Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 11:58:47 EDT
In a message dated 5/15/03 10:30:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> I'm also on the same page with Bob. I agree that the historical and
> astronomical evidence (indeed there is no such in the latter case, our
> records not encompassing Joshua's day) do not support a "literal"
> interpretation of the Joshua story, and I'm not inclined to accept that
> story as a genuine miracle. I also doubt that it had redemptive
> purpose--killing the enemy doesn't seem to fit that category.
I believe most scholars tend toward the version of the conquest of Canaan in
Judges 1, the Israelites lacked 'chariots of iron" and had to resort to a
gradual conquest by strategy and attrition that left the peoples who could
not be conquered at "forced labor," under the Israelites. The Lord attributes
their difficulty conquering Canaan to a failure to pull down the altars of
the indigenous people.
“I said, I will never break my covenant with you, and you in turn must make
no covenant with the inhabitants of the country; you must pull down their
altars. But you did not obey me and look what you have done! So I said, I
will not drive them out before you; they will decoy you, and their gods will
shut you fast in the trap.” (Judges 2:1-4).
as to doubting the redemptive purpose of killing the enemy - if the enemy
does not keep the law they are not redeemed. I don't know that under the old
covenant it was the responsibility of the israelites to redeem anyone other
than themselves and as far as they are concerned, the old covenant has never
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 15 2003 - 11:59:05 EDT