Contradiction with Joshua 11:19
This verse mentions that there was no city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites in Gibeon, which contradicts the assertion of total destruction in Joshua 10:40.
Joshua 11:19: There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all [other] they took in battle.
Contradiction with Judges 1:21
This verse states that the Benjamites did not drive out the Jebusites in Jerusalem, contradicting the claim in Joshua 10:40 of utterly destroying all inhabitants.
Judges 1:21: And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.
Contradiction with Judges 1:27
This verse indicates that Manasseh did not completely drive out the inhabitants of several towns, in contrast to the total destruction described in Joshua 10:40.
Judges 1:27: Neither did Manasseh drive out [the inhabitants of] Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
Contradiction with Judges 3:1
This verse states that certain nations were left to test Israel, contradicting the claim of complete destruction of inhabitants in Joshua 10:40.
Judges 3:1: Now these [are] the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, [even] as many [of Israel] as had not known all the wars of Canaan;
Contradiction with Joshua 15:63
This verse mentions that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem, which contradicts the total destruction described in Joshua 10:40.
Joshua 15:63: 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.
Paradox #1
One potential contradiction in Joshua 10:40 could be the ethical issue of the Israelites being commanded to destroy entire populations, including women and children, which might conflict with the view of a loving and merciful God. This can raise questions about the nature of divine commands and morality.
Paradox #2
One potential issue with Joshua 10:40 is the ethical and moral conflict it presents. The verse describes complete destruction, which can be seen as contradictory to other biblical teachings that promote love, mercy, and forgiveness. This can lead to questions about how to reconcile these actions with the overall message of compassion in the Bible.
Paradox #3
One possible contradiction is that Joshua 10:40 describes the complete destruction of certain groups of people in the land. However, other parts of the Bible indicate that some of these groups, such as the Canaanites, continued to exist after this event, suggesting that the destruction may not have been total. This inconsistency raises questions about how to interpret the historical accuracy of these accounts.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in this context could be related to the idea of complete destruction and the claim of wiping out entire populations, which may not align with archaeological and historical evidence. Archaeological findings often suggest that many of these populations persisted or assimilated over time rather than being entirely eradicated as described.
Paradox #5
Some people might see a contradiction in this verse because it describes a conquest where Joshua is said to have destroyed entire cities and their inhabitants, leaving no survivors. This can be seen as conflicting with the moral teachings of compassion, love, and mercy that are also found in the Bible. This raises questions about how to reconcile such acts of violence with these moral principles.
Paradox #6
The potential contradiction in Joshua 10:40 could relate to the description of the total destruction of all living things in certain areas, as it may seem inconsistent with other verses that mention survivors or ongoing struggles with those peoples. This can create a tension between the depiction of complete annihilation in some texts and the continued presence of these groups in others.