Sermon Transcript Tone Analysis

Thank you, Mary, for lean out on that.

Oh, that's good.

Let's go to our Lord in and pray.

Before he gets into our topic of discussion.

This evening are gracious and kind haven't fought.

Father?

We are grateful Lord.

That you have given us that invitation to come unto you.

And by the way, you are a relational God.

And to that we are thankful we ask you, Lord to Bless this time of study.

I pray father that you would help us to understand some of the very difficult things that are written in your word that are used for a lot of attack against your character, and against your word and against Christians all together.

I pray Lord that you would bless this time Bless The Children and Youth downstairs.

We ask all these things in Christ name, amen.

all right, as I told you last week,

I want us to look at this briefly tonight, a very difficult segments of scripture that is is seen the Book of Joshua, but it's really sing in multiple sections within the Old Testament and that is like an Joshua chapter.

Number 6, in verse 21, you have this statement where Joshua and all of Israel destroyed.

All that was in the city, both men and women, old and young There are other passages of scripture in the Old Testament that says very plainly.

That Israel was to kill children and infants suckling child.

And this has led to many accusations, this has led to many of it.

Those who are got haters.

Those were atheist to take those sections of scripture and say, my goodness, the god that you say, is a god of love is really a, bipolar God.

Or somebody might say, well, God has two personalities.

He had an Old Testament personality, where he did such things and then the New Testament, he had a personality of love and acceptance but that's not true.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever.

And French dancer is a notorious atheist by the name of Richard Dawkins.

Who said this concerning our God?

Explicitly.

Concerning what we have just read.

about the Israel, killing of young and old.

This is what Richard Dawkins said about Yahweh.

He said, the god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

Jealous and proud of it.

A petty unjust Unforgiven kontrolfreek.

A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser misogynistic, homophobic racist.

Jenna Seidel.

It goes on.

And on, with all these other words, And just calls him a malevolent bully.

That's just one quote, from one and Toria safest.

Using that scripture that we have just talked about how that God told Joshua, how to kill both, man and woman, young and old

I want to.

Do this, this quote that I just read you concerning Richard, Dawkins and other atheists that quoted such things about our God lead Paul Copan or Copan.

However, you want to say that last name is c o p.

A n to write a book.

Is God, a moral monster is God, a moral monster, the subtitle is making sense of the Old Testament.

I would encourage you to if your reader to look into that and read that because it just a talks more than just the genocide that's mentioned in the Old Testament, it talks about such things as why did God allow Or slave owners to beat their slaves.

Now, gotten our last slave owners in the Old Testament to kill their slaves, but he allowed them to beat them.

Why did he allow that?

Why did God Ask Abraham to take Isaac up Mount Moriah.

Is what Abraham did to his son, was he abusive?

A whole lot of other things that's mentioned in this book that gives some good answers as to how we can answer those accusers.

On page 170 of that book and chapter 16.

He deals with

The title that chapter is indiscriminate Massacre and ethnic cleansing the killing of the Canaanites, and Page, 170.

This is what he says of how he answers this, and I'm not saying that I agree or disagree.

He says ancient near Eastern exaggeration read of it.

That's the subtitle of the chapter.

Most Christians read Joshua's Conquest stories with a backdrop of Sunday school lessons via flannelgraph or children's Illustrated Bible stories.

The impression that's left is a black-and-white rendition of a little literal Crush kill and destroy mission.

A closer look at the biblical text reveals a lot more nuanced and a lot less bloodshed.

In short, the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume.

Like is ancient near Eastern contemporaries.

Joshua used the language of conventional Warfare rhetoric.

This language sounds like bragging and exaggeration to our ears.

Notice first, the sweeping language in Joshua 10:44, he says that's Joshua's truck all the land, the Hill Country, and then they give and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings.

He left, no Survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed just as lord of the god of Israel had commanded Joshua.

He says use the rhetorical bravado language of his day asserting.

That all the land was captured, all the kings defeated in all the Canaanites destroyed.

It says Joshua 11 verse 16.

Joshua took the holy land and gave it for an inheritance to Israel yet as we will see Josh for himself acknowledged that this was not literally.

So Scholars readily agree that judges is literally link to Joshua.

The Book of Judges is literally link to Joshua yet.

The early chapters of Judges was which incidentally, repeat the death of Joshua show that the task of taking over the land was far from complete.

And judges 2. Verse 3, God says, I will not drive them out before you Earlier judges 1421 asserted that they did not drive out the jebusites.

They did not take possession that did not drive them out.

Completely these nations remain to this day, Jazz it judges 1:21?

The people who had apparently been wiped out reappear in the store.

Many Canaanite inhabitants simply stuck.

Stuck around.

Now, some might accuse Joshua being misleading or of getting it wrong, but not at all.

He was speaking the language that everyone in this day would have understood rather than trying to deceive.

Joshua was just saying he had fairly well, trounced the enemy on the one hand, Joshua says, there was no Anakin left in the land, Joshua 11:22 indeed.

They were utterly destroyed in the Hill Country, literally not according to the very same Joshua.

In fact, Caleb later asked permission to drive out of the Anna.

Kites from the Hill Country.

Again, Joshua was not Being deceptive given the use of ancient near Eastern, hyperbole hyperbole, he could say without contradiction that Nations remain among you, he went on to warn Israel, not to mention swear by serve or bow down to their gods.

Again the land had rest from War Chapter 13 and Beyond, tell us that much territory, remain unpossessed tribe upon prob failed out.

Fail to drive out the Canaanites and Joshua tell seven of the tribes.

How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which the Lord the god of your fathers have given you?

He goes on to say that Josh was conventional Warfare rhetoric was common.

In many other ancient near Eastern military accounts in the second and first Millennia BC.

The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado depicting total devastation, The Knowing ancient The Knowing ancient near Eastern Eastern reader recognize this as hyperbole.

The accounts are, we're not understood to be literally true.

This language of Kenneth kitchen observes has misled, many Old Testament, Scholars and their assessments of the Book of Joshua.

Some has concluded that the language of wholesale, Slaughter and total occupation, which didn't from all other indications.

Actually, take place cruise at these accounts are falsehoods, but ancient near Eastern accounts.

Readily used early, completely, destroy and other obliteration language even when the event didn't literally happen that way.

So what he's saying again, Is that Joshua is using hyperbolic language something that we would use even today?

For instance, Arkansas's playing Ole Miss Saturday.

And we would say who I Hope Arkansas obliterates or Miss, I hope they destroy them.

But we're using hyperbolic language to prove a point that we are.