This has always amazed me, how men can in the 21st century tell us what the borders of the ancient countries were, in exact boundary details; and contradict what they see described in scripture; and in that manner contradicting the explicit, plain statements of God's word. So, men today know better than Joshua did when he wrote many centuries past, in the time frame meant he had direct knowledge of? This is an example where I like the British Methodist, Arminian Adam Clarke on Joshua's text, Josh. 21:43 -
"The cavil is as foolish as it is unprincipled which states, "The Israelites never did possess the whole of the land which was promised to them, and therefore that promise could not come by Divine revelation." With as much reason might it be urged that Great Britain has not subdued the French West India Islands and Batavia, (Feb. 1812,) because the ancient inhabitants still remain in them; but is not their serving under tribute an absolute proof that they are conquered, and under the British dominion? So was the whole land of Canaan conquered, and its inhabitants subdued, though the whole of the ground was not occupied by the Israelites till the days of David and Solomon. In the most correct and literal sense it might be said, There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel: all came to pass. Nor shall one word of his ever fail to any of his followers while the sun and moon endure."
