: 35 And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish. 36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it: 37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein. 38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it: 39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

In these various examples, unto did conceivably mean that Joshua took his forces up to but not into the cities specified, but in each case, the text went on to say that the Israelites fought against the city, took it, and "utterly destroyed" everyone in it. Now, Matt Green, please read this very carefully. The passage that I just quoted immediately above comes right before the reference to Gaza, which Turkel claims meant that the Israelites went only up to Gaza but not into it.

Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded. 41 And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. 42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because Yahweh God of Israel fought for Israel.

Now just why would Turkel think that all of the untos in this chapter were inclusive of the places to which the Israelites had chased the Amorites except for the two that refer to Gaza and Gibeon? Well, the answer to that is simple. Turkel is desperate to find some way to explain glaring discrepancies in the book of Joshua, and so he has to resort to this kind of petty quibbling. I will say more about Gibeon later on, but for now I want to show that Turkel, in saying that the Israelites did not go into Gaza and capture it, revealed just how superficial his knowledge of the Bible is, because there is another account of this battle that specifically says that the Israelites did capture Gaza. Even though the book of Judges presumably reported events that had happened after the death of Joshua (Judges 1:1), it began with a summation of some of the battles and stories recorded in Joshua, but changed them slightly to attribute the victories to "Judah" instead of Joshua. It mentioned, for example, the capture of Adonibezek (Judges 1:6-7), who had led the Amorite coalition that Joshua devastated in Joshua 10. It told of the battles against Hebron and Debir (Judges 1:10-12), whose defeats were recorded in Joshua 10:36-39 and given to Caleb in Joshua 15:13-15. It told of Caleb's offer to let the one who "smites" Kiriath-sepher marry his daughter Achsah and of a subsequent gift that Caleb gave to his daughter after her marriage.

Judges 1:12 And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjathsepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. 13 And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. 14 And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou? 15 And she said unto him, Give me a blessing: for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs.

But this same tale was told earlier, word for word, in Joshua when Joshua was still alive.

Joshua 15:19 And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjathsepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. 13 And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. 14 And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou? 15 And she said unto him, Give me a blessing: for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs.

Hence, the book of Judges claims several events that happened after the death of Joshua, which the book of Joshua claims happened in Joshua's lifetime. The twice-told tale of Caleb's gift to his daughter is the most troublesome for biblical inerrantists. In "The Intelligence Shortage," Robert Turkel tried to "explain" this discrepancy away with his old "dischronologized" narrative dodge. I'll comment on that later, but first I want to complete the point that I started above, which is that the first chapter of Judges obviously told some of the same tales that were previously recorded in Joshua. The only important difference in these second accounts is that the writer attributed to "Judah" what the earlier versions had attributed to Joshua. In addition to the examples identified above, Judges 1 also told of the attack on Gaza.

Judges 1:17 And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah. 18 Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.

Notice that when Judah "utterly destroyed" the Canaanites who inhabited Zepath, he renamed it Hormah, but Joshua 12:14 listed "the king of Hormah" as one of the 31 kings whom Joshua's forces "smote" and whose land was given to the tribes of Israel "for a possession" (Josh. 12:7), and Joshua 15:30 listed Hormah as one of the cities that Joshua distributed to "the children of Judah" during the allotments of the captured lands and cities in chapters 14-22, so the book of Joshua claims that Hormah had been taken during Joshua's lifetime and not after. The book of Numbers even claims that the Israelites "utterly destroyed" Hormah and other cities in its region at the time when Moses sent the spies into Canaan.

Numbers 21:1 And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by the way of the spies; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners. 2 And Israel vowed a vow unto Yahweh, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. 3 And Yahweh hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

All this is further evidence that the writer of Judges was retelling some of the same tales that had also been recorded in Joshua but was attributing them to the tribe of Judah rather than Joshua. From this, we have good reasons to conclude that there was a tradition that Gaza had been taken by the Israelites. Hence, this also becomes a good reason to think that when Joshua 10:41 says that the Israelites "smote" the Amorites from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza," the writer meant that Gaza had also been destroyed, as had all of the other cities mentioned in this chapter.

A detailed rebuttal of Turkel's "unto-Gaza" quibble has already been posted in this section of "The 'Goofy-Gaffe' Exchanges on the Theology Web," but I am going to quote a key part of that for the convenience of readers who make not want to quit this article to go to the link above.

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.

All This shoots to pieces Turkel's quibble that Joshua 10:41 meant that the Israelites pursued the Amorites only up to Gaza but not into the city itself, but before I reply to the rest of what Matt Green apparently thinks is a satisfactory reply that Turkel made to my identification of an X and ~X [P and ~P] contradiction in Joshua, I will take the time to reply to Turkel's claim that the twice-told account of Caleb's gift to his daughter is nothing more than a case of "dischronologized narrative." In this section of "The Paper Shortage," I cited the two accounts of Caleb's gift to his daughter as examples that were inconsistent with Turkel's claims that much of the ambiguity in biblical texts was due to a shortage of writing materials that wouldn't allow writers to give complete details.

I don't know what track Turkel may take to try to explain how Joshua could have been both alive and dead when this incident happened, but some biblicists will argue that because the book of Judges opened with a notice that Joshua was dead wouldn't necessarily mean that everything recorded in this book happened after Joshua's death.

Well, it seems that I hit the nail on the head, because what Turkel said to "explain" how this event could have happened both before and after Joshua died amounts to the same thing, because he fell back on his famous "dischronologized-narrative" quibble. Almost every time that Turkel confronts a chronological discrepancy, he will resort to this quibble. I, of course, am X in his "explanation" quoted below from "The Intelligence Shortage," because Turkel will not mention me by name in his "replies" to me. Notice that his opening sentence refers to deleting one of my examples. He is good at deleting that which is detrimental to whatever quibble he will use to "explain" a discrepancy.

Not like the one X addresses, which I will delete. However, here's the answer, which is miles out of X's head. The story in question about Caleb originally existed as a fully separate unit of oral tradition. It was incorporated into both places because of its topical relevance, and in Joshua it is dischronologized, a "flash forward" if you will, completing the topic. This was normal ancient historical reportage procedure; chronology was not the automatic way of following things; it requires no "imagination" or "determination" because it draws an answer from what has been observed to be a typical practice, that fits in as well with the primarily oral nature of communication. But back to the main issue: X wastes several lines asking again why lack of paper didn't stop this repetition, and the answer is the same: Joshua and Judges are and were not of the same nature and purpose as the Gospels. Is this so hard?

Turkel's "explanation" may require no "imagination" or "determination," but it does require textual evidence, which Turkel didn't even attempt to give. Having taught both college writing and literature for 30 years, I certainly know that narrative writing isn't always sequentially chronological, but I also know that when events in a narrative are not related in the order of their occurrence, skilled writers will use transitional markers, like before this, prior to, earlier, afterwards, at that time, and such like, to signal to their readers that the sequence of events is shifting to another time frame. I could cite several biblical passages to show that the writers were aware of the need to use such chronological markers to assist their readers in understanding when the events in their narrative had happened, but since the example that Turkel says was "dischronologized" is in the book of Joshua, I am going to back up to chapter 14 to show that the tale about Caleb's gift to his daughter had, according to the book of Joshua, happened during the lifetime of Joshua. I will highlight in bold print the transitional markers that signal the time that the events were happening. The language of the KJV is archaic and at times hard to follow, so I will quote from the NIV, which Turkel will frequently appeal to when he is confronted with a discrepancy in the KJV. If I could link directly to the places where Turkel made these appeals on his website, I would do so, but those who want to check this for themselves can go to "modern versions" and also to "modern translations" to get listings of articles where Turkel appealed to "modern versions" and "modern translations." You will see that most often "modern versions.translations" meant the NIV, even though the NIV is just one version.

Now here is an analysis of the narrative in Joshua, which eventually leads up to the tale of Caleb's gift to his daughter. I will interrupt the narrative at times to point out what the emphasized transitional markers show about time sequences and also to discuss other matters that date this story to the time of Joshua.

Joshua 14:1 Now these are the areas the Israelites received as an inheritance in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun and the heads of the tribal clans of Israel allotted to them. 2 Their inheritances were assigned by lot to the nine-and-a-half tribes, as Yahweh had commanded through Moses. 3 Moses had granted the two-and-a-half tribes their inheritance east of the Jordan but had not granted the Levites an inheritance among the rest, 4 for the sons of Joseph had become two tribes--Manasseh and Ephraim. The Levites received no share of the land but only towns to live in, with pasturelands for their flocks and herds. 5 So the Israelites divided the land, just as Yahweh had commanded Moses.

Notice that Joshua was one of the officials who presided at the distribution of the captured lands, and, of course, he could not have done this unless he was still living. The emphasized references to what Yahweh had said to Moses, who was dead at this time, tell us that the narrative jumped from the present time into the past. Determining all of this was not at all difficult, and I will show in the continuation of the narratives that other transitional devices make it just as easy to tell that the story of Caleb's gift to his daughter happened during the lifetime of Joshua.

Turkel will probably read this sometime, so I have a bit of advice for him. If he will take notes on this section, he just might learn how to determine time sequences in biblical narratives so that he won't make a fool of himself again by claiming that a story was "dischronologized" when, as we will see, it was anachronized in Judges rather than "dischronologized."

14:6 Now the men of Judah approached Joshua at Gilgal, and Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him [Joshua], "You know what Yahweh said to Moses the man of God at Kadesh Barnea about you and me. 7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of Yahweh sent me from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land. And I brought him back a report according to my convictions, 8 but my brothers who went up with me made the hearts of the people melt with fear. I, however, followed Yahweh my God wholeheartedly. 9 So on that day Moses swore to me, 'The land on which your feet have walked will be your inheritance and that of your children forever, because you have followed Yahweh my God wholeheartedly.' 10 "Now then, just as Yahweh promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old! 11 I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I'm just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then. 12 Now give me this hill country that Yahweh promised me that day. You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified, but, Yahweh helping me, I will drive them out just as he said."

Caleb's references to his age at the time that Moses had sent him from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land and his subsequent reference to his age at that time tell us that 45 years had passed from the time that Moses had sent the spies into Canaan (Num. 13:1-16) until the time that Joshua began to distribute the conquered land. Caleb's age at this time is important, because after the land had been distributed in chapters 14 through 22, chapter 23 began with a reference to Joshua's age.

Joshua 23:1 After a long time had passed and Yahweh had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them, Joshua, by then old and well advanced in years, 2 summoned all Israel--their elders, leaders, judges and officials--and said to them: "I am old and well advanced in years. 3 You yourselves have seen everything Yahweh your God has done to all these nations for your sake; it was Yahweh your God who fought for you. 4 Remember how I have allotted as an inheritance for your tribes all the land of the nations that remain--the nations I conquered--between the Jordan and the Great Sea in the west.

I quoted the first verse above in my presentation of the P and ~P argument to show that Joshua 13:1, which said that the Israelites still had "much land" to conquer, had necessarily preceded Joshua 21:43-45, which said that Yahweh had given the Israelites all of the land that Yahweh had promised them, because Joshua was "old and advanced in age" in 13:1, but in 21:43-45, he was in the middle of distributing the land, according to what Yahweh [snicker, snicker] had commanded, and then after the land had been distributed, as the text quoted immediately above shows, "a long time" passed and "by then" Joshua had become old and full of years. This would meant that the "long time" had passed after Caleb's dialogue with Joshua quoted above, so if Caleb was 85 at that time, he must have been positively ancient in Judges 1:12-15, where the tale of Caleb's gift to his daughter is told again--after the death of Joshua at the age of 110 (Josh. 24:9)--in the time frame that Turkel claims is when it all actually happened. Since it wasn't anything for people to live way past the age of a hundred in those days [snicker, snicker], Turkel will no doubt claim that Caleb could have easily lived that long, but both versions of this yarn imply that Caleb had participated in the conquest of the land that he gave to his daughter.

None of this is inclusive yet, but as I continue my analysis of the narrative in Joshua, we will see clear indications that the writer was saying that all of this had happened while Joshua was still alive. As the narrative continues, keep in mind that Joshua is the one distributing the land.

Joshua 14:13 Then Joshua blessed Caleb son of Jephunneh and gave him Hebron as his inheritance. 14 So Hebron has belonged to Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite ever since, because he followed Yahweh, the God of Israel, wholeheartedly. 15 (Hebron used to be called Kiriath Arba after Arba, who was the greatest man among the Anakites.) Then the land had rest from war.

Joshua could not have blessed Caleb unless Joshua was alive at that time, so Hebron was given to Caleb before Joshua died. I emphasized then in the last sentence, because it is a transitional marker that tells us that after Joshua had made this distribution "the land had rest from war," but if the land had had rest from war, the conquests must have been complete at that time, and I show below that the reference to the land having "rest from the war" meant that the conquest had been complete. Notice carefully that part when you come to it.

The narrative continued into the next chapter.

Joshua 15:1 The allotment for the tribe of Judah, clan by clan, extended down to the territory of Edom, to the Desert of Zin in the extreme south. 2 Their southern boundary started from the bay at the southern end of the Salt Sea, 3 crossed south of Scorpion Pass, continued on to Zin and went over to the south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it ran past Hezron up to Addar and curved around to Karka. 4 It then passed along to Azmon and joined the Wadi of Egypt, ending at the sea. This is their southern boundary. 5 The eastern boundary is the Salt Sea as far as the mouth of the Jordan. The northern boundary started from the bay of the sea at the mouth of the Jordan, 6 went up to Beth Hoglah and continued north of Beth Arabah to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben. 7 The boundary then went up to Debir from the Valley of Achor and turned north to Gilgal, which faces the Pass of Adummim south of the gorge. It continued along to the waters of En Shemesh and came out at En Rogel. 8 Then it ran up the Valley of Ben Hinnom along the southern slope of the Jebusite city (that is, Jerusalem). From there it climbed to the top of the hill west of the Hinnom Valley at the northern end of the Valley of Rephaim. 9 From the hilltop the boundary headed toward the spring of the waters of Nephtoah, came out at the towns of Mount Ephron and went down toward Baalah (that is, Kiriath Jearim). 10 Then it curved westward from Baalah to Mount Seir, ran along the northern slope of Mount Jearim (that is, Kesalon), continued down to Beth Shemesh and crossed to Timnah. 11 It went to the northern slope of Ekron, turned toward Shikkeron, passed along to Mount Baalah and reached Jabneel. The boundary ended at the sea. 12 The western boundary is the coastline of the Great Sea. These are the boundaries around the people of Judah by their clans.

There isn't much of any significance in this part of the narrative, but it does raise a question. Why did "God" waste so much space in his "inspired word" for minutiae like this? Of all the beneficial things that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could have told his creation, such as the existence of germs and bacteria, which could be protected against by boiling water before drinking it, he passed these over and chose instead to tell the world intricate details about plans for the construction of a tent and its furnishings (Ex. 25-31) or endless genealogies about who begot whom (Gen. 5,10-11) or detailed descriptions of the boundaries of land that was distributed to tribes after it had been conquered. Before Turkel chimes his favorite refrain here about my being upset because God didn't kiss my "patoot," I will remind him that besides begging the question of the existence of a "God" who was involved in ancient tribal affairs, this does not give a satisfactory explanation of why the "inspired word" of an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have focused so much on insignificant matters to the neglect of those far more important.

As for the part of the narrative quoted above, if these boundaries were designated when Joshua gave this land to the tribe of Judah, then we can get an idea of how extensive the conquest allegedly was at that time. It extended from the Salt [Dead] Sea on the east to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea on the west; hence, the claim was made that Israel had received the land from the eastern and western boundaries that Yahweh had designated in his land promises. In my complete rebuttal of Skippy's quibbles in Part Five of my land-promise replies, I explicated Joshua 12 verse by verse to locate all of the places allegedly conquered to show that they extended from the extreme south of the promised land to the extreme north and from the Salt [Dead] Sea on the east to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea on the west, so this chapter clearly was showing that the last verse of the previous chapter was correct when it claimed that Joshua "took the whole land according to all that Yahweh spoke to Moses." Turkel's claim, then, that Gaza was Philistine territory, which the Israelites had not conquered but had only gone up to, does not withstand textual scrutiny, but let's go now finally to the tale of Caleb's land gift to his daughter as it was told in the book of Joshua.

Joshua 15:13 In accordance with the Lord's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah--Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) 14 From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites--Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai--descendants of Anak. 15 From there he marched against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher).

Now notice that for the second time, the narrative in Joshua claims that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb, and notice too that this part of the narrative claims that Caleb drove out the three Anakites living there, but the version of this tale in Judges 1, which was dated after the death of Joshua, claims that "Judah" drove the Anakites out of Hebron.

Judges 1:9 After that, the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills. 10 They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai. 11 From there they advanced against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher).

So in the Joshua version, Caleb got credit for conquering Hebron and driving out the Anakites, but in the Judges version, "the men of Judah" received the credit. This is really no great problem, because Caleb was a member of the tribe of Judah, so if he had participated in the taking of Hebron, he surely would have had help from tribal members; hence, it could rightly be said that Caleb drove the Anakim out of Hebron and that "the men of Judah" drove them out. The problem for Turkel is that he is claiming that the version of this tale in Joshua 15 is "dischronologized" and that the time when it really happened was after the death of Joshua as recorded in Judges 1, but this position cannot be harmonized with Joshua 10:36-37, which says that Hebron was captured and everyone in it "utterly destroyed" during the lifetime of Joshua.

10:36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it: 37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.

So if Hebron was utterly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua and all of the people living in it "utterly destroyed," how could it be that Caleb, after Joshua was dead, had advanced against Hebron and defeated the people living there? That is a little problem that Turkel will have to explain if he hopes to make his "dischronologized-narrative" quibble explain how the same story happened twice in exactly the same way.

The problems for Turkel seem to keep multiplying, because the last verse quoted above from Judges 1 says that "they" [the people of Judah] advanced against Debir, which had formerly been called Kiriath Sepher, at which time Caleb, as we will notice soon, promised to give his daughter in marriage to whoever captured it, but Joshua 10:38-39 claims that Debir was utterly destroyed and the population massacred during the lifetime of Joshua.

10:38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it: 39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

So for Turkel to make his "dischronologized-narrative" explanation work, he will have to explain not only how Hebron could have risen from the total ruins of Joshua's destruction to become a power that Caleb would have to defeat again, but he will also have to explain how the same could have happened to Debir. Does Turkel seriously expect reasonable people to think that the Israelites would have utterly destroyed these two cities and then sat on their hands and let Canaanites return to them and rebuild them so that Caleb and "the men of Judah" had to go back and retake them after Joshua was dead? Probably so, because when a biblical inerrantist is confronted with a glaring inconsistency, no explanation is too ridiculous for him to peddle to his gullible sycophants.

For the coup de grace, let's look at the rest of this tale about Caleb's gift to his daughter. For transitional purposes, I will include the introductory verses that were quoted above.

Joshua 15:13 In accordance with Yahweh's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah--Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) 14 From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites--Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai--descendants of Anak. 15 From there he marched against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). 16 And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." 17 Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage. 18 One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?" 19 She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

Notice what this text says. It first says that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb and then goes on to say that Caleb drove the three Anakites out of Hebron, and then it goes to say that he [Caleb] marched against the people living in Debir. Then it says that Caleb offered his daughter in marriage to the man who attacked and captured Kiriath Sepher [Debir]. Where are the transitional time markers that give even the slightest reason to think that the writer meant for readers to understand that Caleb led his men up to Debir and then "after a long time had passed" and Joshua was dead, Caleb said that he would give his daughter in marriage to the man who would attack and capture Kiriath Sepher [Debir]? Those transitional markers aren't there, so the spin that Turkel has tried to put onto this passage is just too ridiculous to warrant any serious consideration.

To see that this is obviously another twice-told tale, like the others that I identified in "The Paper Shortage," let's look at the two versions together.

Joshua 15:13 In accordance with Yahweh's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah--Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) 14 From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites--Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai--descendants of Anak. 15 From there he marched against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). 16 And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." 17 Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage. 18 One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?" 19 She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

Judges 1:9 After that, the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills. 10 They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai. 11 From there they advanced against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). 12 And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." 13 Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage. 14 One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?" 15 She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." Then Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

In both accounts, Hebron is captured and then an advancement is made on Debir, at which time Caleb made his offer to give his daughter in marriage to the man who attacked and captured Debir. There are no transitional markers anywhere that even remotely imply that these events were not related in a chronological sequence. The only difference in them is that the first version was told as if it had happened during Joshua's lifetime, whereas the other was told as if it had happened after Joshua was dead. As I pointed out above, the claims in Joshua 10 that both Hebron and Debir were captured and utterly destroyed in the lifetime of Joshua makes Turkel's "dischronologized-narrative" claim impossible for reasonable people to swallow.

Another problem for Turkel's "dischronologized" scenario is that the passage above quoted from Judges 1 says that "the men of Judah," led presumably by Caleb, defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai, but these three were identified in the Joshua 15 version as the "children of Anak," who were identified in Joshua 14:15 as "Anakim." Why is that a problem? That's simple to answer for those whose biblical knowledge goes beyond the superficial level of Turkel's: the book of Joshua claims that the Anakim were destroyed in Canaan during the lifetime of Joshua, except for some who remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod.

Joshua 11:21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. 22 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.

So the book of Joshua claimed that, within the lifetime of Joshua, the "Anakims" were utterly destroyed from Hebron and Debir and everywhere else in the land of the children of Israel, except for the three towns cited, but then along comes the book of Judges, after Joshua was dead, to claim that "the men of Judah," under the leadership of Caleb, defeated "Anakims" in the city of Hebron.

No contradictions in the Bible? Well, of course not; I think everyone can see that.

This tale about Caleb's gift to his daughter is just another example of how the hodgepodge way in which the Bible was put together resulted in twice-told tales or doublets getting into the text. I gave some examples above of how the book of Judges repeated stories that were told in the book of Joshua, but there is one other that should be mentioned. Joshua 11:1-15 and 12:19 told of Joshua's utter destruction, by burning, of Hazor and the killing of the entire population and its king Jabin, but Judges 4 claims that because the Israelites "did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," he "sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan," whom Joshua "smote" with the sword" and who "reigned in Hazor," the city that Joshua had burned and whose inhabitants Joshua had "utterly destroyed" and left none alive to breathe (Josh. 11:10-11), yet somehow, as this tale was spun in Judges, Jabin was alive and kicking until Yahweh raised up the prophetess Deborah to defeat Jabin's army and eventually "destroy Jabin king of Canaan" (Judges 4:14). Desperate to defend biblical inerrancy, some fundamentalists have quibbled that "Jabin" was just a Canaanite title for king like pharaoh in Egypt. However, this would mean that each time "Jabin king of Canaan" was used in Judges 4, it was actually saying "king king of Canaan."

Turkel's "reply" that "troubled" Green so much continues below.

Turkel [quoting Till]:

The same verse (Josh. 10:41) 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.

Turkel: 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
I will repeat here something that I said above. Whenever I base a discrepancy on the plain reading of biblical texts, Turkel will call me "hyperliteralist" as he did here and here and here and other articles of his that I could cite. How loudly do you think Turkel would scream, "Hyperliteralist," if I should claim that the following are biblical errors?

1. Judges 21:19 says that Shiloh is north of Bethel, but the PC Bible Atlas shows that it was NNE of Bethel.
2. Zechariah 14:10 located Rimmon "south of Jerusalem," but the PC Bible Atlas shows that it was SSW of Jerusalem.
3. Joshua 7:2 says that Ai was on "the east side of Bethel," but the PC Bible Atlas shows that it was ENE of Bethel.

If I claimed these as directional errors in the Bible, Turkel would rightly accuse me of scratching desperately to find a mistake in the Bible, but when he is desperate for a solution to the land-promise errors that I have identified in my articles, he resorts to quibbling that I erred in saying that Gibeon was north of Jerusalem, because it was actually northwest of Jerusalem. As I have said many times, about the only consistency in Turkel's articles is his inconsistency.

As for his "northwest" quibble, I know of no better reply to give to this than the one that Steve Carr posted in response to Matt Green's article, which I am now replying to. I will insert in brackets a few words necessary to link to the websites that Carr referred to, and I will also change the British punctuation that Carr, a resident of Great Britain, used. Carr also calls Turkel by his phony name "Holding," so I will also change that; otherwise, the comments below are as he posted them.

Carr:
You have to admire [Turkel's] ability to major on the minors, and accuse people of falsehoods for making undectable errors. As you can see [on this map], Gibeon is at about 11 o'clock to Jerusalem, perhaps 10:30.

Not quite due north.

Anybody looking at the map must wonder why Farrell Till can be considered as issuing falsehoods for claiming Gibeon is north of Jerusalem.

What would [Turkel] say if somebody quibbled about one of his articles in the way he quibbled about Till's? [Turkel] would say "...-- and telling us that Syria is NNE of Jerusalem, which is still east, no matter how many N's are thrown in the batch...."

That was from [Turkel's] Why I Don't Do Forums, Part One.

Interesting how [Turkel] has different rules about what constitutes a falsehood.

When he says something is East of Jerusalem, any idiot who quibbles it was actually NNE, is rightly dismissed as an idiot.

When Till says something is North of Jerusalem, [Turkel] steps up to the plate, with exactly the same quibble he rightly treats with scorn elsewhere on his web page.

A check of the article that Carr linked to above will show that Turkel was responding to someone whom he, in typical fashion, derogatorily referred to as "Kotter" (after the lead character in the TV series Welcome Back, Kotter) and, of course "Sweathog," who had objected to an apparent claim that Turkel had made that the magi who visited the newly born Jesus could have come from Syria. The opponent had noted that the New Testament says that the magi had come from "the east" (Matt. 2:1) but that Syria was NNE of Jerusalem and not east. This prompted Turkel's response quoted above, with which Carr and I both agree, except for the derision that accompanied it, and it serves as just another example of how Turkel's response to an opponent will depend on which direction the winds of controversy are blowing. In order to have a reply to my reference to the location of Gibeon north of Jerusalem, he was willing to ignore what he had earlier said to "Kotter." I think that Turkel can get by with inconsistencies like this because he knows that he is addressing an audience that consists primarily of gullible Bible believers who have long histories of uncritically accepting everything that they hear in Bible classes and from pulpits without bothering to check it for accuracy, and so he knows that most of his readers won't bother to analyze his articles for consistency. As long as he is bashing biblical skeptics, that is enough for them.

Turkel:
The map also shows it [Gibeon] separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier. Our opponent desperately wishes to erase these five miles in a different direction, as well as disregard any issue of delineating georgraphical features, which would clearly exclude Jerusalem from the range between Kadesh-Barnea and Gibeon, but that geographical equivocation will not float in this ocean.

Carr has made my work easy, because all I have to do here is quote his reply to this quibble.

Carr:
From [Turkel's article] The New Testament:Mark

How this qualifies as an "error" is beyond me. It is hardly a definitive statement, referring only to a "region" - as might be expected if the party landed in a countrified area, and if this is from a sermon of Peter to a Roman audience that really did not care where some out-in-the-boondocks locale was precisely located! The city of Gerasa was about 30 miles southeast of the traditional location of this event; that being so, to speak of being in the "region" is hardly any more erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed in the "region" of Milwaukee.

So [Turkel] thinks a gap of 30 miles, with a lake in the way is not enough to disqualify something as being in the same "region," yet [Turkel] can also claim that a distance of 5 miles is so far from being part of the region, that it deserves to be quibbled.

Joshua is supposed to have routed all the kings of this region. Did that include kings just a few miles from Gibeon?

Remember [Robert (No Link) Turkel] thinks 30 miles away is still the same region.

[Turkel's] arguments are all post hoc rationalisations. He can and does change them when he wants to prove the exact opposite.

Till:
I have some comments to add to Carr's. The point of controversy concerns Joshua 10:41, which claims that Joshua routed the Canaanite forces "unto Gaza and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." A check of a Bible Atlas will show that going from Gaza to Gibeon would require taking a northwestern course. With that in mind, I wlll now refer readers to the map that Carr linked to above. It shows that the "river," which Turkel has made such an issue about began about a mile and a half south west of Gibeon so that an army coming from the southwest could have gone directly into Gibeon without even encountering this "river." Even if Joshua had followed a course from a point directly south of Jerusalem toward Gibeon, his army could have easily gone around this "river" to get to Gibeon.

Furthermore, the PC Bible Atlas shows that from the Negev in the far south of the land that Joshua's army allegedly conquered up to Lebanon in the north, there were 23 rivers that the army would have had to cross or go around, so one has to wonder how the Israelites were able to score the rapid victories claimed in the book of Joshua. Turkel is obviously quibbling to try to save face, and I am frankly surprised that Matt Green was apparently unable to see that he was.

To see much more that I have said in rebuttal of this silly quibble, go to this section of the "Goofy-Gaffe Exchanges" and notice that I have also posted the following rebuttals of this quibble, which, to my knowledge, Turkel has never replied to.

1. To get from Kadesh Barnea, where Joshua's assaults began, the Israelites would have had to cross eight rivers or streams from there to Gibeon, so if there is any merit at all to Turkel's "natural-barrier" quibble, one has to wonder how the Israelites were ever able to take any of the towns credited to them in the book of Joshua.
   
2. The book of Josua made repeated references to how Yahweh fought for Israel, so if this omniscient, omnipotent deity was fighting on Israel's side, why would a "stream" north of Jerusalem have been the formidable "natural barrier" that Turkel quibbled that it was?
   
3. Joshua 3:14-17 claimed that Yahweh parted the water in the Jordan River to allow the Israelites to enter Canaan, so if Yahweh was truly fighting for the Israelites, why wouldn't he have enabled them in some way to cross the "natural barrier" that Turkel thinks that this stream south of Gibeon would have been?

Did I say "south of Gibeon"? I'm sorry, I should have said that the stream was southwest of Gibeon.

Turkel's quibbling continued.

Turkel:
To this we would add that our opponent 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. This needs to be taken into account before our opponent can even begin an argument.

Till
I assumed this? Just where did I assume this? I just linked readers to the section of the Goofy-Gaffe exchanges where I pointed out that eight streams and rivers lay between Kadesh Barnea and Gibeon, so does Turkel seriously think that I believe that the Israelites would have gotten across or around these rivers by following a "straight line"? If Green thinks that Turkel has a legitimate point here, perhaps he can refer us to where I ever assumed at any time in any of my articles about the land promise that the Israelites followed straight lines in their military attacks.

Turkel:
We may add a pertinent observation. Our opponent here has argued that Joshua 10 offers an inconsistency with reference to Jerusalem only. In his original article, he clearly indicated that he believed that Joshua 10 offered an inconsistency with reference to all the land in the grant, including the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. So what happened? Is it just Jerusualem? If so, why did our opponent in his original article indicate that it was all the land in the grant that was at issue with reference to Joshua 10?

Till:
So that it will be quickly accessible to readers, I am going to requote my comment that Turkel is referring to here before I show just how flagrantly he is distorting it.

The same verse (Josh. 10:41) 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.

Since the passage in dispute was Joshua 10:41, I was merely showing that if the claim in this verse was historically accurate, the Israelites would have at this time conquered the Jebusites but that other passages in Joshua and Judges claimed that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites. That in no way meant that I was claiming that the land promise had failed only in reference to Jerusalem. I was simply citing Jerusalem as one example of failure.

Throughout the debate of the land promise, I have been very clear in saying that the Bible admits that the Israelites failed to conquer and possess several tracts of land within the boundaries of Yahweh's original land promise. If Turkel doesn't know that, he must have reading-comprehension problems, or else he is just grasping another straw to quibble about so that he can leave the impression that he is replying to my land-promise arguments. My original article was quite clear in arguing that the land promise allegedly made to the Old Testament patriarchs failed in that the Israelites never did possess all of the land within the borders that Yahweh had defined [snicker, snicker] in passages like Genesis 15:18-19. I never, at any time, suggested that the promise had failed "with reference to all the land in the grant," and I defy Turkel to cite where I did. The Israelites obviously lived on land that lay within the borders defined in the passage just cited, so why would I claim that the Israelites had never possessed any of the land within those borders, which I would have had to have done in order to argue that the land promise had failed "with reference to all the land in the grant"?

I will give Turkel the benefit of doubt and assume that he didn't understand what I was saying, although I really don't think that he is that ignorant. These paragraphs from different parts of my replies to Turkel clearly show that I have consistently claimed that only some parts of the promised land had never been possessed by the Israelites. The links after the paragraphs are specific and will go directly to the paragraphs quoted.

And so if Yahweh owned all the land, he shouldn’t have, given his omnipotence, had any problem making sure that the Israelites received all the land he had promised them (from the Red Sea to Lebanon and from the Euphrates River to the Great Sea), so why didn’t he? All of Turkel’s talk about “ancient conceptions” of gods and what lands they owned hasn’t done anything to explain the inconsistencies that I identified in my article. Regardless of what “ancient concepts” of deity-land-possession may have been, Yahweh said that in some sense he was going to “give” the Israelites all the land within clearly defined borders. In what sense did the book of Joshua mean that he had “given” them all of this land, and in what sense did the book later mean that he didn’t give them all of the land? This is the problem confronting Turkel, and his time would have been better spent trying to explain the inconsistency rather than taking us into long tangents like the one I am now replying to (Part Three of the land-promise series).

The boundaries of the land promised to the Israelites included the coastal plains of the Levant [Palestine], so if Yahweh “reserved” this land “for the use and possession of [Abraham’s] descendants,” why did they never possess it? This territory was occupied by the Philistines, who were a thorn in the side of the Israelites all through their “history.” This is just one example of land within the defined boundaries of the land promise that the Israelites never possessed, so this brings us back to square one. Turkel must explain why a promise to give the descendants of Abraham all the land from the river Egypt to Lebanon and from the river Euphrates to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea was never fulfilled (Part Five of the land-promise series).

Those who have followed the debate know that I have pointed out that Turkel has not even shown how all the land promised to the Israelites was "given" to them in the sense of this "Ancient Near Eastern" concept of land-people-deity. Let "possess" convey only the sense of tenancy in a feudal-landlord sense. When were the Israelites "given" all the land within the defined borders in even a feudal-landlord sense (Part Four in the "Where Is the Land?" series)?

I could stretch this out indefinitely by quoting where I was very clear in stating that the Israelites had never possessed all the land within the borders defined in Yahweh's promise to Abraham, but why swat a gnat with a sledgehammer? If Matt Green thinks that Turkel is right in saying that I had claimed that the promise had failed "with reference to all the land in the grant," then I have a research project to suggest to him. If he will go to Google and type site:theskepticalreview.com "defined borders" in the search window, he will find 10 different articles in the debate series in which I used defined borders, sometimes several times in the same article, when I was referring to the failure of the land promise, so my position was then and still is that the Israelites possessed some but never did possess all of the land within the borders that Yahweh defined when he made the promise [snicker, snicker] to Abraham. All Turkel has done above is set up a straw man to beat on to distract attention from his inability to show that the land promise was fulfilled.

Before I go on to Turkel's next quibble, I'll go back to his claim that I had "argued that Joshua 10 offers an inconsistency with reference to Jerusalem only." How he ever thought that I was arguing that Joshua 10:41 indicated that the land promise had failed only with reference to Jerusalem is beyond me. The paragraph below from my original article gives additional confirmation that I have argued from the beginning of this debate that the land promise failed in references to several of the Canaanite nations.

Most of the rest of the book of Joshua and the better part of Judges contradict all of the fulfillment claims that I have noted above. Joshua 15:63 says, "And as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day." Yet the Jebusites were specifically named as one of the seven nations "greater and mightier than thou" that would be utterly destroyed. Joshua 16:10 says, "And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to do taskwork." But the Canaanites were specifically listed as one of the seven nations that would be utterly destroyed. Joshua 17:12-13 says, "Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out." Yet the promise had clearly been that the Canaanites would be utterly driven out, that no man would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives. Making servants of them can hardly be considered fulfillment of a prophecy declaring that they would be "utterly driven out." In fact, it contradicts a restriction noted on page three that expressly prohibited the Israelites from making covenants with the inhabitants of their promised land.

As anyone can plainly see, this paragraph from my original article, which began immediately after where Green stop quoting from it, was clearly arguing that the claim that everything that Yahweh had promised to the Israelites had been fulfill contradicted later claims with reference to both the Jebusites and the Canaanites. Just where, then, did Turkel get the idea that I was claiming that Joshua 10 "offer[ed] an inconsistency with reference to Jerusalem only"? Can Turkel read plain English? If so, he should be able to see that this part of my article was claiming that the land promise had failed with reference to both the Jebusites and the Canaanites. If Turkel can't read plain English, he should take down his apologetic shingle and take up plumbing.

In the very next paragraph of my original article, I gave additional examples of ethnic groups in Canaan that the Israelites were unable to drive out of the land.

In Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13; Judges 1:1-5; 1:9; 1:21; 1:27-36; 3:1-6 and many other places, references are made to the people that the Israelites could not drive out of the land, and many of these were specific references to people from the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" that Yahweh promised that he would drive out without fail. But he didn't, and so the inerrancy champions have some serious explaining to do. If "Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers" (Joshua 21:43-45) and if "they possessed it (the land) and dwelt therein" (same passage) and if Yahweh "gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers" (same passage) and if "there stood not a man of all their enemies before them" (same passage) and if "Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand" (same passage) and if "there failed not aught of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel" (same passage) and if "all came to pass" (same passage), how could it have been that some of the enemies of Israel were still in the land during the time of the book of Judges and how could it have been that some of the people of the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" were still dwelling with the children of Israel "unto this day"?

Now how Turkel was able to get from all of this that I was arguing that Joshua 10 was inconsistent with reference to Jerusalem only is beyond my ability to comprehend, but, of course, many things that Turkel concludes about the articles of biblical skeptics, as well as the Bible itself, are beyond my ability to comprehend. Furthermore, I don't understand how Matt Green was not able to catch this glaring error in Turkel's "reply" to my original article. If Green can't catch obvious mistakes like this, he has no business trying to write a "review" of my land-promise debate with Turkel.

Turkel:
He cannot backpedal and say that he only would have intended to reference Jerusalem intentionally.

There is nothing for me to backpedal from, because the paragraphs that I quoted above from my original article and sections of my replies to Turkel clearly show that I never claimed that Joshua 10 was inconsistent with reference to Jerusalem only. If Turkel and Green will check the biblical verses that I cited above in the last paragraph quoted from my article, they will see that Joshua 16:10 said that "the children of Manasseh" could not drive the Canaanites out of Gezer "unto this day." Joshua 17:12-13 listed seven different cities and said that "the children of Manasseh" could not drive the Canaanites out of "those cities." Judges 1:21 said that "Judah" could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Think about it for a moment. Yahweh fought with Israel, as noted above, yet they could not drive out Canaanites who had chariots of iron.) Judges 1:27-36 says that Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its towns, Taanach and its towns, Dor and its towns, and Megiddo and its towns. Judges 3:1-6 listed the Philistines, "all the Canaanites," the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in Mount Lebanon from Mount Baal-hermon to the entrance of Hamath as nations that Yahweh had left in the land "to prove Israel." All of that was in my original article, yet somehow Turkel concluded that I had somewhere argued that Joshua 10 was inconsistent only with reference to Jerusalem, and Matt Green, who has told me that he corresponds regularly with Turkel, didn't recognize this misinterpretation of my article and tell his pen pal that he needed to take a second look at it.

Turkel:
He never specifies this and he juxtaposes the Joshua 10 quotes, along with the others and with no differentiation specified, in a section ending with the words, "Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers, and the dimensions of that land were clearly laid out in such passages as Exodus 23:20-33 and Joshua 1:1-6." Why is our opponent not being honest about his backpedalling?"

The "backpedaling" [notice the preferred spelling] is all in Turkel's imagination. I argued from the beginning that the land promise had failed in many of its aspects, and I still maintain that and believe that I have clearly shown that it did fail on various fronts. I never at any time claimed that the promise had failed only with reference to Jerusalem. Why does Turkel think that I cited all of the passages that I just recited and summarized, and why didn't Green spot this misinterpretation and point it out to Turkel?

I have now answered everything in the "response" from Turkel that Green quoted in the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum, so now nothing is left for me to reply to except Green's concluding comments.

Green:
I have seen Till argue that the X vs. ~X argument is Joshua 21:43-45 vs. Joshua 13:1-6. What happened to Joshua 11:23? Does Joshua 11:23 refer to all the land as in the entire land promise or just the land that that [sic] was mentioned in an earlier chapter? In other words, does Joshua 21:43-45 still contradict Joshua 11:23?

Till:
I answered that in detail in this section of the "Goofy-Gaffe Exchanges." The answer is there for Green to read with just a click of his mouse, so there is no need for me to rehash it here. I have already spent too much time rehashing for Green material that he could have found on his own if he had been willing to put the time into researching the land-promise debate.

Green
If so, how? I am having trouble understanding how Joshua 11:23 pertains to the entire land promise.

Till:
Well, if Green clicks the link immediately above, he should read that section carefully and then when he comes to where I linked readers to Part Five of my land-promise replies, he should click that link to go to where I analyzed in detail Joshua 12, which followed immediately on the heels of 11:23. If Green will do that, he should be able to see that right after Joshua 11:23 said that Joshua had taken the whole land, according to all that Yahweh had spoken to Moses and that Joshua had given it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments, the narrative went immediately into chapter 12 with this statement: "Now these are the kings of the land, whom the Israelites defeated, whose land they occupied beyond the Jordan." My detailed analysis of the rest of this chapter, linked to above, located all of the place names in the land allegedly taken from the defeated kings and allocated to the Israelite tribes, and that analysis will show Green that the geographical locations of those places stretched from the extreme south of the Levant to the extreme north and from the far west to the Mediterranean Sea. That analysis will perhaps alleviate some of the "trouble" Green is having understanding how Joshua 11:23 "pertains to the entire land promise, but if doesn't settle the matter to his satisfaction, perhaps this will. Please notice the final statement in Joshua 11:23 that I emphasize in bold print.

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.

If the land had "rest from war" at that time, then the conquests would have been over, wouldn't they have? If Green still has "trouble" grasping this, he may want to take the time to consider the text below.

Deuteronomy 12:8 You shall not act as we are acting here today, all of us according to our own desires, 9 for you have not yet come into the rest and the possession that Yahweh your God is giving you. 10 When you cross over the Jordan and live in the land that Yahweh your God is allotting to you, and when he gives you rest from your enemies all around so that you live in safety, 11 then you shall bring everything that I command you to the place that Yahweh your God will choose as a dwelling for his name....

Still not convinced? Then consider what Moses said to the tribes that had requested their "inheritance" to be land on the west side of the Jordan.

Deuteronomy 3:18 And to the Reubenites and the Gadites I gave the territory from Gilead as far as the Wadi Arnon, with the middle of the wadi as a boundary, and up to the Jabbok, the wadi being boundary of the Ammonites; 17 the Arabah also, with the Jordan and its banks, from Chinnereth down to the sea of the Arabah, the Dead Sea, with the lower slopes of Pisgah on the east. 18 At that time, I charged you as follows: "Although Yahweh your God has given you this land to occupy, all your troops shall cross over armed as the vanguard of your Israelite kin. 19 Only your wives, your children, and your livestock--I know that you have much livestock--shall stay behind in the towns that I have given to you. 20 When Yahweh gives rest to your kindred, as to you, and they too have occupied the land that Yahweh your God is giving them beyond the Jordan, then each of you may return to the property that I have given to you."

In his initial instructions to the people after the death of Moses, Joshua reminded these tribes of what Moses had told them.

Joshua 1:12 To the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh Joshua said, 13 "Remember the word that Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you, saying, 'Yahweh your God is providing you a place of rest, and will give you this land.' 14 Your wives, your little ones, and your livestock shall remain in the land that Moses gave you beyond the Jordan. But all the warriors among you shall cross over armed before your kindred and shall help them, 15 until Yahweh gives rest to your kindred as well as to you, and they too take possession of the land that Yahweh your God is giving them. Then you shall return to your own land and take possession of it, the land that Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you beyond the Jordan to the east."

This is so clear that even Turkel could understand it if he didn't have a pet belief in biblical inerrancy to defend. Incorporated into the land promise was that Yahweh would give the Israelites "rest" after all the land he had promised them had been taken, and the Gadites, Reubenites and half-tribe of Mannaseh were charged to cross the Jordan and help the other tribes in conquering Canaan. After that conquest had been completed, Yahweh would give the people "rest" from war, and the Gadites, Reubenites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh could return to their land on the west side of the Jordan. The fact that Joshua 11:23--whose relevance to "the entire land promise" Green is having "trouble" understanding--says that "the land had rest from war" (after Joshua had taken the whole land and given it as an inheritance to Israel "according to their divisions by tribe") is clear evidence that the writer was saying that the conquest of the land referred to here did indeed "pertain to the entire land promise." Sometimes Green can't see the forest because of the trees.

In this section of Part Seventeen of the "Where Is the Land?" series, I did an analysis of the "rest" promise to show that it leaves no other conclusion to reach except that the writer of Joshua in 11:23 and 21:43-45 clearly claimed that all of the land--ALL OF IT--that Yahweh had promised to the Israelites was possessed by them, after which he also gave them the "rest" that he had promised them. If Green really wants to see just how thorough Turkel was shellacked in the land-promise debate, he will click this link and read that entire section.

Green:
I am having trouble understanding what may be wrong with Turkel's response that I have quoted from.

Till:
If after reading this article, Green is still having "trouble understanding what may be wrong with Turkel's response," I'm afraid that there isn't much that I can do for him.

Green:
Ultimately, I'd like to agree with Till that Yahweh's land promise really did fail

Till:
I'm not sure that Green is being entirely honest here. As I said in the "Editor's Note" at the beginning of this article, Green once joined the Errancy forum, claiming that he had deconverted from Christianity but then left later with a parting shot that said that he still believed the Bible. Am I supposed to believe that he is being truthful now?

Green:
but unfortunately, Till hasn't completed the debate so I am unable to know for sure without the closing arguments from each side. Does anyone have any insights or comments they might like to share?

Till:
Everything that Turkel offered as "replies" to my arguments in my original article were answered over and over and over in my six articles in the "Tilling Turkel's 'Land Ahoy'" series, the twenty in the "Where's the Land?" series, and the "Goofy Gaffe Exchanges" on The Theology Web, and this article and its companion. This is a huge body of articles, which clearly show that everything that was "troubling" Green had been answered in detail. It isn't my fault that he didn't put enough effort into researching the subject before he undertook to write a "review" of this debate, but I will make him an offer that is about as reasonable as he can expect. If he thinks that Turkel has said anything about the land promise that I haven't answered, if he will tell me what it is, I will reply to it too. If Green sends me anything in response to this, I am sure that all I will have to do is use a Google search to find where I have already answered it.

As I said before, I have in my computer additional articles to post in the "Where Is the Land?" series, which I will put onto this website when I have finished them all, but I see no need to neglect other projects in order to complete this series, which Turkel will never link his readers to. If this "troubles" Green, he will just have to remain troubled.