[ebuddy]

Von?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What do you mean by "what does that change?" The Bible does not say (all) descendants, rather clarifies with an identifier. When I did this to the Quran, I was called to task by Taliesin for it. I then immediately apologized and Taliesin accepted. I'm willing to give him the same respect if he should give it to me.

Why are you curious? Certainly you have a view on the matter, what is it if I might ask?

My opinion is that all religious arguments should be ignored when discussing a final settlement as well as the creation of Israel. Religious arguments should be allowed.

That's my opinion on this whole thing. The "debate" between Taliesin and Zimphire had the potential to become very interesting if Zimphire would have quotes some verses to back up his claims and if he would have dropped the personal attacks.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
My opinion is that all religious arguments should be ignored when discussing a final settlement as well as the creation of Israel. Religious arguments should be allowed.

That's my opinion on this whole thing. The "debate" between Taliesin and Zimphire had the potential to become very interesting if Zimphire would have quotes some verses to back up his claims and if he would have dropped the personal attacks.

But isn't the real point of the matter whether or not the two cultures can peacefully coexist? I think there are compelling examples on both sides to suggest they cannot. What to do? From the above, you're saying religious arguments should be allowed, but not in the case of settlement. Regarding governmental affairs, granted I agree with you. You will not hold the attention of Congress if you say; "the Bible says". However, the problem with the two cultures in this discussion is that they hold two fundamental differences stemming from religion. The ONLY way I see the two cultures reconciling their geographical differences is to reconcile their religious differences. There is an unwillingness to do this and as such it seems to the two will remain at odds with one another. In short, I do not understand the purpose of this thread.

[von Wrangell]

Actually Jews, Muslims and Christians can all live together in peace. Christians and Muslims live side by side in Palestine. Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together in peace until the massive influx of foreigners(who happened to be Jewish) when the Muslims and Christians realised that these foreigners came to the country to set up their own nation.

I don't doubt for a second that these two people can live together in peace. The only thing needed is for both sides to show each other respect. Something that is very little of from both sides at the moment.

[ebuddy]

There is one thing I'd like to take issue with and that is there is a common misconception among Christians themselves, and others alike that Jesus and the New Testament supercedes the Old. This is what Jesus said regarding the issue;
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them."

The problem Jesus had with the culture of his time is that while the authorities knew the law, they did not conduct them in accordance with faith. Faith is the weightier matter of Law as stated in Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:

That's my opinion on this whole thing. The "debate" between Taliesin and Zimphire had the potential to become very interesting if Zimphire would have quotes some verses to back up his claims

Which is funny because all you did was attack me, tell me I didn't know what I was talking about, and try to force me into your little "rulebook" for posting.

BTW. It wasn't needed, what I said was true. If you didn't believe it, go look it up yourself. Your are just being petty now.

and if he would have dropped the personal attacks.

There would have been no "personal attacks" made had you and Tali not been rude and condescending.

Even going as far as telling me I didn't read your post correctly in a condescending way, when in fact it was you that had no clue what you were talking about.

Hopefully you removed the foot from your mouth by now.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Actually Jews, Muslims and Christians can all live together in peace. Christians and Muslims live side by side in Palestine. Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together in peace until the massive influx of foreigners(who happened to be Jewish) when the Muslims and Christians realised that these foreigners came to the country to set up their own nation.

But this is not generally an acceptable account of the history of strife between the Arab and the Jew and is subject to debate between those of different backgrounds. Truth is truth to you, truth is something else to someone else. The defeat of the Turk's Ottoman Empire aligned with the German ushered in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement mandated today's Jordan, Israel and West Bank to Great Britain in 1916. Knowing that the Jew had already begun massive immigration to "Palestine" in the 1880's in an effort to create a fertile homeland in what once was deemed by many as worthless due to swamps and malaria infestation as noted by Mark Twain who visited there in 1867, the British viewed the Jewish effort there as worthy of a National Homeland for them. At no time was there any effort to eliminate the Arab from the area. In fact, with increasing fertilization of that land many Arabs from neigboring regions flocked there for employment opportunities and a better life and environment. In 1923, Britain then divided "Palestine" into two sects. They allotted territory West of the Jordan to the Jew, and East of the Jordan known then as Trans-Jordan to the Arabs. Now, with homelands intact it's important to remember that there were still Arabs living peacefully among the Jews, however nationality (as it often does) began to get the best of them and with it rising tension. Tension in the form of terrorism. Notably; the Hebron massacres of 1929, then the Arab revolt from approximately 1936-1939. Britain's interest turned to oil found throughout the Middle East and without dependance upon Britain for help, it became apparent to the Jew that they must fight of their own accord to maintain the territory they were given. I'd expect you and I to do the same. It should be noted however, that not all Arabs were of this nationalist mindset and wanted to continue among the Jew in peace and did. The rest however, created much unrest. Hagana was formed for the purpose of uniting in war against the aggressing Arabs which birthed the Irgun defense against Pro-Arab British and Britain relented control to the UN. In 1947, The UN then attempted to again divide the territory creating two Arab nation-states with the remainder of Palestine, but the Arab Palestinians declined. The Arab Palestinians wanted both sides of the Jordan. East and West. On May 14th, 1948 the Palestinian Jews proclaimed their territory as the State of Israel. On May 15th, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen invaded Israel. The Arabs still living in the newly deemed "Israel" were encouraged to leave to allow the invading Armies to wholly conquer and drive the Jew out of ALL of Palestine. It was promised to them that upon their return, after the Arabs had conquered all of Palestine, the Jew's territory and possessions would be given them. These Arabs were not driven out, they chose to leave in order to allow the armies to complete their task and as a result of the unrest of war in general. Heck, I wouldn't have stayed either. After a brutal 19 months the war ended and the Israeli remained. It should be further noted that Arabs still live among the Israeli in peace and are known as Israeli-Arab citizens. The result of this war afforded the Arab Palestinian with approximately 85% of the territory originally known as Palestine. This was not enough. There were still Jews owning a Nation State among them, regardless of how small that territory was. 4 more wars would occur and they're still fighting terrorism today. In 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies conspired with plans of an invasion along Israel's apparently narrow and indefensible borders. This conspiracy was founded upon the ideal of eliminating the State of Israel. Israel thwarted the attack with a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. King Hussein of Jordan assumed Egypts airforce was intact and had begun his invasion from the West Bank and while Syria mounted it's front with intent to come southward into Northern Israel. Both, rather-all three failed at conquering Israel. Despite the fact that Israel had won a war that was brought to them, not the other way around-they still find themselves having to defend what was rightfully their own??? When territory is at war, and there is a victor-to that victor goes the spoils. This is not to be viewed as insensitive rather, as fact. We won our territory from Britain as well and no one is asking the U.S. to give it back. This just isn't the way it works. However, The Israeli would in turn end up giving Egypt back to Egyptians in an olive-branch attempt at peace. eh, it kinda worked.

I don't doubt for a second that these two people can live together in peace. The only thing needed is for both sides to show each other respect. Something that is very little of from both sides at the moment.

Too true. I'm not sure it ever will which is why I questioned the intent of this thread.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The land was promised to Abraham's descendants. The ones God promised him. Not the ones that Abraham disobeyed with. AGAIN read the Bible.

I don't have to read the bible to understand that it is typical human misunderstanding of God's nature and capabilities. Eventhough we humans have freewill, we can't surprise God becuase He is allknowing and not only concerning the present time, but also past and future, that is so because He is not part of the same timestructure He has created for us.
Besides even more convincing, God is the one who creates all life, every born human is created by Him, and He has created Ismaeel. If God really was against that, which He clearly wasn't, He wouldn't have created Ismaeel inside Hagar, don't you think?
If the Bible is telling the story of Abraham and Hagar as a story of disobedience regarding God, and God is telled in the Bible to have been angry, surprised and Abraham punished for that, then obviously that part of the story of Abraham is wrongly telled there or has been changed over the centuries. Why? Because it ignores clearly the character of God's allknowingness and of His creation of Ismaeel, like He creates all born life.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Taliesin you'd have a point, but if you have ever read the Bible seriously., you would know that isn't how God works. We have free will, while God has the ABILITY to see what we choose, we really have no clue what he does up there.

That's the old debate, about God's allknowlege and human's freewill. That mystery is only solvable when you assume that God is not part of human's timeline, and therefore sees all times at once, and by this gains allknowledge and still leaves human's freewill intact.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And again, proof that I am right? The people who eventually did settle is said land where decentness from Abraham and Sarah. Not Abraham and Hagar.

That is not the exact truth, God promised to the descendants of Abraham the land between the nile-river and the Euphrat-river, even according to your bible, and while the descendants of Isaac have settled in the north of that promised land, the descendants of Ismaeel have settled in the south of said promised land, which later became Arabia.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, that isn't what it means. The promises to the Jews still stands. He made his deal with them ages ago. Again, you fail to understand the Bible.

Zimphire, that's not just a question for the Bible, the message of Jesus and Moses and Abraham are as well part of the Quran and we highly regard them, and it should be clear that any promises made to jews was made on the basis that they were the only ones who believed in God and had a scripture from and a contract with God, but which changed with the arrival of the prophet Jesus and the prophet Muhammad.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nope, Not even Biblically related either. 400 years after God promised that land to his people, they got it. None of them were from Hagar's offspring.

Actually, like said above, the offspring of Hagar and Abraham settled in the south of the promised land, which is later to be called Arabia.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are basically projecting now. You have no clue what God wanted, or what he thought at the time, but since YOU think that is true, it has to be! Stop projecting.

We have simply to agree to disagree on that point, you, and I guess all christians think then that God is timebound, and not allknowing and can be surprised and has nothing to do with the creation of Ismaeel, while I think and the Quran confirms me on this, that God is allknowing, not timebound and has created Ismaeel, like He creates every baby, which He wouldn't have done if it was against his plan.
That's not projection, zimphire, that are theological differences between our two religions, if what you believe is representative for every christian.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The bloodline had to be "pure" in order for her to even conceive. It's in the Bible. Read it.

Interesting, pure bloodline, could you elaborate?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am speaking about a Messiah, that would come from him. That would be him. You know exaclty what I am talking about, and you are being dishonest now.

No, zimphire, I'm not dishonest, you are just too shortworded to express yourself, see I can't read minds, at least not over the internet, face to face I could easily read it from your bodylanguage or ask you right away what you exactly mean, but here, not so easy.

If you say God promised to Abraham one prophet, and then invokes Isaac, Ismaeel, Moses, David, Salomon, etc.. as prophets, then off course it surely contradicts your statement.

According to the Quran, God promised to Abraham that He would invoke prophets and messengers among his descendants, after Abraham explicitly asked Him for that, and God surely fulfilled that promise.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW God also promised there would be many FALSE prophets. One of the ways to tell who is false and who is not is by testing the spirit.

I guess you are thinking prophet Muhammad was a false prophet, don't you? That one is as old as the pope's propaganda that started the crusades centuries ago, and the late pope Paul II has officialy corrected that stance in the catholic church and acknowledged the legitimacy of the islamic religion as well as its prophet.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ask Mohammed if Jesus was the son of God and see what he would say.

It should be difficult to ask prophet Muhammad, considering that he has long ago died, but he surely would have said no, since God Himself said in the Quran that Jesus is a wonder to humanity, that He gave Jesus at times permission and power to commit wonders, but that Jesus was nonetheless not His son and just a prophet.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No no no you are being REALLY pretentious now. To think I have to abide by your personal net rules.

That are not my "rules", that is common internet language, the use of capital-writing beyond the first letter of a word means screaming, except off course for short-versions of longer words like UN.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am sure he wasn't in the Quran. Again YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR BIBLE. So quit trying to use it to "prove" your illogical reasonings.

Again, there is no need for screaming, zimphire, grow up. Your Bible? What do you mean by that?

Besides Abraham is being reported about numerous times in the Quran, thank you very much.

Illogical reasoning? How so?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL! And the Quran is? Yes, Abraham was punished. He didn't get to be in "his land" and because of his disobedience, the Bible said the two sides of his family will be at war with each other till the end of time.

Interesting interpretation there, but it's no more than human interpretation.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And guess who has been waring with each other ever since.

Hmm, let's see, the romans fought pretty much wars against everyone, China seemed to have led endless wars against itself before it became one China, Britain, France and Germany, Russia .. and also the ottoman empire seemed to have led numerous wars against each other, the christianized roman empire seemed to not have like the jews so much and even outrightly hated them so much as to scatter them in all winds, and jews were since then prosecuted in Europe since then sometimes more than in others and somewhere more than in others, and the jews were even expelled from Spain and were granted safe haven in islamic countries, and then it culminated in the genocide against jews by Hitler-Germany, what do you want to suggest here?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, we have free will. We choose what we want to do. God lets us. We are responsible for our own actions. You are being a pretentious jerk again.

Wow, I'm a jerk for trying to discuss topics that are part of both the Bible and the Quran, namely God, fate, prophets...

As to the free will, like said above, God creates every human and therefore also Ismaeel, so it obviously wasn't against His plan, otherwise He would have simply not created Ismaeel, it wouldn't have been that difficult for God.

Again like said above, that is a very old debate between human's freewill and God's allkowledge/fate, which is only solvable when we assume that God is not timebound, and that's exactly what the Quran hints at.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Then stop trying to use the Bible to pass off your beliefs as legit. Because you failed HORRIBLY at it, and embarrassed yourself in the process.

Like already said, I used merely one (!) biblical quote for my argumentation, and you failed horribly at it to discredit my argumentation.

Besides the story of Abraham, Isaac, Ismaeel... is not only part of the Bible but also part of the Quran.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, God said it would be taken from them eventually. And in the end, they would get it back. And a new temple would be built. Again, scripture.

It's obvious that idea is part of the very questionable messianic belief of orthodox jews, but those same orthodox jews are against zionism and the creation of Israel through nationalists because they hold the belief that only the messiah would restore Israel.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well you can believe that all you want to. But it's not backed by the Christian bible. From which you were trying to use to prove your point. Which you failed miserably..

Off course, everything changed with the message of Jesus. Before Jesus, Judaism was just restricted to the few tribes of Isaac's descendants, basically a tribe-religion, which developed the idea of the (only) chosen people... after Jesus Judaism became a universalistic religion, which offered finally forgivance for jews as well as gentiles... just like the islamic religion would be centuries after Jesus.

Besides the stories about Jesus, as well as Abraham, Moses.. I not only derive from the Bible, but espescially from the Quran, the islamic holy book, which incorporates the messages from most previous prophets.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

I don't have to read the bible to understand that it is typical human misunderstanding of God's nature and capabilities.

Nonesense, when you use Biblical scriptures to back up your OWN VIEWS on what happened, you better be sure you know what you are talking about. In this case, you did not.

Eventhough we humans have freewill, we can't surprise God becuase He is allknowing and not only concerning the present time, but also past and future, that is so because He is not part of the same timestructure He has created for us.

No one is saying that. Just like he created Adam and Eve, he had the ability to know what would happen. It happened anyhow. And they got punished for what they did.

Same concept. Such ideals are repeated time and time agian in the Bible.

Besides even more convincing, God is the one who creates all life, every born human is created by Him, and He has created Ismaeel.

More nonesense. The only person God choose to be born, or create was Jesus. Ismaeel was the choice of Sarah and Abraham.

If God really was against that, which He clearly wasn't, He wouldn't have created Ismaeel inside Hagar, don't you think?

He doesn't usually interfer with people's free will Talis for one. For another, you are speculating.

God was against Adam and Eve eating off the tree of knowledge, but they did anyhow. If he was against it, why did he let them? Free will.

If the Bible is telling the story of Abraham and Hagar as a story of disobedience regarding God, and God is telled in the Bible to have been angry, surprised and Abraham punished for that, then obviously that part of the story of Abraham is wrongly telled there or has been changed over the centuries.

In your opinion, and yes it does teach that. It also teaches that the two "sides" will be at war till the end of time. So far that has become true.

Why? Because it ignores clearly the character of God's allknowingness and of His creation of Ismaeel, like He creates all born life.

You are ignoring free will. Which God does not get in the middle of in most cases.

That's the old debate, about God's allknowlege and human's freewill. That mystery is only solvable when you assume that God is not part of human's timeline, and therefore sees all times at once, and by this gains allknowledge and still leaves human's freewill intact.

I never said God wasn't all knowing. You are arguing something I am not denying. Just because God is all knowing, doesn't mean we don't make our own mistakes, and he lets it happen

That is not the exact truth, God promised to the descendants of Abraham the land between the nile-river and the Euphrat-river, even according to your bible, and while the descendants of Isaac have settled in the north of that promised land, the descendants of Ismaeel have settled in the south of said promised land, which later became Arabia.

I don't care what you go on about what you believe to be true. That is besides the point. God also told Abraham as something else pointed out to circumcize all of his descendants. Guess which group that would be?

Zimphire, that's not just a question for the Bible, the message of Jesus and Moses and Abraham are as well part of the Quran and we highly regard them,

Yes, I know it takes bits and peices of the Bible that it wants, and leaves important parts like Jesus being the son of God out. If it's not a question for the Bible, it CERTAINLY not a question for the Quran.

and it should be clear that any promises made to jews was made on the basis that they were the only ones who believed in God and had a scripture from and a contract with God, but which changed with the arrival of the prophet Jesus and the prophet Muhammad.

No, that isn't why. It was Abraham's obedience up until that point. God was going to reward him for it.

Actually, like said above, the offspring of Hagar and Abraham settled in the south of the promised land, which is later to be called Arabia.

Which isn't the promise Land.

We have simply to agree to disagree on that point, you, and I guess all christians think then that God is timebound,

I never mentioned God being time bound.

and not allknowing and can be surprised and has nothing to do with the creation of Ismaeel, while I think and the Quran confirms me on this, that God is allknowing, not timebound and has created Ismaeel, like He creates every baby, which He wouldn't have done if it was against his plan.

Again, God didn't create Ismaeel Abraham did, and humans do lots of things against God's will daily.

That's not projection, zimphire, that are theological differences between our two religions, if what you believe is representative for every christian.

My only complaint with you was you using the Bible to prove your point. I don't care what you believe.

You tried to use Biblical scriptures from the Christian Bible to prove what you believe is true.

I've shown this to be wrong, that is obvious.

You can believe what you want to though.

Even though you've been proven wrong many times in here.

[Zimphire]

Posting this again because Tali seems to have missed it.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Actually, within the Çovenant is an identifier of the descendants;
Genesis 17;9-10; And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. You might know this was common in no other culture of the time. I might also remind you of your rebuke of me in adding and/or taking away words from Scripture. When I did this to the Quran you were quick to rebut me. I'd expect the same level of respect regarding the doctrine I read. Scripture does not say (all) descendants as you like to suggest regardless of whether or not you think it was "implied" to support your argument.

That said; what is it you hoped to accomplish by this post? What were we to be "educated" on and why? The question is; Can the Palestinian and the Israeli peacefully coexist? If not; why? Is it always the Israeli's fault or can not some of the blame also be placed on the Palestinian? If there are factions within each culture that will not allow peaceful coexistance, what is it we hope to accomplish?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't care what you go on about what you believe to be true. That is besides the point. God also told Abraham as something else pointed out to circumcize all of his descendants. Guess which group that would be?

Muslims and Jews but not Christians?

You tried to use Biblical scriptures from the Christian Bible to prove what you believe is true.

I've shown this to be wrong, that is obvious.

You can believe what you want to though.

Even though you've been proven wrong many times in here.

You haven't shown anything. You've stated your opinion. Your personal opinion isn't fact. It's just your personal opinion.

So until you stop the personal attacks and start using verses from the Bible to prove him wrong you are failing miserably at "proving him wrong".

[Macrobat]

Well, by Talliesin's own argument, the Jews have 100% as valid a claim to the land as the Palestinians, since he freely admits they were promised the land by God.

He makes the claim that the Palestinians have every bit as valid a claim, and I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say anything different.

The only ones claiming that anyone has no claim to the land and are there "illegally" are the Palestinians and their various apologists - including the self-same Talliesin.

Hoist on your own pitard, Tallie - can't have it both ways.

The Jews - as descendants of Abraham - have every bit as valid a claim to the land as the other descendants of Abraham - by your own words.

Seems the descendants of Ishmael are still being the petty children here, hmmm?

I guess their position is:

"My brother, the "prodigal son" returns home after many years abroad and - instead of offering him food and shelter, I choose to kill him and all his descendants."

Again - you CANNOT have it both ways. They are either BOTH descendants of Abraham -as you yourself contend and - as such have been PROMISED the land in question, or you're full of it and just got nailed for it.

[deomacius]

This is the verse I think that point blank says who the covenant is with...

Genesis 17:19-21_(New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

19Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. 20And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."

As for this argumentative thread, I say...

Mark 6:10-12_(New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

10Also He said to them, "In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place. 11And whoever[a] will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Muslims and Jews but not Christians?

One out of three aint bad.

You haven't shown anything. You've stated your opinion. Your personal opinion isn't fact. It's just your personal opinion.

You aren't paying attention. It's not my personal opinion what the Bible says. It says what it says.

So until you stop the personal attacks and start using verses from the Bible to prove him wrong you are failing miserably at "proving him wrong".

No von, you are being pretentious again.

We don't have to follow "von's rules of debating"

What I said is backed by scripture, and is right. So it doesn't matter if I quoted scripture or not. That is irrelevent. He quoted something out of context, to make it mean something he wanted it to mean, and failed miserably.

Like I said, if you don't believe me, that is fine, I don't care. But enough of this petty silliness and projecting your own rules onto others as if they matter.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deomacius:
This is the verse I think that point blank says who the covenant is with...


As for this argumentative thread, I say...

Thanks, maybe now I will be believed.

I don't have time to look up all that stuff at work.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by deomacius:
This is the verse I think that point blank says who the covenant is with...


As for this argumentative thread, I say...

Thanks.

If only Zimphire could have done that from the beginning he could have skipped all the personal attacks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Thanks.

If only Zimphire could have done that from the beginning he could have skipped all the personal attacks.

Nonsense. I didn't make anyone act like a jerk.

Tali didn't even ask for scripture, and was being a condescending jerk to me.

You were just being petty.

You never did apologize to me for this post.

Not that I expected you to...

[deomacius]

Do I have to come back there and seperate you two?

If anyone is interested (von)... it's just as easy to do a keyword search for, say, "Ishmael" and see what comes up at this site. Simply enter your keyword(s) and choose a translation.

Biblegateway.com

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Do I have to come back there and seperate you two?
If anyone is interested (von)... it's just as easy to do a keyword search for, say, "Ishmael" and see what comes up at this site. Simply enter your keyword(s) and choose a translation.
Biblegateway.com

I'm still actually waiting for an apology from Taliesin for bastardizing my Scripture. I thought 11 hours would be more than enough time, but apparently not. I gave him respect he's not capable of reciprocating. That's most unfortunate. He's said absolutely nothing to refute what I've said, I've posted the accurate history behind "Palestine".

The truth? The truth to me is Muhammed was nothing more than an uneducated and illiterate man with a goal of uniting various Arab tribes. Period. What was their biggest difference? Religion. How did he attempt to unite them? Monotheism. Nothing more. No higher calling from Allah that changed with the whim of an adulterer. My God is not subject to the natural and to your understanding. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. My God is not bound by time as you suggest, but has provided many paths for us to go by in accordance with our freewill. All things God will work for the good of those that love Him.

Before you pretend to be offended please remember you called my God nothing more than a prophet and a teacher saying in essence Jesus' claims to deity were nothing more than heretical, dishonest, and psychopathic. You've said this before and when I corrected you with various quotes from Scripture regarding Jesus' claims I was met with deafening silence. Why? Because you cannot refute Scripture. Now I'm being told by a Muslim how the Christian misunderstands scripture by someone who cannot grasp the most basic concepts of it. Why? Because you've been lied to since day one in my view. You have been blinded painfully and left with a god that has no fellowship with his creation. You've stated what you believe is and is not. I've corrected you and you've said nothing. The truth depends on where you're coming from. I'd appreciate it if you could avoid bastardizing my Scripture and my truth while you disagree. You've been corrected on your errors several times now Taliesin. With all due respect you've been left with absolutely nothing to say.

BTW Deomacius, excellent posts here!

[deomacius]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
BTW Deomacius, excellent posts here!

Thank you.

[Taliesin]

I don't have that much time per day to use for online-postings, so if I hadn't the time to respond to both, zimphire and you yesterday, and you feel neglected I'm sorry for that. But here is finally my reply to you, cheer up:

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Actually, within the Çovenant is an identifier of the descendants;
Genesis 17;9-10; And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. You might know this was common in no other culture of the time. I might also remind you of your rebuke of me in adding and/or taking away words from Scripture. When I did this to the Quran you were quick to rebut me. I'd expect the same level of respect regarding the doctrine I read. Scripture does not say (all) descendants as you like to suggest regardless of whether or not you think it was "implied" to support your argument.

When did I take away or add words to the Bible-quote, I once (!) used? It said clearly that God promised land between nile and euphrat to the descendants of Abraham, and since that verse was revealed or meant to have the context before Abraham got any children at all, be it Isaac or Ismaeel, it was only logical to assume that all descendants of Abraham are meant, which is true.

As to your argument of identification through circumcision, guess what, the arabs are also all circumcised, and Ismaeel, too, so another proof for my argument.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
That said; what is it you hoped to accomplish by this post? What were we to be "educated" on and why? The question is; Can the Palestinian and the Israeli peacefully coexist? If not; why? Is it always the Israeli's fault or can not some of the blame also be placed on the Palestinian? If there are factions within each culture that will not allow peaceful coexistance, what is it we hope to accomplish?

The goal of this thread is to reveal the myths and wrong arguments that zionists have gathered around their recreation of Israel, and there is a lot of that out there, and you obviously use a lot of them, too, as seen in your later posting up there. The myth for example of the deserted Palestine, full of unused land..., that Mark Twain for example has written about, which I have discredited in my first posting in this thread, and used for that reports from the second zionist-congress and from jewish sources like the russian poet and from a western article that thorughly debunked that myth.

The goal is to set things right about the history, so that we can truly understand the conflict and work towards a just peace.

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Do I have to come back there and seperate you two?

If anyone is interested (von)... it's just as easy to do a keyword search for, say, "Ishmael" and see what comes up at this site. Simply enter your keyword(s) and choose a translation.

Biblegateway.com

I'm done with him but he seems to be hooked on me for some reason.

And that's for that link. Never seen it before.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
But this is not generally an acceptable account of the history of strife between the Arab and the Jew and is subject to debate between those of different backgrounds. Truth is truth to you, truth is something else to someone else. The defeat of the Turk's Ottoman Empire aligned with the German ushered in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement mandated today's Jordan, Israel and West Bank to Great Britain in 1916. Knowing that the Jew had already begun massive immigration to "Palestine" in the 1880's in an effort to create a fertile homeland in what once was deemed by many as worthless due to swamps and malaria infestation as noted by Mark Twain who visited there in 1867, the British viewed the Jewish effort there as worthy of a National Homeland for them.

Exactly that wrong interpretation of history I want to debunk in this thread, and I have done, read the first posting and read the links I provided.

The myth of the deserted and mostly unpopulated and unworked land in Palestine is already debunked, you should really update your history on that account.

Another interesting notion I researched was that Britain made three contracts/promises regarding the likely to collapse ottoman-empire:
1. The Sykes-picot-agreement was meant to divide the ottoman-empire between Britain, France and Russia.
2. The agreement with the arabs, that rebelled against the ottoman-empire and fought against it with financing and equipment by Britain, promised to the arabs a unified (!) arabic nation, including all of Palestine.
3. The Balfour-declaration of 1917 promised to zionist to help in creating a national home in Palestine for jews.

The last one was made, and that is also already established fact, in the heat of ww1, in order to gain support from the jews against Germany/Austria, and espescially to gain the support of the american jews, so that the US enters ww1 on the side of the allies.

What is important to note, and which supports that analysis is the change of policy of Britain at the beginning of ww2 in 1939, shortly after the arabic rebellion in Palestine was squashed. At that time, Britain didn't need to pander anymore to jews, becuase Britain was sure that it would gain support from the jews for free, since Hitler presecuted jews in Germany and represents and anti-jewish ideology. Therefore Britain decided to instead support the arabs and restricted drastically the immigration of jews to Palestine. For Britain it was crucial to gain the arabic support, so that Germany wouldn't have achieve to gain a foothold in arabic countries, espescially in Palestine, which is/was a strategic asset.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
At no time was there any effort to eliminate the Arab from the area. In fact, with increasing fertilization of that land many Arabs from neigboring regions flocked there for employment opportunities and a better life and environment.

Again, the myth of the deserted and unworked land rises its ugly head, but it's already debunked, Palestine was long before any zionist arrived there known for its orange-exports to Europe, and for its manufacturing..
Sure, european knowledge and inventions and espescially capital-influx brought in to an area that was declining due to the economic problems of the ottoman empire through zionists have improved things a bit, and have led to a small new immigration of arabs, but it was only minimal. Before zionists chose Palestine for their project in 1881, there were about 500,000 arabs living there, which rose due to immigration and natural reproduction to 700,000 by 1917, while the jews were merely about 24,000 but rose due to immgration and reproduction to about 100,000 by 1917. Here is a quote that should shed some light:

From Roman to Ottoman Rule

About 61 B.C., Roman troops under Pompei invaded Judea and sacked Jerusalem in support of King Herod. Judea had become a client state of Rome. Initially it was ruled by the client Herodian dynasty. The land was divided into districts of Judea, Galilee, Peraea and a small trans-Jordanian section, each of which eventually came under direct Roman control. The Romans called the large central area of the land, which included Jerusalem, Judea. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, Judea, in the early years of Roman rule. Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. The Romans named the area Palaestina, at about this time. The name Palaestina, which became Palestine in English, is derived from Herodotus, who used the term Palaistine Syria to refer to the entire southern part of Syria, meaning "Philistine Syria." Most of the Jews who continued to practice their religion fled or were forcibly exiled from Palestine, eventually forming a second Jewish Diaspora. However, Jewish communities continued to exist in Galilee, the northernmost part of Palestine. Palestine was governed by the Roman Empire until the fourth century A.D. (300's) and then by the Byzantine Empire. In time, Christianity spread to most of Palestine. The population consisted of Jewish converts to Christianity and paganism, peoples imported by the Romans, and others who had probably inhabited Palestine continuously.
...

In 1798, Napoleon entered the land. The war with Napoleon and subsequent misadministration by Egyptian and Ottoman rulers, reduced the population of Palestine. Arabs and Jews fled to safer and more prosperous lands. Revolts by Palestinian Arabs against Egyptian and Ottoman rule at this time may have helped to catalyze Palestinian national feeling. Subsequent reorganization and opening of the Turkish Empire to foreigners restored some order. They also allowed the beginnings of Jewish settlement under various Zionist and proto-Zionist movements. Both Arab and Jewish population increased. By 1880, about 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine, out of a population of about 400,000. At about that time, the Ottoman government imposed severe restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchase. These were evaded in various ways by Jews seeking to colonize Palestine.
...

The Zionist movement became a formal organization in 1897 with the first Zionist congress in Basle, organized by Theodore Herzl. Herzl's grandfather was acquainted with the writings of Alcalay, and it is very probable that Herzl was influenced by them. The Zionists wished to establish a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine under Turkish or German rule. They were not concerned about the Arab population, which they ignored, or thought would agree to voluntary transfer to other Arab countries. In any case, they envisioned the population of Palestine by millions of European Jews who would soon form a decisive majority in the land. The Zionists established farm communities in Palestine at Petah Tikva, Zichron Jacob, Rishon Letzion and elsewhere. Later they established the new city of Tel Aviv, north of Jaffa. At the same time, Palestine's Arab population grew rapidly. By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at about 700,000. About 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 to 100,000 were Jews. (See population figures). Additional information about Zionism and British Zionism Click here for books about Zionism.

...

Britain and France planned to divide the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East among themselves after the war. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 called for part of Palestine to be under British rule, part to be placed under a joint Allied government, and for Syria and Lebanon to be given to the France. However, Britain also offered to back Arab demands for postwar independence from the Ottomans in return for Arab support for the Allies and seems to have promised the same territories to the Arabs. In 1916, Arabs led by T.E. Lawrence and backed by Sharif Husayn revolted against the Ottomans in the belief that Britain would help establish Arab independence in the Middle East. Lawrence's exploits and their importance in the war against Turkey were somewhat exaggerated by himself and by the enterprising publicist Lowell Thomas. The United States and other countries pressed for Arab self-determination. The Arabs, and many in the British government including Lawrence, believed that the Arabs had been short-changed by the British promise to give Syria to the French, and likewise by the promise of Palestine as a Jewish homeland. The Arabs claimed that Palestine was included in the area promised to them, but the British denied this.

Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In 1923, Britain then divided "Palestine" into two sects. They allotted territory West of the Jordan to the Jew, and East of the Jordan known then as Trans-Jordan to the Arabs.

Like already said between 1917 and 1939 Britain executed a very pro-zionism-policy in Palestine, actively helping in establishing a jewish homeland there, by organizing elections among the jewish congress/parliament, but at the same time not allowing elections for an arabic parliament, eventhough the arabic population asked for that explicitly, developing and financing jewish political institutions, basically a jewish proto-state, or a state inside the colonial state...

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Now, with homelands intact it's important to remember that there were still Arabs living peacefully among the Jews, however nationality (as it often does) began to get the best of them and with it rising tension. Tension in the form of terrorism. Notably; the Hebron massacres of 1929, then the Arab revolt from approximately 1936-1939.

Yes, along with the growing jewish nationalism, which was supported by Britain, and the driving outs of arabs by british forces from land that was bought by zionists from absent landlords, and ironically along with the growing of european-style education among the arabic population, the arabs finally developed a national consciousness, which was also tried to be exploited for anti-british- and antijewish propaganda by the not religiously educated or authorised Mufti Husseini.

But important to note is that the violence, in form of british driving outs of arabs and the political injustice started with the actions of Britain and zionists, the arabic rebellions and propaganda-induced massacre in Hebron was a primitive reaction to these.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Britain's interest turned to oil found throughout the Middle East and without dependance upon Britain for help, it became apparent to the Jew that they must fight of their own accord to maintain the territory they were given. I'd expect you and I to do the same. It should be noted however, that not all Arabs were of this nationalist mindset and wanted to continue among the Jew in peace and did. The rest however, created much unrest.

That is an irresponsible twisting of historic developments:
Britain changed its stance towards zionists in 1939, the beginning of ww2, when the support of arabs had to be gained, while the jewish support seemed to be a given, considering that Hitler-Germany presecuted jews and was in the hands of an anti-semitic ideology. It was a simple strategical gambling Britain did and it worked.

At least until ww2 ended, then the Haganah, Irgun turned against Britain and started its terror-campaign against british interests in Palestine but also abroad, read it up in my first posting in this thread, and read also the accompanying link I provided, which details the timeline of zionistic terror against british and arabic interests in Palestine and abroad.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Hagana was formed for the purpose of uniting in war against the aggressing Arabs which birthed the Irgun defense against Pro-Arab British and Britain relented control to the UN.

While Haganah was mostly of defensive nature between 1917 and 1945, Irgun and Lehi were surely not, and Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi's terror-campaign after ww2 was ended. Note, Irgun didn't start its terror-campaign against Britain until after ww2, but had a terror-campaign against arabs, Lehi, an offspring of Irgun concentrated mainly on terror against Britain, even during ww2, and even tried to allie itself with Hitler-Germany against Britain, read it up, in my first posting in this thread, and espescially the links.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In 1947, The UN then attempted to again divide the territory creating two Arab nation-states with the remainder of Palestine, but the Arab Palestinians declined. The Arab Palestinians wanted both sides of the Jordan. East and West.

No, that's not exact enough: Jordan already existed in 1947 east of the Jordan-river, what the UN partitioned was the east of the Jordan-river, and there about 52% of the land was supposed to go into jewish hands, eventhough jews only possessed 30% of the land.

Basically the european mights wanted to solve the problem with the surviving Holocaust-victims on the back of the arabs, who had nothing to do with the crimes of Europe. Why didn't the UN carve out a land in Germany to be used for a jewish state? That would have been fair, considering it was Germany that genocided jews.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
On May 14th, 1948 the Palestinian Jews proclaimed their territory as the State of Israel. On May 15th, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen invaded Israel. The Arabs still living in the newly deemed "Israel" were encouraged to leave to allow the invading Armies to wholly conquer and drive the Jew out of ALL of Palestine. It was promised to them that upon their return, after the Arabs had conquered all of Palestine, the Jew's territory and possessions would be given them. These Arabs were not driven out, they chose to leave in order to allow the armies to complete their task and as a result of the unrest of war in general. Heck, I wouldn't have stayed either.

That is another myth that is debunked, but that is a topic for volume II of my research that I will present in a week or two, if God wills. But just a small sneak-peek:

The 700,000 palestinians didn't leave voluntarily and also weren't called out by the arabic armies/states, quite to the contrary, the surrounding arabic countries called the palestinians to stay put, but they were violently uprooted by zionistic armies.

But that and other topics are stuff for volume II.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
After a brutal 19 months the war ended and the Israeli remained. It should be further noted that Arabs still live among the Israeli in peace and are known as Israeli-Arab citizens. The result of this war afforded the Arab Palestinian with approximately 85% of the territory originally known as Palestine. This was not enough.

That's again not true, Jordan was already established as a state before the arabic-Israel-war started and was separate from the British-controlled Palestine. The result of the war was the expansion of Israel from the 30% owned, and 52%-UN-granted land to the 78%-part of Palestine that then was was called Israel.

Another nice tidbit, that will be talked about in volume II is that the zionists made a secret deal with Jordan, the military strongest part of the arabic alliance and the leader of the arabic armies to not attack jewish areas and therefore gaining the right to conquer the Westbank. This is no joke or conspiracy-stuff, it is established history and fact, and the links for that will be presented in volume II. Another tidbit is that the jordanian army was led and commanded by a british general who stood under the order of London, this also no joke.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
There were still Jews owning a Nation State among them, regardless of how small that territory was. 4 more wars would occur and they're still fighting terrorism today.

Most of these wars and most of the terrorism was started and commited by Israel, but come on, continue..

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies conspired with plans of an invasion along Israel's apparently narrow and indefensible borders. This conspiracy was founded upon the ideal of eliminating the State of Israel. Israel thwarted the attack with a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. King Hussein of Jordan assumed Egypts airforce was intact and had begun his invasion from the West Bank and while Syria mounted it's front with intent to come southward into Northern Israel. Both, rather-all three failed at conquering Israel.

Wow, you mean a similar conspiracy that led Israel, Britain and France attack Egypt in the fifties, and again you note that Israel started the 67-war just like the ones in the fifties.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Despite the fact that Israel had won a war that was brought to them, not the other way around-they still find themselves having to defend what was rightfully their own???

Rightfully theirs? 30% of Palestine was rightfully owned by jews, though immigration from Europe doesn't deserve the right to found a nation inside another, but ok, let's ignore that and let's say for the sake of discussion the immigrants had the right to found a nation, then it still only grants them the 30% they owned, but ok, the UN granted 52%, let's not be too petty, but Israel conquered a further 26%, which makes it 78% and that additional 26% was not rightfully theirs, since its illegal to conquer land in wars after the UN declared that illegal.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
When territory is at war, and there is a victor-to that victor goes the spoils. This is not to be viewed as insensitive rather, as fact. We won our territory from Britain as well and no one is asking the U.S. to give it back. This just isn't the way it works.

That isn't the case anymore, my friend, since the UN delcared that no conquered land in wars is legitimised. It has to do with the notion of changed circumstances, through industrialisation and modern warfare and total wars... espescially learned in ww1 and ww2 that led to the prohibition of conquering land through wars, and also the prohibition of ethnic cleansing.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
However, The Israeli would in turn end up giving Egypt back to Egyptians in an olive-branch attempt at peace. eh, it kinda worked.

Egypt, back to egiptians, what the heck are you talking about? All, Israel ever gave back to Egypt was Sinai in 1978-1982. And that also only happened after Egypt showed its military strength in the 73-war, and the won insight in Israel that by giving back Sinai and accepting Egypt's peace-offer, the strongest adversial to Israel's zionism would be neutralised, which then gave Israel the option to start another war against Lebanon, which it then did.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Too true. I'm not sure it ever will which is why I questioned the intent of this thread.

Your wrong version of the history is the exact reason for this thread, namely the intent to correct that version which still many concsiously or not believe, eventhough it has already been debunked by researches of newly opened archives of Britain, Israel and the zionist world congress.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm still actually waiting for an apology from Taliesin for bastardizing my Scripture. I thought 11 hours would be more than enough time, but apparently not. I gave him respect he's not capable of reciprocating. That's most unfortunate. He's said absolutely nothing to refute what I've said, I've posted the accurate history behind "Palestine".

What the heck are you talking about, I quoted one (!) verse of the Bible, and concluded from it that God promised the land between nile and Euphrat to all descendants of Abraham, which is obviously true. So, where did I bastardize the Bible? And for what should I apologize, I really don't get it!

Your socalled "accurate history behind Palestine" has been debunked by newer researches and is full of myths.

Besides, can you imagine that some people aren't constantly on the net, and are living in different time-zones, you waited 11 hours+, congratulation, that was obviously too much for you, I use to wait at least two days before thinking that the other has stopped to respond.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The truth? The truth to me is Muhammed was nothing more than an uneducated and illiterate man with a goal of uniting various Arab tribes. Period. What was their biggest difference? Religion. How did he attempt to unite them? Monotheism. Nothing more. No higher calling from Allah that changed with the whim of an adulterer.

Why are you using the arabic term for God? Fortunately the truth is completely different, because if Muhammad would have just invented the Quran in order to unify the arabic tribes, he would have given in to the meccanic tribes offer to become king of all arabic tribes, with the condition that he allows polytheism. Muhammad rejected and Mecca declared war against him and his followers.

Besides, if Muhammad was just interested in arabic policy the Quran wouldn't have acknowledged the jewish religion and scripts, prophets, and he espescially wouldn't have said that christians as well as jews have the same opportunity to gain paradise as muslims, namely if they believe in God and commit good deeds.

Besides, as an illiterate Muhammad wouldn't have been capable to produce the arabic poetry that put even the best arabic poets at the time to shame, that the Quran sports.

Besides if Muhammad invented the Quran, it would have just reflected the knowledge of him and his arabic world, but instead it contains scientific descriptions of fetus-development, cosmology, geology... that far exceeded contemporary knowledge by centuries.

Besides if Muhammad invented the Quran, the Quran would have surely never criticized certain wrong-doings by Muhammad in such a way that it was painful for Muhammad such criticizing and him ebarrassing verses. (remind, no one is sinless even prophets aren't always).

Originally posted by ebuddy:
My God is not subject to the natural and to your understanding.

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. My God is not bound by time as you suggest,...

Hello? Do you even read my postings or are you just projecting, zimphire suggested that God was/is timebound, and I contradicted him on that idea.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
..but has provided many paths for us to go by in accordance with our freewill. All things God will work for the good of those that love Him.

Amen to that.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Before you pretend to be offended please remember you called my God nothing more than a prophet and a teacher saying in essence Jesus' claims to deity were nothing more than heretical, dishonest, and psychopathic.

Oh, no, that's not what I said, think, suggested or hinted at in any way, I said that Jesus is part also of the Quran and that he is a prophet and that Jesus is a wonder to humanity and basically the flesh-version of God's word, but that he is not God himself, and that Jesus never claimed to be. Yes, I know that the Bible has a few verses where he is quoted as saying he were the son of God, but it is questionable if he meant that literally or if he meant that in the sense that all humans are children of God, metaphorically speaken. On top of that I have questioned the capability of the Bible to correctly report what Jesus has really said, considering that the Bible was written by "inspired" people years/decades/centuries after Jesus' death.

Since I believe that the Quran is from God, and there is considerable evidence for that, and the Quran also deals about exactly that topic and in that God says directly that Jesus was not his son, but just one created wonder from Him... I reported about that. That's all, you are free to believe what you want, but Jesus is also a very important part of islamic religion and Quran as well as Moses and Abraham and therefore I have the right to talk about those prophets and report what the Quran says about them.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You've said this before and when I corrected you with various quotes from Scripture regarding Jesus' claims I was met with deafening silence. Why? Because you cannot refute Scripture.

No, I didn't continue because I had respect for your belief in the integrity of the Bible and didn't want to offend your sensibilities.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Now I'm being told by a Muslim how the Christian misunderstands scripture by someone who cannot grasp the most basic concepts of it. Why? Because you've been lied to since day one in my view. You have been blinded painfully and left with a god that has no fellowship with his creation. You've stated what you believe is and is not. I've corrected you and you've said nothing. The truth depends on where you're coming from. I'd appreciate it if you could avoid bastardizing my Scripture and my truth while you disagree. You've been corrected on your errors several times now Taliesin. With all due respect you've been left with absolutely nothing to say.

Actually you have made yourself speechless, since you obviously think you have a monopoly on the prophets Jesus, Abraham, Moses and co, but you are wrong, they are also a very important and integral part of Islam and the Quran, and when we have different interpretations and knowledge about them, then you have to accept and respect it. Muslim by the way just means someone devoted to God, and Islam is a universalistic religion that incorporates and concludes the messages of all previous prophets.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
I'm done with him but he seems to be hooked on me for some reason.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Exactly that wrong interpretation of history I want to debunk in this thread, and I have done, read the first posting and read the links I provided.

Just because it's not the way YOU see it, it doesn't make it wrong. And you haven't done a thing in here but "interpret" horribly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What the heck are you talking about, I quoted one (!) verse of the Bible, and concluded from it that God promised the land between nile and Euphrat to all descendants of Abraham,

Yes, you took one quote out of context, to make it say what you want it to.

which is obviously true.

After all this, if you still think that, you haven't been paying attention. At all.

I am not arguing what YOUR Bible says. I am talking about the Christian Bible. You have been shown time and time again in here that it DOES NOT SAY THAT.

It doesn't say it in the Old Testament, nor in the New. It doesn't say it in the Torah either.

So, where did I bastardize the Bible? And for what should I apologize, I really don't get it!

You tried to say it included all of Abraham's decentness. When it clearly did not. And it's clear you don't get it.

Your socalled "accurate history behind Palestine" has been debunked by newer researches and is full of myths.

More mistruths, nothing has been debunked in here about what he posted. You just posted YOUR interpretation.

I suggest you go back and read what we have posted.

There is no denying or "interpreting" what the Christian Bible says in this case.

And the Torah goes a long with it.

Guess which Bible out of the three doesn't.

And one of them has to be wrong.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by deomacius:
This is the verse I think that point blank says who the covenant is with...

Genesis 17:19-21_(New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

19Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. 20And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."

It is true to some extent, God made a covenant with the descendants of Isaac, so that the jewish religion became a tribe-religion at least until the new testament arrived which opened it up to the gentiles and Ismaeel's descendants were also not forgotten, when God invoked prophet Muhammad as a prophet and sent the Quran as God's message to arabs.

Besides the convenant is a spiritual contract between God and the descendants of Isaac, but the land, between nile and euphrat-river, which includes Israel as well as Arabia and parts of Egypt was promised to both lines of Abraham's descendants as shown in my only quote of the Bible, and which has been proven by how the fate/history has played out.


Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
Well, by Taliesin's own argument, the Jews have 100% as valid a claim to the land as the Palestinians, since he freely admits they were promised the land by God.

He makes the claim that the Palestinians have every bit as valid a claim, and I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say anything different.

The only ones claiming that anyone has no claim to the land and are there "illegally" are the Palestinians and their various apologists - including the self-same Talliesin.

Hoist on your own pitard, Tallie - can't have it both ways.

The Jews - as descendants of Abraham - have every bit as valid a claim to the land as the other descendants of Abraham - by your own words.

Seems the descendants of Ishmael are still being the petty children here, hmmm?

I guess their position is:

"My brother, the "prodigal son" returns home after many years abroad and - instead of offering him food and shelter, I choose to kill him and all his descendants."

Again - you CANNOT have it both ways. They are either BOTH descendants of Abraham -as you yourself contend and - as such have been PROMISED the land in question, (...potential for a personal attack)

Yes, exactly that's the point, the promised land was promised to all descendants of Abraham, yes, jews as well as christians as well as muslims, on the basis not only that they are descendants of Abraham but also that they are believers in the same God.

So that means that no muslim, and no jew and no christian has any more religious right to that land between nile and euphrat than the other.

That means that religious rights must be excluded in this arabic-israeli-conflict, since all are descendants of Abraham and believers in the same God, and that leaves us only secular rights, and those are on the side of the arabs, because they were the majority in that land for many centuries, and because zionism is a secular colonialistic european idea, which ignored the rights of the native population and still does today to a certain extent.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
It is true to some extent, God made a covenant with the descendants of Isaac, so that the jewish religion became a tribe-religion at least until the new testament arrived which opened it up to the gentiles and Ismaeel's descendants were also not forgotten, when God invoked prophet Muhammad as a prophet and sent the Quran as God's message to arabs.

And you can share that opinion all you want. I don't care. All I am saying is, only YOUR Bible shares that opinion. Not mine. So when you try to bring Christian text in to try to prove your opinion, it doesn't work.

Besides the convenant is a spiritual contract between God and the descendants of Isaac, but the land, between nile and euphrat-river, which includes Israel as well as Arabia and parts of Egypt was promised to both lines of Abraham's descendants as shown in my only quote of the Bible,

Taliesin how many times are we going to have to show you that the quote you used was taken out of context, therefore, does not mean what you claimed it meant before you start catching on? This is getting old real quick.

and which has been proven by how the fate/history has played out.

No, that doesn't prove anything. Heck, the point I made and the way history has played out shows that I was true.

BTW, look who is getting their land back now.

Just like the Bible said...

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And you can share that opinion all you want. I don't care. All I am saying is, only YOUR Bible shares that opinion. Not mine. So when you try to bring Christian text in to try to prove your opinion, it doesn't work.

Actually it's indeed your Quran (hey, if you are free to do it...) that shares the opinion and you were unable to show the mystical context you always talk about. It doesn't help if you are repeating that's out of context, you have to show the context.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Taliesin how many times are we going to have to show you that the quote you used was taken out of context, therefore, does not mean what you claimed it meant before you start catching on? This is getting old real quick.

It would help if you would show the supposed context just once (!), but you are obviously not capable to deliver, I have waited and I'm still waiting, comeon, if you are so sure, do it. E-buddy's argument with the circumscion is no indetificator as arabs as well as Ismaeel are/were also circumscised.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, that doesn't prove anything. Heck, the point I made and the way history has played out shows that I was true.

BTW, look who is getting their land back now.

Just like the Bible said...

Wow, as far as I remember accoring to orthodox jews only the messia would restore Israel, where is he? I surely haven't heard anything of him, and besides the land between nile and euphrat encompasses not only Israel but also Arabia, Jordan, part of Iraq, and other countries, and as far as I remember the majority of those is still populated by descendants of Ismaeel, so even the recreated Israel doesn't change much about the fact that God has fulfilled that promise of land to both descendants, those of Isaac and those of Ismaeel, just like your Quran said...

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually it's indeed your Quran (hey, if you are free to do it...) that shares the opinion and you were unable to show the mystical context you always talk about. It doesn't help if you are repeating that's out of context, you have to show the context.

Am I the only person in this forum Taliesin? Read others posts. If you do, you'd see other have shown scriptures showing you who God was talking about. And it's dead clear. No interpretation needed. Why do you keep ignoring those posts?

It would help if you would show the supposed context just once (!), but you are obviously not capable to deliver, I have waited and I'm still waiting, comeon, if you are so sure, do it. E-buddy's argument with the circumscion is no indetificator as arabs as well as Ismaeel are/were also circumscised.

That wasn't all of e-buddy's arguement, again go back and read. The Christian Bible does not, and I repeat does not share you views.

Wow, as far as I remember accoring to orthodox jews only the messia would restore Israel, where is he? I surely haven't heard anything of him, and besides the land between nile and euphrat encompasses not only Israel but also Arabia, Jordan, part of Iraq, and other countries, and as far as I remember the majority of those is still populated by descendants of Ismaeel, so even the recreated Israel doesn't change much about the fact that God has fulfilled that promise of land to both descendants, those of Isaac and those of Ismaeel, just like your Quran said...

Taliesin

No, my "Quran" doesn't say that.

I am beginning to think you are like a stone wall. Nothing gets in.

You've been smacked down in this thread so many times, it's not even funny.

Even your buddy that was attacking me has given up after proof was made.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nonesense, when you use Biblical scriptures to back up your OWN VIEWS on what happened, you better be sure you know what you are talking about. In this case, you did not.

You are still unable to prove otherwise, the message I quoted in the one biblical verse was clearly directed at Abraham, when he still did not have any children, and therein it promised the land between nile-river and euphrat-river to the descendants of Abraham, and there was made no condition to restrict that promise in any way. You said God didn't want that Abraham went on and produced a child with Hagar, which I clearly debunked, because God could have easily prevented that Hagar gets pregnant, considering that without God's explicit will no one gets ever pregnant and no fetus develops...

You were unable to discredit that argument and instead tried to interpret Abraham's exile as a punishment for that seemingly wrong-doing with Hagar... Rediculous on every account and step.

Ok, then you silenced for a while and ebuddy threw in the argument that there is a clear identification for who is Abraham's descendants or not, namely the circumscision, and you jumped on it happily as a solution to the topic, yet ignoring that Ismaeel as well as all arabs are as well circumscised.

Then deomacious brought in the notion that the convenant, a spiritual contract between God and jews, was made only with Isaac and his descendants, and by this unconsciously or not propagating the idea that therefore Ismaeel's descendants are excluded from prophethood, which is obviously a wrong idea, considering the new testament changed everything and made Judaism universalistic and considering that God indeed invoked prophet Muhammad among Ismaeel's descendants.

So either, the Bible is not as reliable as the Quran and is more an interpretation of the authors of the Bible, and due to numerous revisions and translations... prone to misinterpretations... or:

Then ebuddy tried to make the point that Muhammad, an illiterate, invented the Quran, that is full of highest art-poetry, and that promises paradise for every God-believer, which is as rediculous as it gets, and I have debunked that in my reply to him above.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No one is saying that. Just like he created Adam and Eve, he had the ability to know what would happen. It happened anyhow. And they got punished for what they did.

Yes, Adam and Eve had like every human and maybe jinns the free will and so the devil, who is either a fallen angel or a jinn, could seduce them to eat from the forbidden fruit, but do you really think that God didn't want that to happen or didn't know, you have to be a bit more analytical on that point: Off course He knew that Adam and Eve would eat from the forbidden fruit, it was his plan all along so that He could send us to eart and test our faith in Him and separate the truth from the lie.

Christianity, I have heard, holds the view of the original sin that gets inherited from parents to children etc, which means that every born child is sinful and would get to hell, if the child doesn't get baptised... that concept doesn't exist in Islam, because according to the Quran, God has forgiven Adam and Eve when they were living on earth, and made Adam to the first prophet. Therefore no original sin, no need for Jesus to die on the crux, everyone is only responsible for his own faith and deeds...

That one single difference about the original sin leads to a lot of other depending differences...

Regardless all that, the point though is that despite human free will only God decides who lives and who dies, and if God didn't want Ismaeel to exist He would surely have not used His will to make the pregnancy successful.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
More nonesense. The only person God choose to be born, or create was Jesus. Ismaeel was the choice of Sarah and Abraham.

No, the idea that humans can get children without the explicit will of God is nonesense, on every step of the process between the sperm and the women's womb, God uses His will to create life.

Jesus though was a wonder because he was an extraordinary wonder, which goes beyond the wonder of created babies, that we have grown accustomed to, becuase of its quantity, since Jesus was created without sperm, without sexual intercourse... and because Jesus was blessed with God's word in mind from birth on.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He doesn't usually interfer with people's free will Talis for one. For another, you are speculating.

Oh, no, Zimphi, I'm not speculating, I know for sure that without God's will no human would be born, and who gets born and when and who dies is all part of God's fate, that's what the Quran says about God, and it harmonises with God's allknowledge and outside-of-human's-timeline-existence. The free will has nothing to do with who comes to life or not.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
In your opinion, and yes it does teach that. It also teaches that the two "sides" will be at war till the end of time. So far that has become true.

I debunked already that idea by showing that the descendants war against each other much more than the descendants of Ismaeel do against them. As you obviously hasn't read that I will quote it for you:

Hmm, let's see, the romans fought pretty much wars against everyone, China seemed to have led endless wars against itself before it became one China, Britain, France and Germany, Russia .. and also the ottoman empire seemed to have led numerous wars against each other, the christianized roman empire seemed to not have like the jews so much and even outrightly hated them so much as to scatter them in all winds, and jews were since then prosecuted in Europe since then sometimes more than in others and somewhere more than in others, and the jews were even expelled from Spain and were granted safe haven in islamic countries, and then it culminated in the genocide against jews by Hitler-Germany, what do you want to suggest here?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Just because God is all knowing, doesn't mean we don't make our own mistakes, and he lets it happen

Good argument, the first good one from you, but then God would have worded his promise more carefully in order to explicitly say Abraham's and Sarah's descendants were meant with the promise, but He didn't which means again all descendants.

By the way, only according to your Quran or christian interpretation was the making Hagar pregnant a sin or a wrongdoing, but according to my Quran, Abraham did it with the knowledge and agreement of God, if not even according to His order.

What you tend to ignore is that Abraham and Sara were way too old to get children and normally wouldn't have, if not God's explicit will was at work to make it possible, both times, in the case of Hagar and Sara. So there you have it.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't care what you go on about what you believe to be true. That is besides the point. God also told Abraham as something else pointed out to circumcize all of his descendants. Guess which group that would be?

Both, my friend, the descendants of Ismaeel as well as those of Isaac are/were circumsized, I myself am circumcized.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, I know it takes bits and peices of the Bible that it wants, and leaves important parts like Jesus being the son of God out. If it's not a question for the Bible, it CERTAINLY not a question for the Quran.

That is no argument, sorry, but the Quran content deals with all previous prophets, Adam, Noah, Lot, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and numerous others, and therefore anything dealing with them is also a topic for muslims, you have no monopoly about them.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, that isn't why. It was Abraham's obedience up until that point. God was going to reward him for it.

If you really believe that then you don't know much about religion and God. The reward for any obedience is and was always in the after-life, whatever God did for the descendants of Abraham in this life was to make sure that God-believers and their scriptures and message survive in a sea of polytheism and have an opportunity to resist against the seductions of the devil.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Which isn't the promise Land.

Oh, yes it is, in that quote I provided, the promised land was between the nile and Euphrat and that definetly includes a lot of islamic countries including Arabia, on which Ismaeel and his descendants settled upon.

Just because jewish or christian theologians tend to restrict the notion of the promised land to the areas the descendants of Isaac settled on eventually, does not mean that we have to be that ignorant.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, God didn't create Ismaeel Abraham did, and humans do lots of things against God's will daily.

I don't believe you that that is a christian stance, I think christians as well as muslims and jews think that God creates every life constantly. Ebuddy, could you offer your opinion on that specialty?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My only complaint with you was you using the Bible to prove your point. I don't care what you believe.
You tried to use Biblical scriptures from the Christian Bible to prove what you believe is true.

Why do you have that complaint? The jews and christians believe in the Bible, so it's only natural to prove my point that the land was promised to all descendants of Abraham, which it was, by quoting a verse of the Bible. If you want to contest that, then offer a counterverse or a context that changes my argument...

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I've shown this to be wrong, that is obvious.

You can believe what you want to though.

Even though you've been proven wrong many times in here.

You've shown nothing, you have just cried foul that I use the Bible, and muttered about some strange context, but wouldn't offer the context.

Taliesin
P.S: Just to make sure, that noone thinks again I'm not responding because I don't want to, I want to state that I have to go now, see your responses tommorow, have fun.

[Macrobat]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Yes, exactly that's the point, the promised land was promised to all descendants of Abraham, yes, jews as well as christians as well as muslims, on the basis not only that they are descendants of Abraham but also that they are believers in the same God.

So that means that no muslim, and no jew and no christian has any more religious right to that land between nile and euphrat than the other.

That means that religious rights must be excluded in this arabic-israeli-conflict, since all are descendants of Abraham and believers in the same God, and that leaves us only secular rights, and those are on the side of the arabs, because they were the majority in that land for many centuries, and because zionism is a secular colonialistic european idea, which ignored the rights of the native population and still does today to a certain extent.

Taliesin

In other words, you bring up the religious arguments - on which this ENTIRE conflict revolves, then summarily discount them because they interfere with your altered presentation of history, which you now proclaim to be the "TRUTH."

Sorry, but it does NOT work that way.

This entire conflict is connected irrefutably and completely to religion. Specifically, the historic Muslim intolerance of other religions and the practitioners thereof, hence the entire concept of Dhimmitude, which is a complete subjigation of anyone unwilling to convert to Islam.

You just blew yourself out of the water on your Biblical argument (again)with this little gem:

19Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. 20And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."

It plainly states, in plain English, that God establishes His Covenant with Isaac and his descendants NOT Ishmael. Ishmael is specifically added (as an afterthought) when God says he won't forget him, but will make him a great nation BUT "My Covenant I will establish with ISAAC."

You make this too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel, with you bringing the ammunition AND the gun.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually it's indeed your Quran (hey, if you are free to do it...) that shares the opinion and you were unable to show the mystical context you always talk about. It doesn't help if you are repeating that's out of context, you have to show the context.

Again for clarity;Genesis; 19. Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22. When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.
If you don't like what the Bible says Taliesin, don't attempt to quote. Pretending not to see it doesn't work for me. It does not say ALL descendants. (yes I'm shouting because I still have yet to see an apology for the changing of what the Bible says. I offered you an apology when I did this to your Quran, I'd appreciate the same level of respect.) God has in effect said; "I've heard you Ishmael, but my covenant I'm not making with you." It can't be any clearer than it's worded above. You can say you disagree with the Bible, but then I'd appreciate it if you not try to use it to make your point. Especially in cases where you misuse it.

It would help if you would show the supposed context just once (!), but you are obviously not capable to deliver, I have waited and I'm still waiting, comeon, if you are so sure, do it. E-buddy's argument with the circumscion is no indetificator as arabs as well as Ismaeel are/were also circumscised.

It's been done now for the third time. I hope that will suffice even for you. Now, regarding circumcision, Abraham did as he was told and had Ishmael circumcised. Interesting prophecy in Genesis 16:12 given by an angel of the Lord to Hagar regarding Ishmael;
"You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. 12. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
Here the word "all" is clearly used to indicate "all".
Now, onward to Genesis 21 regarding Ishmael; Genesis 21:8-10; The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10. and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." It seems Mom may know best as usual. What does Sarah say? Sarah says Ishmael (whether circumcised or not I'll grant you) will NEVER share in the inheritance with her son Isaac. The inheritance? The Covenant!

Onward to Genesis 21: 11-12; The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12. But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.
That should pretty much cinch up any further calls for context Taliesin. Now, again; you can say the Bible is wrong and that is fine in accordance with our differences in belief, but to say my Faith's doctrine says what you claim it says is just plain wrong.

Wow, as far as I remember accoring to orthodox jews only the messia would restore Israel, where is he?

Funny you should ask. What will you do when you see Him?

I surely haven't heard anything of him

Interesting how blindness can often impede our ability to hear as well in this.

, and besides the land between nile and euphrat encompasses not only Israel but also Arabia, Jordan, part of Iraq, and other countries, and as far as I remember the majority of those is still populated by descendants of Ismaeel, so even the recreated Israel doesn't change much about the fact that God has fulfilled that promise of land to both descendants, those of Isaac and those of Ismaeel, just like your Quran said...

Ishmael's time has come and gone and with it the prophecy that God told regarding Ishmael; "his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." Seems very fitting in my view. You have only to count the numbers of those Arabs who live and worship in Israel with the number of Jews living and worshipping among Palestinians. Does it not occur to you that Jews cannot peacefully live among Muslims outside of Israel? Why is this? Can the Palestinian live peacefully even among other Arabs? I find this interesting as well and pretty much illustrates the prophecy as succinctly as any prophecy I've read.

[Macrobat]

The source for his new historical "truth" that was researched so thoroughly is probably this guy:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1111980180248

After all, he's researched this supposed tsunami thouroughly, as well.

[Zimphire]

Taliesin hear that?

It's the sound of you getting smacked down yet again in your own thread.

You cannot deny what ebuddy posted.

There is no "interpreting" no need to. It's plain as day.

The Christian Bible, nor the Jewish Bible support your claims.

They never did, and they never will.

Now matter how much you deny, and cry foul.

I have a feeling you'll still come back claiming no one has proven otherwise though.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
It's been done now for the third time. I hope that will suffice even for you.

I know man... I am honestly hoping he didn't see them. A part of me wants to believe that.

Because I don't know how one could read that, and still say otherwise and expect to be taken seriously.

[von Wrangell]

The Jewish Bible?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
The Jewish Bible?

Yes, for example the Torah.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
In other words, you bring up the religious arguments - on which this ENTIRE conflict revolves, then summarily discount them because they interfere with your altered presentation of history, which you now proclaim to be the "TRUTH."

Sorry, but it does NOT work that way.

You seem to be very confused, in my first posting in this thread I haven't touched religious arguments at all, and I also didn't alter history, I merely updated the history that many people have in their minds, because it has been updated by western, jewish, even zionistic historians, who had the delight to research newly opened archives of Britain, Israel and the zionist worldcongress. If you can't contest those researches I linked to in my first posting, then you have no reason and justification to accuse me of altering history.

Go, read the links and my first posting, you will see that it is nearly completely unbiased and informative.

As to the religious arguments, they came up when someone above posted a picture, which basically reduced the conflict to a jewish/muslim-discussion and I then went on to claim that muslims/arabs and jews are both believers in the same God and both descendants of Abraham and that the land between the nile-river and the euphrat-river, the socalled promised land was for both lines of Abraham's descendants, which is true as seen in how history played out, as not only Israel, but also Arabia, and other nowadays arabic/islamic countries were/are part of that promised land.

Therefore I concluded that both jews/christians and arabs/muslims have the same religious right to that promised land, which nullifies them against each other, so that only secular rights remain. It's not that difficult.

To show that argument in full I could have quoted the Quran, which is the direct word of God, which deals as well with Abraham and which is much more correct than the witness-reports that were collected and written down by numerous inspired "persons" years, decades, centuries after the fact, which then got called Bible, old testament or Thora. We in Islam have something similar, a witnessreport of prophet Muhammad's doings and sayings, which we call "Hadiths", which were also collected and written down years, decades, centuries after the fact by numerous persons, and we know therefore how much more unreliable and incorrect those are compared to the direct word of God that is the Quran.

The Quran is basically the equivalent of the created prophet Jesus, Jesus is the flesh-version of God's direct word, while the Quran is the written version of God's direct word.

But if I would have just quoted the Quran, you would simply ignore it completely, and therefore I chose to quote directly from the english version of the Bible, and it definetly proved my point, though most here tend to deny that.

Originally posted by Macrobat:
This entire conflict is connected irrefutably and completely to religion. Specifically, the historic Muslim intolerance of other religions and the practitioners thereof, hence the entire concept of Dhimmitude, which is a complete subjigation of anyone unwilling to convert to Islam.

Ignorance is nothing to be proud off, zionism is and was a very secular project, which just uses religious aspects to further their goals where mere secular power/money can't further it. Orthodox jews outrightly reject zionism and remind you that only the messia would have the right to restore Israel.

And what you say about dhimmitude is wrong. The special tax that the christians and jews had to pay was a generous way for them to keep their religious autonomy among their own communities, as they are people of the book, and the Quran called to not convert them and to respect them. I'm sure, that muslims haven't always respected jews and christians and have developed some form of superiority-idea, but that is only natural, as noone is sinless and it was still way better for jews in islamic countries than it was for them in most christian countries.

Besides, the tax they had to pay was syombolical and pretty low and they didn't have to pay the other taxes muslims had to pay and didn't have to participate in the islamic army.

So, while propagandists on both sides are playing the religion-card, there is no real basis for it, because the promises by God are/were directed at both.

Originally posted by Macrobat:
You just blew yourself out of the water on your Biblical argument (again)with this little gem:



It plainly states, in plain English, that God establishes His Covenant with Isaac and his descendants NOT Ishmael. Ishmael is specifically added (as an afterthought) when God says he won't forget him, but will make him a great nation BUT "My Covenant I will establish with ISAAC."

You make this too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel, with you bringing the ammunition AND the gun.

No, you might think that the argument with the convenant proves anything, but it doesn't, convenant is a religious and spiritual contract between God and his believers/servants, but the promised land is something different, namely a secular promise, material nonspiritual promise with no restriction regarding the descendants of Abraham, which has been already proven by history, as the promised land was between nile- and euphrat-river and included Arabia and other areas, which the descendants of Ismaeel settled upon.

Regarding the spiritual and religious contract I will deal with in my reply to ebuddy and maybe also to zimphire further down.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
If you don't like what the Bible says Taliesin, don't attempt to quote. Pretending not to see it doesn't work for me. It does not say ALL descendants. (yes I'm shouting because I still have yet to see an apology for the changing of what the Bible says. I offered you an apology when I did this to your Quran, I'd appreciate the same level of respect.) God has in effect said; "I've heard you Ishmael, but my covenant I'm not making with you." It can't be any clearer than it's worded above. You can say you disagree with the Bible, but then I'd appreciate it if you not try to use it to make your point. Especially in cases where you misuse it.

That argument doesn't hold even as much or long as a candle in a hurricane:

The convenant was made with Isaac because he was the son of a free woman, while Ismaeel was the son of the maiden of Abraham and Sara, and therefore God decided to split Ismaeel's descendants from Isaac's descendants because otherwise there would have been numerous problems regarding who would lead the people of Abraham after he died, and because the people didn't accept to follow the son of a slave. It was a wise decision, and more important just because God didn't make the convenant at that phase of time with Ismaeel, doesn't mean that he would never do. One convenant with Isaac doesn't mean that the other side wouldn't get their convenant, be it with Ismaeel later on, or with one of his descendants.

Besides, convenant is a spiritual contract which is separate from the secular, materialistic promised land, between nile and euphrat.


Ok, now that you were so free to quote parts of the Bible that seem to favour your interpretation I will quote the same and others with its contextes that will show my interpretation is correct. Don't get me wrong, I still think the Bible is just a witness-report collected and written down by numerous "inspired" humans way after the fact, and prone to misinterpretations and even outright manipulation of facts, just like the islamic "Hadith"-collection is, but for the sake of the discussion here I will ignore that handicap of the Bible. Ok, let's get it on:

Genesis, 21:8-21:
8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."

11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring [b] will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."

14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she [c] began to sob.

17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.

20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. 21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.

So, there you have it, because Ismaeel was the son of a slave and Sara had finally her own child, there came up distress, because sons of slaves were not very liked among the jews back then, and in order to solve the situation, God told Abraham that he shouldn't be worried, he should let got Hagar and Ismaeel, and God promised he would make him and his descendants also into a nation. Also, meaning just like he will make Isaac and his descendants to a nation.

And now we come finally to the real context of your argument:

Genesis 17:1-27:
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty [a] ; walk before me and be blameless. 2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."

3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram [b] ; your name will be Abraham, [c] for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" 18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day. 27 And every male in Abraham's household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.

There you have it, doesn't sound so convincingly anymore, don't you think?

Ismaeel as well as Abraham were circumsised on the same day as a sign for the convenant that was between them and God, the convenant and nation-making are combined in the first verse, and God promised near the end of that quote that he would turn Ismaeel and his descendants also into a nation. But it also said that God would also establish the convenant with Isaac, which can only mean that they would have to split up, which they did, obviously in order to solve a problem the jews had with a son of a slave and in order to prevent stress about leadership.

And now this interesting tidbit about Ismaeel and his descendants:

Genesis 25:12-18:

12 This is the account of Abraham's son Ishmael, whom Sarah's maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham.



13 These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. 16 These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps. 17 Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people. 18 His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward [c] all their brothers.

There you have it, the promised land was like we all know the land between nile and euphrat, and Ishmael settled upon near the border of Egypt, which means inside the promised land.

Interesting is the last sentence which you ebuddy seem to interpret so much hate into: "And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers", it has a "c" as a footnote, and the footnote reads:
"Or lived east of".

Which shows further how prone biblical scriptures, but also quranic scriptures are to mistakes made when translating. It could as well read: And they lived east of their brothers.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com


"That should pretty much cinch up any further calls for context", ebuddy.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Now, again; you can say the Bible is wrong and that is fine in accordance with our differences in belief, but to say my Faith's doctrine says what you claim it says is just plain wrong.

The Bible is indeed wrong in a lot details, but that is to be expected from witness-reports collected and written down years, decades, centuries after the fact, and I have shown above how a small translation-mistake can change the content drastically.. therefore I'm lucky I have the Quran as a further source to check the Bible against.
But note that in this debunk of your argument I have sticked clearly to the Bible, despite my reservations and it still proved my interpretation:
That Ismaeel was sent away and not made to the heir of the convenant among the jews simply because the jews wouldn't have accepted a son of a slave as their leader, and therefore God chose to split up, but never forgot Ismaeel and turned him and his descendant also to a nation living in the same promised land, namely between nile and euphrat, and Muhammad brought/refreshed the convenant to the arabs centuries later, while Jesus opened up Judaism to gentiles and turned the religion into a universalistic one, just like Muhammad would do after him for the arabs. Qed.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Ishmael's time has come and gone and with it the prophecy that God told regarding Ishmael; "his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." Seems very fitting in my view. You have only to count the numbers of those Arabs who live and worship in Israel with the number of Jews living and worshipping among Palestinians. Does it not occur to you that Jews cannot peacefully live among Muslims outside of Israel? Why is this? Can the Palestinian live peacefully even among other Arabs? I find this interesting as well and pretty much illustrates the prophecy as succinctly as any prophecy I've read.

Like shown above your supposed prophecy of living in hostility towards all their brothers, could as well read "lives east toward all their brothers".

What is more important is that history has shown that christians have lived more in aggression towards others and themselves, remember the crusades, the 30-year-civil-war, the presecution of jews and the genocide on jews, that I find it highly strange that you still stick to your wrong idea.

Taliesin
P.S.: Now, zimphire, what sound did this smackdown make?
See your responses, tommorrow, if God will.

[Zimphire]

Oh Taliesin you still got smacked down time and time again.

You are still in denial.

BTW about the Bible being wrong on a lot of details. PURE BASELESS ACCUSATIONS.

You spun and spun and tried your best.

But the facts are still the same. No matter how hard you try, the Bible still says what it says.

And it goes against what you are trying to say.

Don't like it? I don't know what to tell you.

I see you are in denial, and no amount of proof is going to change your mind.

You are deluded.

You haven't proven anything. You are still taking things out of context, and giving them meanings that are just not there.

I don't know if you really believe what you are typing, or if you are just trying to save face.

Either way, you just embarrassed yourself horribly in this thread, and lost any credibility you might have had about know the Christian Bible, and the messages in it.

You say the Bible is wrong on a lot of details, but cannot prove it. What you mean is the Bible doesn't correspond with the way you see things, so it MUST be wrong!

Which is a fistfull of silliness.

You offered no proof, but opinion. You didn't prove anything. But got smacked down time and time again.

You have no clue.

As far as what REALLY happened, no one a live right now really knows. And we aren't arguing that.

What we are busting you on, is your claim that the Christian Bible supports your assertions.

Something you have yet to prove, something you've been smacked down on over and over again in here on.

You are just desperately attempting to save face after the brutal beating you just received from ebuddy.

[Macrobat]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You seem to be very confused, in my first posting in this thread I haven't touched religious arguments at all, and I also didn't alter history, I merely updated the history that many people have in their minds, because it has been updated by western, jewish, even zionistic historians, who had the delight to research newly opened archives of Britain, Israel and the zionist worldcongress. If you can't contest those researches I linked to in my first posting, then you have no reason and justification to accuse me of altering history.

Go, read the links and my first posting, you will see that it is nearly completely unbiased and informative.

As to the religious arguments, they came up when someone above posted a picture, which basically reduced the conflict to a jewish/muslim-discussion and I then went on to claim that muslims/arabs and jews are both believers in the same God and both descendants of Abraham and that the land between the nile-river and the euphrat-river, the socalled promised land was for both lines of Abraham's descendants, which is true as seen in how history played out, as not only Israel, but also Arabia, and other nowadays arabic/islamic countries were/are part of that promised land.

Therefore I concluded that both jews/christians and arabs/muslims have the same religious right to that promised land, which nullifies them against each other, so that only secular rights remain. It's not that difficult.

To show that argument in full I could have quoted the Quran, which is the direct word of God, which deals as well with Abraham and which is much more correct than the witness-reports that were collected and written down by numerous inspired "persons" years, decades, centuries after the fact, which then got called Bible, old testament or Thora. We in Islam have something similar, a witnessreport of prophet Muhammad's doings and sayings, which we call "Hadiths", which were also collected and written down years, decades, centuries after the fact by numerous persons, and we know therefore how much more unreliable and incorrect those are compared to the direct word of God that is the Quran.

The Quran is basically the equivalent of the created prophet Jesus, Jesus is the flesh-version of God's direct word, while the Quran is the written version of God's direct word.

But if I would have just quoted the Quran, you would simply ignore it completely, and therefore I chose to quote directly from the english version of the Bible, and it definetly proved my point, though most here tend to deny that.



Ignorance is nothing to be proud off, zionism is and was a very secular project, which just uses religious aspects to further their goals where mere secular power/money can't further it. Orthodox jews outrightly reject zionism and remind you that only the messia would have the right to restore Israel.

And what you say about dhimmitude is wrong. The special tax that the christians and jews had to pay was a generous way for them to keep their religious autonomy among their own communities, as they are people of the book, and the Quran called to not convert them and to respect them. I'm sure, that muslims haven't always respected jews and christians and have developed some form of superiority-idea, but that is only natural, as noone is sinless and it was still way better for jews in islamic countries than it was for them in most christian countries.

Besides, the tax they had to pay was syombolical and pretty low and they didn't have to pay the other taxes muslims had to pay and didn't have to participate in the islamic army.

So, while propagandists on both sides are playing the religion-card, there is no real basis for it, because the promises by God are/were directed at both.




No, you might think that the argument with the convenant proves anything, but it doesn't, convenant is a religious and spiritual contract between God and his believers/servants, but the promised land is something different, namely a secular promise, material nonspiritual promise with no restriction regarding the descendants of Abraham, which has been already proven by history, as the promised land was between nile- and euphrat-river and included Arabia and other areas, which the descendants of Ismaeel settled upon.

Regarding the spiritual and religious contract I will deal with in my reply to ebuddy and maybe also to zimphire further down.

Taliesin

No one is confused here, but you. I never said your argument was based solely on the religious differences, I merely said YOU were the one who brought them up.

Unfortunately for you, you cannot arbitrarily subtract the religious arguments from the conflict, since they are the very CRUX of the situation to start with - sorry, you don't get to tell people what they can and cannot believe.

The "religious arguments" came up as soon as the entire concept of a free and independent State of Israel became a realistic possibility. This is historical fact, and you can try to deny it all you want.

You can keep repeating the same drivel that's been pimpslapped as long as you'd like - but you are the only one believing it at this point.

You make a categorical denial that God's Covenant was solely with Isaac and his descendants, then supply the very scripture that proves you are as wrong as the day is long. Had God meant the Covenant to include ALL of Abraham's descendants - He never would have singled Ishmael out by name - as an afterthought, THEN said "[b]BUT it is with Isaac I make my Covenant."

Sorry if reading comprehension wasn't high on your school's list of priorities, but you lost that one long ago. Continuing to post the same argument that has been debunked, disproven and moved past only makes you look more and more pathetic.

BTW, Hagar was NEVER Abraham's wife, she was maidservant to his wife and Abraham's concubine - which means Ishmael was an illegitimate son, which is why she and he was "turned out" into the desert by Sarah in the first place. God felt the boy held no guilt in the matter, although Abraham did, so He chose to bless his descendants as well, but they were NEVER a part of the Covenant. No matter how many times you attempt to make them so.

Thanks for playing, though.

And you haven't made an "unbiased and informative" post in your entire life - I can't stop laughing.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
That argument doesn't hold even as much or long as a candle in a hurricane:
The convenant was made with Isaac because he was the son of a free woman, while Ismaeel was the son of the maiden of Abraham and Sara, and therefore God decided to split Ismaeel's descendants from Isaac's descendants because otherwise there would have been numerous problems regarding who would lead the people of Abraham after he died,

Dude, where are you getting this from??? In fact, it's noted that all the slaves and servants were to be included in the circumcision as a sign of the Covenant. Even they were included. Ishmael was blessed to be sure, but not with the blessings afforded the descendants of Isaac in the Covenant. I can understand why you refuse to see it, but now you are acting on foolish pride alone with no factual basis for your view. Not using the Bible anyway.

and because the people didn't accept to follow the son of a slave. It was a wise decision, and more important just because God didn't make the convenant at that phase of time with Ismaeel, doesn't mean that he would never do.

Yeah, it does. We were talking about the Covenant God made to the descendants of Abraham, clearly isolating Ishmael not in the Covenant we were discussing. Just because God made good on a promise to Ishmael doesn't mean it's the Covenant afforded to the descendants of Abraham. Ishmael was clearly isolated for a blessing, not "The Covenant".

One convenant with Isaac doesn't mean that the other side wouldn't get their convenant, be it with Ismaeel later on, or with one of his descendants.

At least I can see a line of reasoning in this, but it smells more like a re-direct or even a back-tracking. So, are we talking about a Covenant with a family for the building of many nations or the Blessing to Ishmael of one nation? i.e. You're determining what a Covenant is based on...???

The Covenant he made with Isaac.

Correction; the Covenant he made to Abraham via Sarah through the descendants of Isaac. Ishmael he blessed, Abraham via Sarah through Isaac he made and honored Covenant. There's clearly a difference. You not only misunderstand Scripture in trying to quote it for whatever reason, you also sadly misinterpret the culture of the time and the treatment of slaves, and the virtual adoption of them into their families. The name of Ishmael is "the Lord hears" and the text of the Bible (which you even copy-pasted and still try to ignore) clearly states that the Lord hears him and will make of him one nation. The Covenant to Isaac's descendants was "many nations." When it says that "through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned" Reckoned means; 1. To count or compute and 2. To consider as being; regard as.

Besides, convenant is a spiritual contract which is separate from the secular, materialistic promised land, between nile and euphrat.

Correct though, backwards. A Covenant was made with a people for a land. A blessing was bestowed upon Ishmael and Ishmael was clearly isolated with a unique blessing as not being reckoned along Isaac's offspring in accordance with the actual Covenant that was made. You can suggest that there were many Covenants and that Ishmael was to be included somehow, but you can't use the Bible in making that argument. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to see.

Ok, now that you were so free to quote parts of the Bible that seem to favour your interpretation I will quote the same and others with its contextes that will show my interpretation is correct.

This is my favorite part Taliesin seriously, I don't know how you could copy-paste the very information that establishes how correct you are, isolate with bold font, and still not get it. Proof to me of blindness and an illustration of how desceptive this blindness can be when left unchecked.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the Bible is just a witness-report collected and written down by numerous "inspired" humans way after the fact, and prone to misinterpretations and even outright manipulation of facts,

You're welcome to site examples of these misinterpretations, you wouldn't be the first one I've offered this challenge to and met resulting in absolute silence. Your pride will give you sight, but it will be the sight of a bumblebee, convoluted, confounded, and dizzying. What then of the Quran whose God changes with the whim of an adulterer in using a bastardized version of the supposed "heresy" you're calling the text you've hijacked below?

just like the islamic "Hadith"-collection is, but for the sake of the discussion here I will ignore that handicap of the Bible. Ok, let's get it on:

It was a bastardization of this "handicap" your entire faith was built in trying to unite various tribes of Arabs. By all means; let's get it on...

Originally posted by God; Genesis, 21:8-21:
8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."
11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."
14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.
15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she [c] began to sob.
17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."
19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.
20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. 21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.

Taliesin; So, there you have it, because Ismaeel was the son of a slave and Sara had finally her own child, there came up distress, because sons of slaves were not very liked among the jews back then,

I read nothing in the above passage about how slaves were not very well liked then. Nice try. I recall reading "there came up distress" because Ishmael was mocking Isaac at the feast. Sarah witnessed this and claimed that the maidservant (Hagar) and her son (Ishmael) would never receive the inheritance and to cast them away.

and in order to solve the situation, God told Abraham that he shouldn't be worried, he should let got Hagar and Ismaeel, and God promised he would make him and his descendants also into a nation. Also, meaning just like he will make Isaac and his descendants to a nation.

"just like he will make Isaac and his descendants to a nation"??? Why the separation? Why the isolation of kin? Why the clarification? "just like" nothing. Ishmael was given a blessing, the descendants of Isaac were given a Covenant. So, there you have reading comprehension problems?

By Taliesin; And now we come finally to the real context of your argument:

Originally posted by God; All of Genesis 17; 1-27

I appreciate you having dug a little deeper on this one. You're reading the Word, this is good. I pray along with the Word, comes wisdom for you my friend. I'm being serious about this. I could've thought of no better way to immerse you in the Holy Scriptures.

There you have it, doesn't sound so convincingly anymore, don't you think?

After having read your copy-paste of Genesis 17;1-27, I've not been more convinced of the truth at any other point throughout this entire discussion. I thank you for this.

Ismaeel as well as Abraham were circumsised on the same day as a sign for the convenant that was between them and God, the convenant and nation-making are combined in the first verse, and God promised near the end of that quote that he would turn Ismaeel and his descendants also into a nation.

Why the isolation? Because Abraham was mandated by God to have all males under his care including servants and slaves to be circumcised. He did as he was told. Ishmael was isolated because he is not to be contrued as being part of the Covenant. He established his place by mocking the "reckoned" heir of the promise and as such was removed from the home with his mother.

But it also said that God would also establish the convenant with Isaac,

It said no such thing. It said that Isaac was the "reckoned" heir of the Covenant. It was clearly his descendants that were blessed by the Covenant. Ishmael was isolated with blessing. There's a difference. They lived among one another until the weaning feast when Ishmael mocked the true heir. In turn, he was ostracised from the family and isolated with a blessing as being a descendant of Abrahams, but not a "reckoned" descendant.

which can only mean that they would have to split up, which they did, obviously in order to solve a problem the jews had with a son of a slave and in order to prevent stress about leadership.

This is pure conjecture and is not supported by the Scripture you've copy-pasted nor is it founded with any understanding of the culture of the time. Slaves were never to be slaves for life. They would not have been considered slaves after having been freed in accordance with Law.

And now this interesting tidbit about Ismaeel and his descendants:

Yes, an interesting tidbit highlighed within is the statement that they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. and continue to, to this day. The Covenant has not yet been fulfilled in it's fullness. You understand the marriage between the OT and the NT in context of Revelations and find a "quickening" of sorts to that end. This would not be the first evidence of fulfilled prophecy in Scripture. That is the crux of the argument. Arabs believe they too are heirs of Israel, but they are not. The reasons why are as clear and precise as they possibly can be. It's a fundamental difference that will have brothers at odds for a lifetime, just as the prophecy of God to Abraham regarding Ishmael stated; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

There you have it, the promised land was like we all know the land between nile and euphrat, and Ishmael settled upon near the border of Egypt, which means inside the promised land.

Yes, indeed, but not to be construed as eternity nor part of the promise or Covenant.

Interesting is the last sentence which you ebuddy seem to interpret so much hate into: "And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers", it has a "c" as a footnote, and the footnote reads:
"Or lived east of".

You even post the footnote and still don't get it. You don't find "or lived east of" the least bit ironic Taliesin? East of what? I'm not interpreting hate into anything. You want me to hate you so you can hate me, but the truth is I hate the act of bastardizing my Scripture when we've already established an understanding not to do this with one another. Anytime someone used Quran quotes out of context illustrating Islamic hate and imperialism, I've been known to pipe up and say things like this act makes me cringe. Don't believe me? Visit the last thread regarding Islam; the religion of hate. You, on the other hand have shown severe disrespect for me, and worse when called to task for taking my Scripture out of context, make no apology as I had given you. Surely, this is not in accordance with your scripture.

Which shows further how prone biblical scriptures, but also quranic scriptures are to mistakes made when translating. It could as well read: And they lived east of their brothers.

Mistranslations are for the blinded. A true scholar aspires to understand the original Hebrew text for clearer understanding. This includes Arabic in the NT. Those footnotes exist for educational purpose. The only ones rampant with "mistranslations" are those that are spoon-fed Scripture with no desire of learning on their own accord. This is generally an effort to thrust an agenda, is viewed as such, and the mistranslations are not the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God. This would not constitute the first time God has been used for man's will as opposed to allowing God to fulfill His will among men. This, Islam and Christianity have in common, Scriptures they do not.

"That should pretty much cinch up any further calls for context", ebuddy.

I never called for context Taliesin. I am satisfied however, that you have been made aware of the Word and as such, have endeavored to read it on your own. The points you present have only served to affirm mine in this and with this, I pray wisdom comes to you as well. If it be God's will that it should.

The Bible is indeed wrong in a lot details,

Yet, ironically it was a bastardization of this "heresy" that begat the faith you practice.

but that is to be expected from witness-reports collected and written down years, decades, centuries after the fact, and I have shown above how a small translation-mistake can change the content drastically.. therefore I'm lucky I have the Quran as a further source to check the Bible against.

And yet to further illustrate irony, I'm reminded of your prior statment; "how prone biblical scriptures, but also quranic scriptures are to mistakes made when translating." You claim to check one mistaken text with another. How confounding this must be for you.

But note that in this debunk of your argument I have sticked clearly to the Bible, despite my reservations and it still proved my interpretation:

You have stuck clearly only to your misinterpretation of alleged misinterpretations Taliesin, only illustrating confusion and pride run amuck.

That Ismaeel was sent away and not made to the heir of the convenant among the jews simply because the jews wouldn't have accepted a son of a slave as their leader, and therefore God chose to split up, but never forgot Ismaeel

Correction; "heard Ishmael" in accordance with the prophecy designed in his very name. Clearly Ishmael was isolated away from the Covenant as not being a descendant of Isaac. Proved time and again within the context you called for and even provided for the benefit of affirming my point.

and turned him and his descendant also to a nation living in the same promised land, namely between nile and euphrat, and Muhammad brought/refreshed the convenant to the arabs centuries later, while Jesus opened up Judaism to gentiles and turned the religion into a universalistic one, just like Muhammad would do after him for the arabs.

Correction; not "just like" rather there were many differences between Muhammad and Jesus. Namely in the way they conducted their lives. You shall know a man by his fruits. What are the fruits of Muhammad?

What is more important is that history has shown that christians have lived more in aggression towards others and themselves, remember the crusades, the 30-year-civil-war, the presecution of jews and the genocide on jews, that I find it highly strange that you still stick to your wrong idea.

Exactly what "genocide on Jews" are you referring to here Taliesin? While it is true that I am somewhat ashamed of how my God has been used for man's will, it is not an indictment of Christianity, but of human nature. Am I to judge the fruits of Islam by the Middle East in constant toil against one another in living in a region of eternal strife? I would hope not as this would illustrate more than xenophobia, but extreme intolerance.

Taliesin
P.S.: Now, zimphire, what sound did this smackdown make?
See your responses, tommorrow, if God will.

Please read this statement out loud Taliesin;

Proverbs 1:7; "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
But fools despise wisdom and instruction."

I'd say it sounds just like that.

[Macrobat]

Not to mention that the Crusades came about as a reaction to aggrression committed by Muhammadans in order to "protect the Holy Land." (including the invasion of say - Iberia?)

Even the Spanish Inquisition, with all its atrocities, despite being attributed to the Catholic Church, was the action of King Philip of Spain, wholy unsanctioned by Pope Pius VI. As a matter of fact, the European monarchs of the day had made the Papacy worth virtually nothing, as it was THEY who appointed clergy and bishops, not Rome.

So, trying to lump Christians into one group does not work.

The Pope called upon Catholics to protect the Holy Land only AFTER the Muslims began their war of conquest in the Arabian Peninsula and the Murqaba.

[eklipse]

Some questions I hope someone can answer:

Why was the Covenant established with Isaac? (What was the logic behind the choice?)

Why was Ishmael excluded?

Why, in Genesis 17, does God appear to switch tones? i.e. He first says: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you." - which seems quite indiscriminate, referring non-specifically to Abraham's descendants (which would include Ishmael) - then proceed to single out Isaac with: "But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." - which is somewhat of a contradiction (at least in my view).

It almost seems as if the specifics about Isaac and Ishmael were added as an afterthought - which is an odd thing for a supreme being to do, isn't it?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Some questions I hope someone can answer:

Why was the Covenant established with Isaac? (What was the logic behind the choice?)

Why was Ishmael excluded?

Why, in Genesis 17, does God appear to switch tones? i.e. He first says: "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you." - which seems quite indiscriminate, referring non-specifically to Abraham's descendants (which would include Ishmael) - then proceed to single out Isaac with: "But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." - which is somewhat of a contradiction (at least in my view).

It almost seems as if the specifics about Isaac and Ishmael were added as an afterthought - which is an odd thing for a supreme being to do, isn't it?

I'll take a stab, but believe me I'm no Bible scholar. God wanted Abraham to do exactly one thing. Trust him and have a child with Sarah. Abraham didn't wait and had a child with Hagar. Now God couldn't exactly say "Abraham you're going to screw up, so I'll spell out exactly how this is going to work now". Once the problem arose, God addressed it. Someone else may want to elaborate a bit, but that's how I see it. I'm open to corrections.

[Macrobat]

Absolutely correct.

Isaac was intended to receive the Covenant all along, God even told Abraham what to name the boy before he was born.

Abraham screwed up, he didn't exactly sin, but he made the all-to-common mistake of thinking that he knew more than God. (ie. that Sarah was too old and unable to bear children) so, at Sarah's urging, he slept with Hagar and produced Ishmael. God was not pleased with Abraham's action, but He saw no sin in the boy, himself, and decided to bless him as well as fulfill His Covenant with Isaac and his descendants.

So you see, Ishmael was added a blessing after the fact. He was never a party top the Covenant, which was established with Isaac before birth.

[Zimphire]

And you can argue till your blue in the face about if he did or did not actually receive it.

But the Christian Bible, and the Torah doesn't support your assertions Taliesin.

But if you wish you can continue to beat the dead horse, and really embarrass yourself.