[vmarks]

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.

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.

You need to explain the decrease in Christian population in Nazareth and Bethlehem when you start asserting that Christians and Muslims co-exist peacefully.

You need to explain away the outrage from the Christian Arab population of Bethlehem expressed when Muslim terrorists holed up in Church there, turning Church into a warzone.

You need to explain away the outrage of the family of a Christian Arab who was shot by Muslim terrorists, whose best apology was that they were sorry, they meant to kill a Jew. Then you need to explain away the outrage they felt because Arafat declared the murdered Christian a martyr who would go to Heaven, when a decade or so before, Arafat had declared the killing of the murdered's grandfather just, because he was a Christian.

You need to explain away that as Christian Arabs are leaving Palestinian Authority controlled areas, that the Christian Arab population in Israel proper is growing.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Arab Christians are made to feel unwelcome, or worse, in the Muslim countries of the Middle East. In the period 1995 – 2003 Israel’s Arab Christian population grew from 101,400 to 115,700, a growth rate of 14.1 percent. To put this in perspective, the US population in that period grew by just 11.8 percent.

It couldn't have anything to do with the sentiments expressed by Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR who said in 1998 that "... Islam [should be] the only accepted religion on earth." Because that would obviously exclude Christians, who you tell us get along lovely with Muslims.

[ebuddy]

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?)

It was established with Isaac in accordance with God's prophecy to Abraham. Abraham was told he'd have a child borne to him from Sarah. Abraham and Sarah both thought this was laughable. Isaac means, 'to laugh'. Sarah was barren and old and didn't think this was possible.

Why was Ishmael excluded?

It's debateable whether he was excluded or never included. The moment of separation is clear at two points however. The first one was when Hagar became pregnant, she began to loathe her mistress. (Sarah) The second time was when Ishmael was mocking Isaac at the feast of his weaning. The prophecy however, was given Abraham prior that a son would be born to him through Sarah. The difference is illustrated again in Galatians when it says that Isaac was a miracle birth, a child given to Sarah while barren. Ishmael was a natural birth with a handmaiden. The miracle birth in accordance with God's promise of multiplication, descendants of, and eventually the Covenant.

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)

Yes, in fact Abraham even mentioned this in Genesis 17:17; 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!"
In context, it wasn't as if God had changed his mind. Abraham asked God what of Ishmael and God answered; 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.
He establishes a Covenant with a man in somewhat disbelief. A miracle birth from Sarah was the answer and an affirmation of faith. His faith would be tested by God soon thereafter. It worked.
God blessed Sarah, a barren woman, with the ability to carry a child. Isaac. This is affirmation of faith and a sign of a Covenant by God, often preceded by a miracle. Had Abraham immediately believed God, I'm not sure the affirmation would've been necessary.

- 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."

Actually, he singled out Ishmael after Abraham asked him about Ishmael. God said; "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." Hardly anything to be bitter about. God did not change his mind. God told Abraham he'd have a son through Sarah. Abraham didn't believe God and laughed at the prospect. God followed through with the promise and fulfilled His part of the Covenant with a miracle.

- which is somewhat of a contradiction (at least in my view).

Your view is based on Scripture clippings out of context and you're missing the continuity of the statement. You did not provide nor read the verses in their entirety. To read with a presupposition is rarely productive. It leads to deception. You want it to be a contradiction, therefore it is.

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?

You make this "odd" assertion on clippings and snippets of Scripture out of context. Had God not told Abraham he'd have a son from his barren wife, I'd be inclined to agree. Knowing how God works and how Covenants are fulfilled, often borne of a miracle, it does not surprise me that the Covenant was profound in that it accompanied and required a miracle. Was God happy about Abraham's lack of faith at that point? I'd say not. He asked him to sacrifice this same boy in Genesis 22. God tested Abraham's faith and Abraham succeeded the test. Establishing that what God had done in Abraham's life in fact, affirmed and strengthened Abraham's faith.

[Zimphire]

And I think it's about time to lay this thread to rest.

The Bible doesn't support Tali's assertions, nor does the Torah.

That has been proved thus far.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Your view is based on Scripture clippings out of context and you're missing the continuity of the statement. You did not provide nor read the verses in their entirety. To read with a presupposition is rarely productive. It leads to deception. You want it to be a contradiction, therefore it is.

Actually, the discussion in this thread intrigued me enough to look up the relevant passages on the 'biblegateway' website and to read them in their entirety with some sort of fuller context. I even went so far as to compare the different versions of the same passages available on the website to see if there was any significant deviation in the interpretations. However, my reading didn't answer my questions and that's why I posted them here.

Unfortunately, I still find the verses a little muddled and confusing despite your explanations - but, that may well be down to me not dedicating enough time to a more complete study.


Nonetheless, many thanks to you and the others who took the time to reply.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
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.

If you would have paid attention, you would have realized that the one who brought up the religious argument was the one who posted the picture, I think it was MacManMikeOSX. The picture he posted reduced the conflict to a JudaismvsIslam-conflict.
Then I made the statement that no one has any religious rights over the other, because God promised the land between nile and euphrat to all descendants of Abraham, which I have proved by quoting the Bible, because this is a forum mostly trafficed by christians or at least people that know the Bible, and because the (secular)zionists also use the Bible as a further justification.

So by showing that the land between nile and euphrat was promised to all descendants of Abraham, and because the arabs are descendants of Ismaeel and jews are descendants of Isaac, and parts of the christians are descendants of Abraham, no one of these groups has any religious right over the other, and that therefore we can safely concentrate on secular rights.

That people in the region, muslims as well as jews are using religious arguments doesn't detract from that analysis, and just shows that no side is able to accept the rights of the other side. In order to help in making peace it's necessary though to make both sides clear that the other side has the same religious right to the land.
I know it's confusing.

Originally posted by Macrobat:
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.

No, historical fact is that zionism was a highly secular idea, which developed itself after anti-semitism came up in Europe, which used the "scientific" racial classification as a justification to refresh the old anti-Judaism with a secular ideology... which flared up in Easterneurope and Russia and culminated in Germany in the genocide.

All the while the orthodox jews were against the secular zionism, as they held the belief that only the messiah should/would restore Israel. The orthodox jews change their opinion only after the genocide against jews by Germany was committed and the refuggee-problem in Europe called for a quick fix, but it didn't take long until orthodox jews again changed back their opinion back to the previous one.

Originally posted by Macrobat:
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.
...
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.

You don't have to be childish, this is a discussion-forum, I discuss the topic here and have used as far only western, jewish and biblical sources. If you can contest that, fine, but there is no need for lowblows.

Originally posted by Macrobat:
[B]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 "BUT it is with Isaac I make my Covenant."

The topic is more complex than you have thought, for example the "convenant" is not identical with the question we research namely the "promised land", and another thing to note is that only because Isaac (his descendants have written the Bible) was promised a covenant, doesn't mean that Ismaeel wouldn't get one or one of his descendants. In my reply to ebuddy I will deal with that and more, and you will see that I'm right.

Originally posted by Macrobat:
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.

You are partly right, and I have never denied that, according to the Bible Hagar was not a wife of Abraham and Ismaeel was the son of a free man and a slave, but that isn't the point.

Originally posted by Macrobat:
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.

You will see in my reply to ebuddy that it is a wrong interpretation by you.

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

I will forgive your ignorance.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Tali your powers of denial truly amaze me.

You are even to the point of being condescending, and you are the one that keeps getting smacked down in here.

I don't know if it's a self defense mechanize acting act because you are insecure, or it's that you are really truly that self deluded.

Said passages do not need interpretation. They are as plain as day as to what they say.

The only person that is "Interpreting" it horribly wrong is you.

I've never met someone so wrong, and see them still try to stand by what they think.

[von Wrangell]

Looked in the mirror lately Zimph?

edited to add:

Since this has turned into a religious debate(even if religion has nothing to do with it) I'm wondering one thing.

What makes the Biblical "version" more right than the Islamic "version" when it comes to deciding who has more right to the area in question?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Looked in the mirror lately Zimph?

von, care to show where I have done that at?

Just post a link.

I usually don't act so dead sure about something unless I KNOW I know what I am talking about.

In this case I do. So does ebuddy.

You can however do a search and find many occasions where I have been wrong, admitted it, and apologized.

It's almost like Tali KNOWS he is wrong, but just wont admit it out of stubbornness and foolish pride.

At least I am HOPING that is what it is.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:

What makes the Biblical "version" more right than the Islamic "version" when it comes to deciding who has more right to the area in question?

See von, I don't think anyone is arguing that.

No one can say either way because no one knows for a fact.

I stated many times that I wasn't arguing with Tali about that. That he could debate about because it's up in the air.

However, he cannot say that the Bible supports his assertions. Because it does not. And that IS factual.

It's called picking your battles.

Tali can say "I believe the Islamic version is correct" and no one could really argue with that. Because it's what he believes, and it's up to debate.

Now when he says the same thing about the Bible saying that, well that is a different story. Because that can be proven or disprove. As it's quite clear on the story.

Talis can't use the "Well that is what I believe, and I think your belief is wrong" when it's black and white. Plain as day that it does not say that. Even you saw that and backed down a bit. And gained some credibility in the process.

People don't realize that you don't gain credibility from being or trying to be right 24/7. That isn't possible.

You gain credibility when you can admit to being wrong when you are wrong.

People tend to believe what you have to say a bit more.

[von Wrangell]

I backed down a bit? When did I do that?

This whole "debate" started with someone posting that ignorant image. I haven't seen you or your fellows jump on him for painting this conflict in that way, but I've seen you and your fellow attack Taliesin(in varying degrees) for responding to that image.

Why didn't you jump on the one who posted that picture?

edit to add:

You said this:

Because it's what he believes, and it's up to debate.

But when you say something about the Bible it's not up for debate. Does that mean that the Quran is up for debate but not the Bible?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You need to explain the decrease in Christian population in Nazareth and Bethlehem when you start asserting that Christians and Muslims co-exist peacefully.

You need to explain away the outrage from the Christian Arab population of Bethlehem expressed when Muslim terrorists holed up in Church there, turning Church into a warzone.

You need to explain away the outrage of the family of a Christian Arab who was shot by Muslim terrorists, whose best apology was that they were sorry, they meant to kill a Jew. Then you need to explain away the outrage they felt because Arafat declared the murdered Christian a martyr who would go to Heaven, when a decade or so before, Arafat had declared the killing of the murdered's grandfather just, because he was a Christian.

You need to explain away that as Christian Arabs are leaving Palestinian Authority controlled areas, that the Christian Arab population in Israel proper is growing.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Arab Christians are made to feel unwelcome, or worse, in the Muslim countries of the Middle East. In the period 1995 – 2003 Israel’s Arab Christian population grew from 101,400 to 115,700, a growth rate of 14.1 percent. To put this in perspective, the US population in that period grew by just 11.8 percent.

It couldn't have anything to do with the sentiments expressed by Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR who said in 1998 that "... Islam [should be] the only accepted religion on earth." Because that would obviously exclude Christians, who you tell us get along lovely with Muslims.

One word explains all that.

War.

Try to figure the rest out on your own.

And then try to answer my question(prolly in another thread) about what is wrong with Omar Achmed's comment.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
I backed down a bit? When did I do that?

Nothing I said of course. When ebuddy posted scriptures and proved what I said was true.

You never said either way (Even though you did try to say I didn't know what I was talking about, then denied it)

After he posted the scriptures, you backed off trying to tell me or him that we didn't know what we were talking about. (Obviously we did)

This whole "debate" started with someone posting that ignorant image.

Which image would that be? If you are talking about the one Macrobat posted, then ok. If you are talking about the "End occupation" one. There is nothing ignorant about it. It's not dishonest.

but I've seen you and your fellow attack Taliesin(in varying degrees) for responding to that image.

You confuse us telling him the truth with an attack. He said he had smacked down that pick many times, and it was disproven. Whatever that means. When in fact, he had not.
Telling him he had not is not an attack.

Why didn't you jump on the one who posted that picture?

Why should I?

edit to add:

You said this:

Because it's what he believes, and it's up to debate.

But when you say something about the Bible it's not up for debate. Does that mean that the Quran is up for debate but not the Bible?

No, that means the Quran says one thing, and the Bible says another.

Arguing about which is right, is up to debate.

Arguing about what each of them say in the matter, when both are crystal clear on the subject is not up to debate.


See the Quran says he was part of it. In the Bible, and books based on it says otherwise.

Tali is trying to say the Bible goes along with his and the Quran's beliefs. Even after we proved that it did not.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

You are contradicting yourself there, dude, as the circumscision was meant as the sign for the convenant, and yes it included all servants as well as all descendants of Abraham, including Ismaeel, so they were all part of the convenant.

Pride is not the motivation here, it's clearly written in the Bible. While I don't regard the Bible to be a correct witnessreport in every aspect, as much as the Hadith-collection in Islam isn't, when it comes to the topic at hand namely "promised land" it confirms me, and I will prove it to you.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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".

Yes, Isaac was isolated in that verse for the convenant, but fact is that Ismaeel was already included in the convenant as well as Abraham before Isaac was born, hence the circumscision. So what can we draw from that seemingly contradiction: Obviously Ismaeel and Abraham were part of the convenant, but God planned to split up Ismaael and Isaac in order to minimise internal problems and in order to populate the promised land between nile and euphrat.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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...???

Not me is determing what a convenant is but God even according to the Bible. Read the quotes I posted, and you will see that God promised to Abraham that he would make Abraham fruitable, that he will give him as many descendants as stars are in the sky, methaphorically speaken, and to make numerous nations out of him. For what goal? In order to create nations that would believe in God, and God has fulfilled that promise, look at the world half of the population or more believes in God, be they christians, jews or muslims.
God, according to the Bible then made the circumsiscion to be the sign for the convenant, and Ismaeel and Abraham got circumscised on the same day and then Isaac from Sara would be born and God called Abraham that he would establish the convenant with the "free" Isaac, and that he shouldn't be worried about Ismaeel, that God would take care of him and turn him as well into nations.

But what does that mean, that Abraham shouldn't be worried about Ismaeel? Obviously two things, the secular, materialistic promise that he would turn Ismaeel into nations inside the promised land, and the spiritual promise that God would see to it that Ismaeel doesn't get seduced by the devil and gets his reward in the after-life by letting him into paradise.

Combine that with the notion that God promised that Abraham's descendants would form nations, that would believe in God... that means then obviously that there would be two convenants, which are really the same, just divided geographically. That the Bible doesn't offer the explicit promise that Ismaeel would establish another convenant of his own is understandable, because the Bible is directed at the descendants of Isaac, and written by them, and therefore don't need what would become of Ismaeel and his descendants.

But when God could calm Abraham's (secular as well as religious)worries about him and the circumscion as the sign for the convenant should have been enough hints.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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....???

Now we are making progress: The convenant was already made with Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born, and this I have shown by quoting the Bible on that aspect. The sign for the convenant was the circumscision, and Abraham and Ismaeel were circumscised. Then a verse said that God stated that he would establish the convenant with Isaac.
The reason for this should be clear, Isaac was a free child, both parents were free, and the jews would likely follow him than Ismaeel, because Ismaeel had a slave as mother. So God called for the split up and sent out Ismaeel into another part of the same promised land, and told Abraham not to worry, which means that God will look to it that Ismaeel will be guided too, according to the convenant he made with Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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

Funny that you talk of blindness.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

Interesting, that you resort to personal attacks. But I'm accustomed to that on this board, always happening when the insulter has no arguments left. I will forgive you, though.

As to the misinterpretations, you are the best example regarding your interpretation of the story of Abraham, Isaac and Ismaeel.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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?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...

Oh, nice, another lowblow regarding God, prophet Muhammad and God's word in the Quran, eventhough I have already debunked your ignorant prejudices regarding Islam in this thread as well as in others.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

Yes, it's not explicity stated there, but it can be read between the line and it's also confirmed by the comments by modern christians here in this thread that dismiss Ismaeel because he was the son of a slave, and if modern christians think so, then it's obvious that ancient jews would think so much more.

As to the story of the mocking, since when is "mocking" a justification to expell someone and his mother to the desert. The incident (again I'm arguing from within the biblical scriptures, according to Quran, the story was another one, but let's ignore that) was just a weak justification for Sara to solve a problem Ismaeel could pose to Isaac's leadership and to strenghten Isaac's position. This is understandable and God knew that would happen, as it was His plan all along. Therefore God told Abraham not to worry about Ismaeel and that He would take care about him in every respect... which proves again my point.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
"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?

It's really easy, God's plan was along to separate Abraham's descendants in order to populate the promised land so that nations get founded that are all in the convenant of God with all descendants of Abraham, as signalled with the circumscision. The descendants of Isaac have written/gotten the Bible and so it's natural that they would just like the jews at ancient times favour Isaac in its characterisation of him and explain the departure of Ismaeel, who was not accepted as the son of a slave, with the "mockery"-story.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

Other than you I have no problem in delving into scriptures of other religions. Besides God's message that is part of the evangelium is also part of the Quran, like the ten commands of Moses, and the forgiving-concept of Jesus, as well as the monotheism-message of Abraham...

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

No, it's not conjencture, it's common sense, and if you read the comments here about Ismaeel you would realise that the situation in ancient times was even more problematic for sons of slaves, if freed or not. Equally important is that there would be two desendants of Abraham having legitimate claim to leadership and that would have led to stress and argues among the jews, therefore split up was necessary and useful for God's plan to populate the promised land with numerous nations that would all be part of God's covenant.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yes, an interesting tidbit highlighed within is the statement that they lived in hostility toward all their brothers. and continue to, to this day.

Even when that special translation is right and not the version that translated as "lived east of", then it would be nothing bad, as the brothers that Ismaeel would have lived in hostility towards would be the polytheistic egyptians west of Ismaeel. If Isaac had settled near Egypt, the Bible would as well have described him as living in hostility towards Egypt, because the convenant was always in hostility towards polytheism or rather polytheism was always hostile towards monotheism.

Ismaeel's mother was an egyptian as well as Ismaeel's wife, therefore the Bible called the egyptians Ismaeel's brothers. A nice tidbit though is that Abraham came from Egypt, too.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The Covenant has not yet been fulfilled in it's fullness.

The convenant is nothing that can be fulfilled, it's a spiritual contract between God-believers and God. Before Jesus and Muhammad came, the convenant was limited to Isaac's and Ismaeel's descendants, but then religion became universalistic and the convenant opened up to all humans ready to accept God's word.

Attention, this is pure speculation:
So, what does that mean in the context that the Bible has promised the convenant would last a thousand generations with the descendants of Isaac or even forever as stated in another verse. Like already said the convenant is a contract that would hold as long as both sides keep true to the promises. Obviously God's promises are always held, He doesn't change in that regard, so the descendants of Isaac must have committed something that has led to the quitting of the contract. For that speculation, one can regard the destruction of the Temple, the division between Israel and Jud�a, the enslavement of the jews in Egypt... as supporting hints, but that's total conjecture.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Arabs believe they too are heirs of Israel, but they are not.

No, arabs believe they are heirs of Abraham and Ismaeel, not the heirs of Israel, which the descendants of Isaac would eventually become later on.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.".

You do realize that the socalled hostility was between Ismaeel's God-believing tribe and the polytheistic Egypt, don't you? As to your socalled illusion regarding the prophecies, why was it then that the descendants of Isaac were much more hostile towards other parts of Isaac's descendants than the descendants of Ismaeel ever were? Christians were much more hostile towards jews than muslims were ever!

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yes, indeed, but not to be construed as eternity nor part of the promise or Covenant.

Nonesense, history has proofed to the contrary, the descendants of Ismaeel have lived since then in the promised land and they got their prophet and God's word with prophet Muhammad and the Quran.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

No, I have not taken quotes out of context, ok at first yes, but then I have provided the whole context, and the conclusion I drawed at the start is the same even with the whole context.

You want me to apologise for quoting the Bible? That's rediculous and shows how desperate you are.

Besides you are making the case that you had stand up for Islam and the Quran in other threads, but yet you have made quite clear in this thread that you think that Quran and Islam is a heresy and prophet Muhammad a faker.. That doesn't quite fit together.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yet, ironically it was a bastardization of this "heresy" that begat the faith you practice.

Nonesense, which I have debunked numerous times.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

Maybe you don't know it but the arabic language that the Quran is written in is still alive and taught in arabic schools, so we muslims aren't restricted to translations, in some parts of the muslim-world, the language is even spoken on the street.

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

LOL.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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?

Reading comprehension at its lowest. I did not claimed that Jesus and Muhammad were alike, but that Muhammad as well as Jesus turned the abrahamic religion into a universalistic religion.

Jesus was created specifically for his prophethood and is therefore different from Muhammad, who was an invoked prophet much like Abraham, Moses... were. Jesus was the direct word of God, his very person was God's word, so Jesus is only comparable to the Quran and not to prophet Muhammad.

As to the fruits of the Quran and prophet Muhammad, there were numerous:
Women's rights to inherit and possess things, to act as witnesses..., while christian women had much less rights for many centuries, the abolishment of polytheism in Arabia and elsewhere, the call to use one's brain as a gift from God, in order to understand the world so that the faith gains a rational dimension (this one was later on copied by a few christian theologians, which would later one be the root of the secularisation in Europe with everything it accompanies), the liberation of the jews in Byzant, who lived there under a brutal oppression through the christians, there are numerous other fruits, in political, economical and scientific areas that are too many to count.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
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.

Nice try, but you claimed that the descendants of Ismaeel were espescially violent and that it would be proofed by scripture and history, which I called bogus, since the descendants of Isaac were much more violent even to members of their line, namely christians against jews, and christians against christians.

Besides you are constantly expressing your xenophobia and intolerance regarding Islam in this thread, so you are already judging.

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

Amen to that, and you should learn from it.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by 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.

Strange, do you think this is a football-game, where we need cheerleaders? You have no argument, nothing to contribute but insults, personal attacks and blind fellowship to my discussion-partners/opponents. Go trolling somewhere else.

Taliesin

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Strange, do you think this is a football-game, where we need cheerleaders? You have no argument, nothing to contribute but insults, personal attacks and blind fellowship to my discussion-partners/opponents. Go trolling somewhere else.

My thoughts exactly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Strange, do you think this is a football-game, where we need cheerleaders?

No not at all. Do you think this is a contest to see how long you can keep yourself deluded? None of this started till you started getting pretentiously condescending to members in here trying to show you what the Bible REALLY said. Not what you WANT it to say. You were the one with the attitude first bub.

You have no argument, nothing to contribute but insults, personal attacks and blind fellowship to my discussion-partners/opponents. Go trolling somewhere else.

Taliesin

What total all out nonsense Taliesin. I debunked your insistence multiple times that the Bible supports your ideals on this matter. Go back and read. All you did was say "You are interpreting it wrongly" You gave us NOTHING but ONE out of context quote from the Bible. And we even smacked you down on that one as well.

Bet just for the sake of argument, let me link to the posts were I disproved you many times.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2463966

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2467150

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2467191

You started your condescending pretentiousness in this thread

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2467177

As a matter of fact, that whole page, and the next was nothing but me and ebuddy laying the smack down on you.

We were being nice at first, then when you started with the condescending silliness, ebuddy let loose.

In all my years in debating, never once have I met anyone so self deluded as you. Ever.

Do you really expect people to agree with you and not say anything when you go on like this?

The Insults only came when you started getting smacked down, and you started with your condescending silliness. You brought it onto yourself when you say idiotic things to people like

"Funny that you talk of blindness" and telling people what they need to learn.

Esp when it's obvious to everyone that ebuddy knows 10x more about this than you do.

But if you like Tali, me and ebuddy can smack you down some more. It's not that hard. It's clear you obviously have no clue when it comes to the Christian Bible.

None.

If you want to be treated nicer, stop with the condescending silliness. No one buys it anyhow.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You are contradicting yourself there, dude, as the circumscision was meant as the sign for the convenant, and yes it included all servants as well as all descendants of Abraham, including Ismaeel, so they were all part of the convenant.

According to your Bible maybe Taliesin. Not the Christian Bible. Where you have been shown time and time again where it did not include them. Or have you forgotten already?

Pride is not the motivation here, it's clearly written in the Bible. While I don't regard the Bible to be a correct witnessreport in every aspect, as much as the Hadith-collection in Islam isn't, when it comes to the topic at hand namely "promised land" it confirms me, and I will prove it to you.

Well Taliesin we have been waiting the whole thread for you to prove this to us. The only thing you have accomplished so far is making an ass out of yourself.

Yes, Isaac was isolated in that verse for the convenant, but fact is that Ismaeel was already included in the convenant as well as Abraham before Isaac was born, hence the circumscision. So what can we draw from that seemingly contradiction: Obviously Ismaeel and Abraham were part of the convenant, but God planned to split up Ismaael and Isaac in order to minimise internal problems and in order to populate the promised land between nile and euphrat.

No, Obviously he wasn't or God wouldn't have Told Abraham he wasn't apart of the Covenant. It says it there plain as day. Ebuddy has repeated it many times.

Not me is determing what a convenant is but God even according to the Bible. Read the quotes I posted, and you will see that God promised to Abraham that he would make Abraham fruitable, that he will give him as many descendants as stars are in the sky, methaphorically speaken, and to make numerous nations out of him. For what goal? In order to create nations that would believe in God, and God has fulfilled that promise, look at the world half of the population or more believes in God, be they christians, jews or muslims.

You are guessing God's intentions, and projecting your own ideals into it. This is not a good thing. Esp to think you know why God did such a thing. He never said.

God, according to the Bible then made the circumsiscion to be the sign for the convenant, and Ismaeel and Abraham got circumscised on the same day and then Isaac from Sara would be born and God called Abraham that he would establish the convenant with the "free" Isaac, and that he shouldn't be worried about Ismaeel, that God would take care of him and turn him as well into nations.

Yes, God blesses Ismaeel No one is arguing that. He was not part of the covenant though. As you have been shown many times in here. Over and over again.

Combine that with the notion that God promised that Abraham's descendants would form nations, that would believe in God...

Again, that isn't exactly what God said in the Christian Bible. You are adding things. Please show me scripture were God said both sides would be God fearing people.

that means then obviously that there would be two convenants, which are really the same, just divided geographically.

Something that you just pulled out of your lower orifice. Something the Bible doesn't support. And if you claim it does, please provide proof.

That the Bible doesn't offer the explicit promise that Ismaeel would establish another convenant of his own is understandable, because the Bible is directed at the descendants of Isaac, and written by them, and therefore don't need what would become of Ismaeel and his descendants.

No, it means they didn't get it. You are guessing God again.

The rest of your post is nothing but condescending silliness towards Ebuddy. He can deal with that.

[Zimphire]

http://www.ucgstp.org/bureau/wnp/wnp0042/land.html

Looking into the Bible, we saw from Genesis 12 that the God of Abraham declared that He owned the land and that He retained the right to give it to any people He chose. Further, He promised Abraham, "To your descendants I will give this land" (verse 7).

But, since both Arab and Jew are descendants of Abraham, can both claim the divinely ordained inheritance? The previous article cited God's choice that the descendants of Abraham's grandson Israel (Jacob) would have the land. To some, that settles the entire question, but there's more to it.

What caused God to determine that Abraham would be the recipient of the special blessings? Without any question, it was Abraham's obedience: "And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws" (Genesis 26:4-5). God spoke these words to Isaac, recounting what He had said to Isaac's father years before. God's reference to Abraham's behavior and His respect for it was clearly reinforcement of God's desire for the same from Isaac and his family.

What would happen to the Israelites if they failed to meet the obligations God imposed upon them? They would lose the land. As noted in the first article on this subject, God did not just make promises to Israel; He entered into a covenant with them. There are two essential aspects to this type of agreement: promises from God and obligations He imposes on His subjects. The following words spell out the essential terms under which God would allow Israel to continue in the land--even before the nation took possession of the Promised Land the first time.

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/ME/sonsabraham.htm

�So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes� (Genesis 16:4). The relationship between Sarah and Hagar quickly deteriorated and Hagar fled.


But a divine message was given to Hagar, telling her to return. It also reassured her that her son would have many descendants�but descendants with traits that would be evident throughout their history: �I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count ... You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael [�God hears�], for the LORD has heard of your misery. 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� (verses 10-12, New International Version).

The divinely prophetic words spoken to Hagar are still of great significance today. The prophecy that Ishmael �will be a wild donkey of a man� is not meant as an insult. The wild donkey was the aristocrat of the wild beasts of the desert, the preferred prey of hunters. The prophecy is a reference to how Ishmael�s descendants would emulate the lifestyle of the wild donkey, leading a free and noble existence in the desert.

�His hand will be against everyone, and everyone�s hand against him� similarly refers to this independent lifestyle. Ishmael�s descendants have always resisted foreign domination. �He will live in hostility towards all his brothers� is a reference to the enmity that has historically existed among the Arabs and between the Arabs and the other sons of Abraham.

Abraham�s second son

Fourteen years after the birth of Ishmael, God blessed Abraham with another son, this time by his wife Sarah. He told them to name their son Isaac (meaning �laughter� for the incredulous reaction they had when told they would have a son at their advanced age as well as the joy that he would later bring to his parents, Genesis 17:17,19; 18:10-15; 21:5-6). Isaac in turn fathered Jacob, also named Israel, the father of the Israelites. Ishmael�s and Isaac�s descendants are therefore cousins.

�So the child [Isaac] grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, �Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac�� (Genesis 21:8-10).

This displeased Abraham, who had grown to love Ishmael. �But God said to Abraham, �... Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called� (verse 12). God further reassured Abraham: �Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman [Ishmael], because he is your seed� (verse 13). �So God was with the lad; and he grew and dwelt in the wilderness ...� (verse 20).

It cannot be said that Ishmael hated Isaac. But after 14 years as an only child, Isaac�s arrival fundamentally changed Ishmael�s relationship with his father Abraham. Afterward, Ishmael felt envy and rivalry toward his half-brother, feelings that tribally have survived down through the centuries and which affect the politics of the Middle East today

Further family complications were ahead. Isaac in turn had two sons, Jacob and Esau, twins by his wife Rebekah. Even before they were born, �the children struggled together within her� (Genesis 25:22). God explained: �Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger� (verse 23). Both brothers were to father great nations, a blessing from God to Abraham�s grandsons.


Normally the firstborn would receive the birthright, but here it was to be different. The Bible records that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew (verses 29-34), showing how little it meant to him. Sometime later, Jacob tricked his father into giving him the birthright blessing (chapter 27). For this, �Esau hated Jacob� (verse 41).


Again, the consequences of this are with us to this day.The descendants of Esau (also called Edom, Genesis 25:30) intermarried with Ishmael�s descendants, their bitterness and resentment against Jacob�s descendants intensifying through the centuries. Esau�s grandson Amalek (Genesis 36:12) was the father of the Amalekites, who became bitter foes of the descendants of Jacob, the 12 tribes of Israel. A prophecy about Amalek foretold endless war between them �from generation to generation� (Exodus 17:16). Some scholars believe that many of today�s Palestinians are largely the descendants of the Amalekites.


So yes, there was TWO different promises.

God never mentions that both would be Godly.

[Zimphire]

http://www.antelope-ebooks.com/RELIGIOUS/Gen12.html

"Oh, that Ishmael might find favor in your sight," Abraham said, thinking of the son whom he already had.


"No," God told him. "Sarah, your true wife will give you a son, and you'll call him Isaac. Through him and his descendants will I establish My covenant.


"As for Ishmael, I've heard your request. I have blessed him and I will make him fruitful and will give him many descendants. He will father twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.


"But with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you this time next year, will I establish my covenant."



In Bible Form

17Abraham 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?" 18And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!" 19Then 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. 20And 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. 21But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."

Clear as day Tali, you cannot deny it. That is indeed what the Bible teaches.

Now you are allowed to believe something else Talisan. No one is saying you must believe this. But you cannot say your beliefs stems from what the Christian Bible says. Because it clearly does not.

So there you go. You asked me to post scriptures and provide proof in what I had told you. And so I did it. You have no excuses now.

So please stop the silliness.

[Taliesin]

Ok, zimphire, I will do as all a favour and summarize the religious discussion up to this point:

MacMike: Picture reducing the conflict to a religious one.
Talisien: Hey, the socalled promised land is according to the Bible between nile-river and euphrat-river and is according to the Bible promised to all descendants of Abraham. Here is the quote from the Bible to support that...
Zimphire: Oh, my God, you are quoting out of context, you have really no clue...
Talisien: Provide us then the context, if you can.
Zimphire: But God didn't want Abraham to engage with Hagar and Ismaeel's birth was not wanted nor foreseen by God. God planned only with Isaac in "mind". Abraham disobeyed and got punsihed for it..
Taliesin: Really? Isn't God allknowing and doesn't God create every born life?...
Zimphire: But humans have free will and can do wrong...
Taliesin: Yes, but God plans in his allknowledge with everything that human's free will might come up with, and so the quote of the Bible includes Ismaeel and his descendants for the promised land...
Zimphire: You are a jerk and quoting out of context and you really don't know what God has in mind or not.
Ebuddy: Hey, there is a clear identificator, only the descendants who were circumscised are the true descendants of Abraham.
Zimphire: There you see it, Tal, you are just a jerk who knows nothing.
Talisien: Ebuddy, you are right, but Ismaeel and all arabs, even me are also circumscised.
Deomacius: Hey, I've found a verse in the Bible in which God promises to establish the convenant with Isaac and only blesses Ismaeel.
Talisien: Convenant is not identical with promised land, see that Ismaeel and his descendants settled inside the promised land.
Ebuddy: There you have it, Tal, the convenant was exclusively for Isaac and his descendants.
Taliesin: Hmm, but like you already said yourself the sign for the convenant was the circumscision, and Ismaeel and Abraham got circumscised at the same day and the convenant was already made with Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born.
Ebuddy: But there it stands written clear as the day, you are blinded..
Zimphire: Yeah, Tal, you are deluded, and got smackdowned numerous times...
Taliesin: Strange, really you and ebuddy got smackdowned by me numerous times, the thing with the convenant and the one verse supporting your interpretation is just a last straw argument, which I will debunk, too.
Zimphire: You are deluded, it's just what your Quran says what you draw from...
Taliesin: Huh? During this discussion I restricted myself to use only the Bible..
Zimphire: You are quoting out of context, and besides Abraham, Moses and Jesus are our prophets, you have nothing to do with them, so leave them alone.
Taliesin: No, they are also our prophets, and their stories and messages are part of the Quran, too.
Macrobat: Tal, what's your point then? You clearly said that the promised land was also promised to the jews, so what's your point then?
Taliesin: My point is that religious rights don't have a real basis, because the land was promised to all descendants of Abraham, and so the rights of both or even three sides are nullifying each others, and so only secular rights should play a role in this conflict.
Macrobat: Tal, you are an idiot, the whole conflict revolves around religion.
Taliesin: No, religion is only abused by both sides for this conflict, but the conflict is really a secular one, as zionism was a secular project based upon the racial scientific classification invented in Europe during the 18th/19th-century,...
Ebuddy: Tal, we have won the discussion as you haven't still reacted to deomacious' and my argument and quote of the Bible.
Taliesin: Convenant was already made with Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born and the circumscision was the sign, so there are obviously more than one convenant. Besides convenant and promised land are two different things, and the discussion started about the promised land between nile and euphrat, which I have obviously won. But ok, let's bring the additional discussion about the convenant to a conclusion.
Ebuddy: But then why the split up and why did the Bible specifically mentioned Isaac as the one to establish the convenant with...?
Taliesin: Reason number one is that it's God's plan to populate the promised land, a split up is therefore useful, number two is that Ismaeel was a son of a slave and therefore not as respected among the jews in ancient times, number three is that there would be stress nd argueing among the jews when there are two sons of Abraham that could claim leadership...
Ebuddy: You don't know God's plan..., you are projecting...
Taliesin: But it was proved by history, the promised land was populated both by Isaac's and Ismaeel's descendants, and God fulfilled his promise of prophethood by invoking Muhammad as prophet and by sending the Quran as a message that confirms and extends the previous messages.
Ebuddy: Oh, my God, but Muhammad is just a faker, the Quran is a bastardization of the Bible, he invented it just to unite arabs...
Taliesin: Not possible, Muhammad was an illiterate, the Quran though is full of arabic poetry that put even the best arabic poets at shame, and more so it includes scientific, geograhical, cosmological and biological knowledge that exceeded for many centuries the knowledge of humanity. Besides the Quran also criticizes Muhammad's wrongdoings... and the arabic tribes offered Muhammad the position of king, if he would incorporate some form of polytheism into his message. Muhammad rejected the offer, and the polytheists started war against him and his followers...
Zimphire: Tal, you are a deluded idiot, you are just projecting, and bending the biblical verses to mean what you want to mean them. You were pimpslapped so many times in this thread..., it's better to lay to rest this thread, you are just too pride to admit defeat.
Taliesin: Zimphire, stop trolling around and using personal attacks. If you can't debate, leave it to others.
Ebuddy: Tal, where is your answer to deomacious' verse he quoted that clearly isolated Isaac as the one who God promised to establish the convenant with?
Taliesin: I thought I had already adressed that numerous times, but ok, I will do it again. In a nutshell, that's my take upon it:
Convenant and promised land are two different things, and we started this discussion about the promised land, which I have obviously won, but ok, let's adress the convenant-discussion:
1. The convenant was already made between Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born. The circumscision was the sign for it.
2. God wanted to populate the promised land with Abraham's descendants, so split up was already in His plan and confirms His allknowledge.
3. Ismaeel would have never been accepted as the leader among the jews because he was the son of a slave, so Isaac was the natural solution and the split up necessary so that Ismaeel becomes a leader of his own.
4. If Ismaeel would have stayed with the jews, there would have been stress and argues about the leadership...
5. That means that there are numerous convenants, all signed with the circumscision and all populated the promised land, and history has proved that much.
6. Besides, the arrival of Jesus opened up the Isaac's convenant to all humans, which is called New Testament.


Qed.

Zimphire, eager to contribute something besides mere personal attacks, then just repeats everything what ebuddy had already posted, and which I have already adressed and debunked.

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
<snipped dishonest silliness>

Zimphire, eager to contribute something besides mere personal attacks, then just repeats everything what ebuddy had already posted, and which I have already adressed and debunked.

Taliesin

You haven't debunked anything Taliesin. Nothing. Nada. All you have done is offer your OPINIONS, which goes against what the Bible actually says, act condescending, and take things out of context. Then claim victor.

You are one sorry fellah.

You cannot deny what it says. It's clear as day.

You really need to go back and brush up on your Christianity. Because this is just the basics. And you don't even get that.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You are contradicting yourself there, dude, as the circumscision was meant as the sign for the convenant, and yes it included all servants as well as all descendants of Abraham, including Ismaeel, so they were all part of the convenant.

If you could, I'd like to see information stating Ishmael's descendants embraced the practice of circumcision on their eighth day. The Covenant was never for Ishmael. Ishmael was already born from a handmaiden when God gave Abraham the Covenant. They changed their names and were told Sarah would give birth and be the heir of the Covenant.

Pride is not the motivation here, it's clearly written in the Bible. While I don't regard the Bible to be a correct witnessreport in every aspect, as much as the Hadith-collection in Islam isn't, when it comes to the topic at hand namely "promised land" it confirms me, and I will prove it to you.

You can't use the Bible to prove it. The Bible is clear about it. If you want to say that Jewish scribes twisted words for an agenda, that's one thing, but to suggest the Bible affirms proof of your point when everything it says stands in direct conflict to your supposition; I'm left with no other thought than you must be motivated in pride. I apologize if this offends you, I'm not trying to be insulting and I'll be more sensitive to that; what I hope for is an understanding. You realize this is a "hot-button" issue regarding who feels they have a right to their promised lands.

Yes, Isaac was isolated in that verse for the convenant, but fact is that Ismaeel was already included in the convenant as well as Abraham before Isaac was born, hence the circumscision.

Tell me, and establish with some evidence if you could; that Ishmael's descendants practiced circumcision on the eighth day. Do they still?

So what can we draw from that seemingly contradiction: Obviously Ismaeel and Abraham were part of the convenant, but God planned to split up Ismaael and Isaac in order to minimise internal problems and in order to populate the promised land between nile and euphrat.

A. No contradiction. B. No Ishmael in Covenant, never was in the Covenant. C. God affirmed faith in Abraham through miracle birth in Sarah, establishing his Covenant. Then tested it later with success.

Not me is determing what a convenant is but God even according to the Bible. Read the quotes I posted, and you will see that God promised to Abraham that he would make Abraham fruitable, that he will give him as many descendants as stars are in the sky, methaphorically speaken, and to make numerous nations out of him. For what goal? In order to create nations that would believe in God, and God has fulfilled that promise, look at the world half of the population or more believes in God, be they christians, jews or muslims.

I can't argue with this point too much other than to reiterate that Ishmael was not excluded from the Covenant, he was never included in it. It was given after his birth. Abraham even asked about this and God answered with the Covenent he will make with Isaac and that the descendants of Isaac would be the "reckoned" heirs.

God, according to the Bible then made the circumsiscion to be the sign for the convenant, and Ismaeel and Abraham got circumscised on the same day and then Isaac from Sara would be born and God called Abraham that he would establish the convenant with the "free" Isaac, and that he shouldn't be worried about Ismaeel, that God would take care of him and turn him as well into nations.

Which is exactly what happened to Ishmael. His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah; constitute the kings and the namesake of their settlements. This nation comprised of twelve rulers, his descendants,

But what does that mean, that Abraham shouldn't be worried about Ismaeel? Obviously two things, the secular, materialistic promise that he would turn Ismaeel into nations inside the promised land, and the spiritual promise that God would see to it that Ismaeel doesn't get seduced by the devil and gets his reward in the after-life by letting him into paradise.
Combine that with the notion that God promised that Abraham's descendants would form nations, that would believe in God... that means then obviously that there would be two convenants, which are really the same, just divided geographically.

Which is what we generally see, yes.

That the Bible doesn't offer the explicit promise that Ismaeel would establish another convenant of his own is understandable, because the Bible is directed at the descendants of Isaac, and written by them, and therefore don't need what would become of Ismaeel and his descendants.

I've given some of the Biblical account of what happened to Ishmael. Hebrews are in fact descendants of Isaac, so...if you're saying the Jewish scribes twisted this toward an agenda we'd have to simply disagree.

But when God could calm Abraham's (secular as well as religious)worries about him and the circumscion as the sign for the convenant should have been enough hints.

Hints that may actually have you believing Ishmael was included until read without a presupposition. The Bible (as is almost always the case I believe) clear to anyone without a presupposition. That's why I'm not quoting the Quran.

Now we are making progress: The convenant was already made with Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born, and this I have shown by quoting the Bible on that aspect. The sign for the convenant was the circumscision, and Abraham and Ismaeel were circumscised. Then a verse said that God stated that he would establish the convenant with Isaac.
The reason for this should be clear, Isaac was a free child, both parents were free, and the jews would likely follow him than Ismaeel, because Ismaeel had a slave as mother. So God called for the split up and sent out Ismaeel into another part of the same promised land, and told Abraham not to worry, which means that God will look to it that Ismaeel will be guided too, according to the convenant he made with Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born.

According to the Covenant, the heir of the Covenant would be Isaac and his descendants. The "reckoned" ones.

Interesting, that you resort to personal attacks. But I'm accustomed to that on this board, always happening when the insulter has no arguments left. I will forgive you, though.

And I forgive you. If I'm running short of arguments, it's because I've already completely argued you down. Now, I'm just repeating myself. It's painfully clear to me that Ishmael is excluded from the Covenent made to Abraham. If you're suggesting that Jewish scribes appended the text in the Bible for an agenda as eklipse has suggested-that's one thing. We'll have to agree to disagree, but to then say the Bible actually affirms your point is to remain prideful regarding an aspect of the Bible that does not exist.

As to the misinterpretations, you are the best example regarding your interpretation of the story of Abraham, Isaac and Ismaeel.

I'm not misinterpreting the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael as presented in the Holy Scripture's Genesis account. You can say I'm wrong for using the Genesis account, buy you can't say I'm interpreting it incorrectly. The Genesis account is as clear as it gets.

Oh, nice, another lowblow regarding God, prophet Muhammad and God's word in the Quran, eventhough I have already debunked your ignorant prejudices regarding Islam in this thread as well as in others.

You haven't really addressed anything regarding the Bible's relevance to the topic of this thread. Your use of my Scriptures in trying to make a point that it does not, is insulting and offensive to me. When I did this to you, you called me to task and I apologized. You've reiterated on several occasions, your distrust of the the Biblical account, but continue to use it in a twisted fashion to prove a futile argument. Your cry for injustice and insults is falling on deaf ears in this thread Taliesin. I urge you to discontinue your use of the Bible to make points it does not, or add to and take away from the Bible. I can respect a religious difference, what I don't respect is pride run amuck in suggesting the Bible says what you want it to say regardless of how clear the text is in illustrating your false notions.

As to the story of the mocking, since when is "mocking" a justification to expell someone and his mother to the desert.

Once Hagar became pregnant, she loathed Sarah. This was obvious. It was even more obvious that the two and Ishmael would not be able to peacefully coexist. Since when would a man like Moses, who in Faith led Hebrew slaves for 40 years through the wilderness be denied access to the Promised land because he hit the rock instead of speaking to it? Worse has happened to those who did less.

The incident (again I'm arguing from within the biblical scriptures, according to Quran, the story was another one, but let's ignore that) was just a weak justification for Sara to solve a problem Ismaeel could pose to Isaac's leadership and to strenghten Isaac's position. This is understandable and God knew that would happen, as it was His plan all along. Therefore God told Abraham not to worry about Ismaeel and that He would take care about him in every respect... which proves again my point.

God did make good on his promise to Ishmael. The conclusion of Ishmael's story is quite clear as I've illustrated above. It does not prove your point, it proves mine. This is a fun exercise though. I guess.

It's really easy, God's plan was along to separate Abraham's descendants in order to populate the promised land so that nations get founded that are all in the convenant of God with all descendants of Abraham, as signalled with the circumscision.

Can you establish where Ishmael's descendants circumcised at 8 months of age Taliesin?

The descendants of Isaac have written/gotten the Bible and so it's natural that they would just like the jews at ancient times favour Isaac in its characterisation of him and explain the departure of Ismaeel, who was not accepted as the son of a slave, with the "mockery"-story.

Now we're getting somewhere. So why on earth would you continue to post Scripture out of context when you already believe the writers/getters of it favoured Isaac? It seems pretty clear that Isaac was the Covenant recipient, and that through his descendants (reckoned heirs of the Covenant) the Covenant would be fulfilled. You can say this was the result of scribes twisting Scripture out of context, but you cannot also say then, that Scripture affirms your point. It does not. period, end of story.

Other than you I have no problem in delving into scriptures of other religions.

Is this a personal insult? I thought you were somehow above this. I forgive you. I have no problem delving into scriptures of other religions, what I will not do is use scriptures I disagree with, twist them to suit my argument, and tell adherants to the scripture I'm using that they've got it all wrong. This is a deplorable way to conduct yourself and you should be ashamed. If you want to discuss religious differences that's fine, but to suggest the Bible affirms your point when it clearly does not is insulting to me.

Besides God's message that is part of the evangelium is also part of the Quran, like the ten commands of Moses, and the forgiving-concept of Jesus, as well as the monotheism-message of Abraham...

There are similarities and it's not surprising to me that there would be.

No, it's not conjencture, it's common sense, and if you read the comments here about Ismaeel you would realise that the situation in ancient times was even more problematic for sons of slaves, if freed or not. Equally important is that there would be two desendants of Abraham having legitimate claim to leadership and that would have led to stress and argues among the jews, therefore split up was necessary

Yes, correct. Split up was necessary. From reading the Biblical conclusion to Ishmael's life, it's apparent that split up is exactly what occurred.

and useful for God's plan to populate the promised land with numerous nations that would all be part of God's covenant.

Let's say this supposition is correct, (with which I disagree) can the two sides live peacefully together? Is the unrest and violence only the fault of the Zionist or is it possible the Palestinians are also at fault. Knowing this, why would one want to force integration. It could mean the death of many innocent people. If niether side will relent, what can come of all this?

Even when that special translation is right and not the version that translated as "lived east of", then it would be nothing bad, as the brothers that Ismaeel would have lived in hostility towards would be the polytheistic egyptians west of Ismaeel. If Isaac had settled near Egypt, the Bible would as well have described him as living in hostility towards Egypt, because the convenant was always in hostility towards polytheism or rather polytheism was always hostile towards monotheism.

Correct except for the fact that now there's a struggle between these monotheists and the Israeli's (those "west of" the Jordan). There's obvious hostility now between them. See, the Biblical prophecy given by God to Hagar is not only that the brothers will live east of one another, the reason why the word "hostility" is used is the statement of prophecy just prior to that which we seemed to be breezing right past. That is; "his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him." This passage best illustrates hostility and unrest.

The convenant is nothing that can be fulfilled, it's a spiritual contract between God-believers and God. Before Jesus and Muhammad came, the convenant was limited to Isaac's and Ismaeel's descendants, but then religion became universalistic and the convenant opened up to all humans ready to accept God's word.

Right, except there's still one small problem. The Israeli and the Palestinian cannot peacefully coexist. Why is it then the Covenant could not have been fulfilled? It seems apparent to me that neither side is willing to relent on the issue, there will always be conflict over Jerusalem. That's really what this is all about, Jerusalem.

Attention, this is pure speculation:
So, what does that mean in the context that the Bible has promised the convenant would last a thousand generations with the descendants of Isaac or even forever as stated in another verse. Like already said the convenant is a contract that would hold as long as both sides keep true to the promises. Obviously God's promises are always held, He doesn't change in that regard, so the descendants of Isaac must have committed something that has led to the quitting of the contract. For that speculation, one can regard the destruction of the Temple, the division between Israel and Jud�a, the enslavement of the jews in Egypt... as supporting hints, but that's total conjecture.

Actually God did become angry with the Jew, mostly because they would not follow his laws and weren't living in faith only to Him. I've never tried to say that there was a sect of people wholly righteous in the eyes of the Lord.

No, arabs believe they are heirs of Abraham and Ismaeel, not the heirs of Israel, which the descendants of Isaac would eventually become later on.

okay, and?

You do realize that the socalled hostility was between Ismaeel's God-believing tribe and the polytheistic Egypt, don't you? As to your socalled illusion regarding the prophecies, why was it then that the descendants of Isaac were much more hostile towards other parts of Isaac's descendants than the descendants of Ismaeel ever were? Christians were much more hostile towards jews than muslims were ever!

Can you site for me an example of this? Which Christians persecuted Jews? When? Where?You may have missed the first time I called for some information on this. I would like to add however that I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, that Arabs, Christians, and Jews can be bad people? Certainly we should all know this to be true.

Nonesense, history has proofed to the contrary, the descendants of Ismaeel have lived since then in the promised land and they got their prophet and God's word with prophet Muhammad and the Quran.

Religious difference. I disagree, but this is okay.

No, I have not taken quotes out of context, ok at first yes,

Okay. I'd like an apology for doing this please.

but then I have provided the whole context, and the conclusion I drawed at the start is the same even with the whole context.

No, it's not which is why you started out with clippings instead of the full text. Why? Because the full text is quite succinct and clear that Ishmael was not part of the Covenant.

You want me to apologise for quoting the Bible? That's rediculous and shows how desperate you are.

More insults. Is this supposed to mean (according to your prior reasoning) that you are without a point?

Besides you are making the case that you had stand up for Islam and the Quran in other threads, but yet you have made quite clear in this thread that you think that Quran and Islam is a heresy and prophet Muhammad a faker.. That doesn't quite fit together.

It most certainly does. I can respect our religious differences. I can respect you using the Quran to illustrate your disagreement. What doesn't fit here is you using a doctrine you believe is inaccurate, to support what you deem to be an accurate ideal, clearly missing key points of my Scripture while telling me where I'm wrong in my Bible comprehension.

Nonesense, which I have debunked numerous times.

Apparently not well enough for me.

Maybe you don't know it but the arabic language that the Quran is written in is still alive and taught in arabic schools, so we muslims aren't restricted to translations, in some parts of the muslim-world, the language is even spoken on the street.

You'd be right in so doing. Many Christians endeavor to learn Hebrew for the same reason, and Jews of course are still expected to know Hebrew as well.

Reading comprehension at its lowest. I did not claimed that Jesus and Muhammad were alike, but that Muhammad as well as Jesus turned the abrahamic religion into a universalistic religion.

...and another insult. It wasn't a comprehension issue Taliesin, just a rejection of using the two in the same sentence, as if to almost elevate one to the degree of the other. Naturally, since I do not view Muhammed as any kind of prophet, I'd take issue with this, but only as a religious difference. It wasn't a comprehension problem, it was a religious difference. I hope you understand.

Jesus was created specifically for his prophethood

Godhood and Christhood. Sorry, another one of those pesky religious differences.

and is therefore different from Muhammad,

Most certainly. I agree.

who was an invoked prophet much like Abraham, Moses... were. Jesus was the direct word of God, his very person was God's word, so Jesus is only comparable to the Quran and not to prophet Muhammad.

Onward...

[ebuddy]

I disagree with this as well, but I respect your ability and freedom to worship in the manner of your choosing of course.

As to the fruits of the Quran and prophet Muhammad, there were numerous:
Women's rights to inherit and possess things, to act as witnesses..., while christian women had much less rights for many centuries,

Yet, ironically in a country comprised of 80+% Christians, women have more power, affluence, and positions of authority like no other country on earth. Especially when the Middle East is taken into account.

the abolishment of polytheism in Arabia and elsewhere, the call to use one's brain as a gift from God, in order to understand the world so that the faith gains a rational dimension (this one was later on copied by a few christian theologians, which would later one be the root of the secularisation in Europe with everything it accompanies),

This I wholly disagree with. Christians didn't take their intellectual prowess seriously only from the time of the Quran. This is proposterous.

the liberation of the jews in Byzant,

and interestingly escorted them back to Israel.

who lived there under a brutal oppression through the christians, there are numerous other fruits, in political, economical and scientific areas that are too many to count.

We both know that for the travesties committed by a people of faith, that faith must be abondoned in favor of personal gain and affluence. i.e. one who committs a genocide, or an Inquisition; one must abandon the tenets of their faith in so doing. This is not exclusive to Christians nor Muslims nor Jews. It is an indictment of human nature and not the Faith they had to abandon in justifying the acts.

Nice try, but you claimed that the descendants of Ismaeel were espescially violent and that it would be proofed by scripture and history, which I called bogus,

Link to where I said this please? I asked if your clarification of "lived east of" was interesting Taliesin. That was a question. I never said that the descendants of Ishmael are especially violent.

Besides you are constantly expressing your xenophobia and intolerance regarding Islam in this thread, so you are already judging.

You don't know me very well. My intolerance was strictly regarding your misuse of the Bible (a book you claim to disagree with), in trying to have it make a point it does not. This is not xenophobic nor intolerant of you, your like, and your religion. We have disagreements that I can respect as I've stated on several occasions. My problem is your use of a book you do not understand, claiming I do not understand it, when the only problem in this is your inability to admit you were corrected, instructed, and rebuked for your misinterpretation of a Book I take seriously.

Amen to that, and you should learn from it.

I would not be as foolish as to say I've learned nothing. I've learned a great deal. Each time I read Scripture, I find I learn more. I pray you have as well.
Amen.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ebuddy:

You can't use the Bible to prove it. The Bible is clear about it. If you want to say that Jewish scribes twisted words for an agenda, that's one thing, but to suggest the Bible affirms proof of your point when everything it says stands in direct conflict to your supposition; I'm left with no other thought than you must be motivated in pride. I apologize if this offends you, I'm not trying to be insulting and I'll be more sensitive to that; what I hope for is an understanding. You realize this is a "hot-button" issue regarding who feels they have a right to their promised lands.

And that is exactly what I told him. He cannot in NO WAY say the Christian Bible affirms his allegations. The very fact that even after all the proof otherwise, he is not only claiming such thing still, but claims he had debunke such things.

If he did, I would LOVE for him to point it out. Because I have read everything he posted, and not once did I see him debunk anything.

All he has done it take his OPINIONS and try to rationalize the irrational.

The and the end, tell us we need to read up in a condescending way, claim victor, then say WE are trolling.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ebuddy:

My problem is your use of a book you do not understand, claiming I do not understand it, when the only problem in this is your inability to admit you were corrected, instructed, and rebuked for your misinterpretation of a Book I take seriously.

And that is exactly my problem with what he is and was doing. I don't care what he believes. That is on him.

Now why he still thinks the Bible still supports his beliefs, well that is beyond me.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You can't use the Bible to prove it. The Bible is clear about it. If you want to say that Jewish scribes twisted words for an agenda, that's one thing, but to suggest the Bible affirms proof of your point when everything it says stands in direct conflict to your supposition; I'm left with no other thought than you must be motivated in pride. I apologize if this offends you, I'm not trying to be insulting and I'll be more sensitive to that; what I hope for is an understanding. You realize this is a "hot-button" issue regarding who feels they have a right to their promised lands.

ebuddy, I truly like your zeal on this topic, but it's misguided and we are running in circles:
You think the fact that according to the Bible, God mentioned Isaac espescially and promised to establish the convenant with him and the split-up that occured years after is a proof for your point that God made the convenant only with Isaac and his descendants. But that is not true, even according to the Bible a convenant was made with Abraham and Ismaeel before Isaac was born, and God clearly said according to the Bible that the circumscision would be the sign of the convenant.

So, instead of taking serious both verses, you instead choose the one and ignore the other. The solution to the seemingly contradiction can only be that there were obviously numerous convenants, for every descendant of Abraham.

Besides the topic of the convenant is not identical with the topic of the promised land, and that's what I used for the quote in the first place. The promised land was described as being between nile-river and euphrat-river, and that's where all the descendants of Abraham settled upon. So that discussion I have obviously won.

The reason why I used only the one verse of the Bible at the start of this discussion was not because I thought the rest would go against my point, but because I just stumbled upon that one verse on a webpage and simply copied it from there without looking into the whole chapter. When zimphire accused me of quoting out of context, and deomacious offered the Bible-internet-ressource, I clicked on it and read the whole chapter, which still confirmed my point, that the promised land was for all descendants of Abraham.

So, what do we have? Numerous convenants with all descendants of Abraham, if those descendants chose to adher to the convenant and fulfill its duties is another question. Obviously the descendants of Isaac have at some time in history not fulfilled their duties and the contract with God was suspended until it was refreshed with Jesus' New Testament, which at the same time opened the convenant of Isaac to all humans that wanted to want to be part of it.

The same can be said about Ismaeel's descendants, at some time in history they have not fulfilled their duties according to the convenant and it was suspended, after which they degenerated to polytheism, which wasn't undone until God invoked Muhammad as prophet and sent the Quran as the new convenant, and at the same time opened up the convenant of Ismaeel to all humans that want to become part of it.

With all that God has achieved his promise to populate the promised land and beyond with nations believing in Him.

The Bible is defentively supporting that view, and I have shown it, but you have chosen to ignore it, because you wanted to stick to that one verse that seemed to favour Isaac, which is understandable considering the Bible was meant for the descendants of Isaac.

Besides, you might think that I think that the Bible is pure bogus, but that is not right. I just think it isn't reliable in every aspect, because it was written as a witness-report way after the facts and by numerous humans. And I'm accustomed to that phenomenon, because we have also something similar in Islam, namely the Hadith-collections, which describe Muhammad's life and sayings. We have made the experience that they are not nearly as reliable as the Quran itself, which is God's direct word, just like the person of Jesus was.

As to the concurrent events, I'm not proposing that Israel gets abolished again, far from it, I'm proposing peace with Israel in the borders of pre67, namely without Westbank, Golan, Gaza and East-Jerusalem. In order though to make that peace possible, it's absolutely necessary that the religious part of Israel and the US learns that they have no monopoly on the promised land, even according to the thora/old testament, and for the secular part of Israel and the US to learn about Israel's history without the zionistic myths, that have been debunked by researches of newly opened archives of Israel, Britain and the world zionist organization.

Off course the arabs have also to learn that they have no monopoly on the promised land, and that they have to accept Israel in its pre67-borders.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You haven't debunked anything Taliesin. Nothing. Nada. All you have done is offer your OPINIONS, which goes against what the Bible actually says, act condescending, and take things out of context. Then claim victor.

You are one sorry fellah.

You cannot deny what it says. It's clear as day.

You really need to go back and brush up on your Christianity. Because this is just the basics. And you don't even get that.

Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess, and obviously you are not ready to stand the pain and chose instead to ignore or attack the truth.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

And that is exactly what I told him. He cannot in NO WAY say the Christian Bible affirms his allegations. The very fact that even after all the proof otherwise, he is not only claiming such thing still, but claims he had debunke such things.

If he did, I would LOVE for him to point it out. Because I have read everything he posted, and not once did I see him debunk anything.

All he has done it take his OPINIONS and try to rationalize the irrational.

The and the end, tell us we need to read up in a condescending way, claim victor, then say WE are trolling. [/B]

Comeon, show some sportmanship and admit you are defeated, after all we are all believers in God, nothing is lost.

I highly enjoyed this discussion, even when it got heated and insults were used, because it forces everyone to think more about the religion, God's plans and the verses of the scriptures and everyone learns something.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
ebuddy, I truly like your zeal on this topic, but it's misguided and we are running in circles:

Wow if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black Taliesin.

ebuddy is right, you are dead wrong, and you call him misguided.

Just give it up before you embarrass yourself anymore.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess, and obviously you are not ready to stand the pain and chose instead to ignore or attack the truth.

Taliesin

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Comeon, show some sportmanship and admit you are defeated, after all we are all believers in God, nothing is lost.

I highly enjoyed this discussion, even when it got heated and insults were used, because it forces everyone to think more about the religion, God's plans and the verses of the scriptures and everyone learns something.

Taliesin

How pretentiously droll Taliesin. If anyone here is having problems admitting "truth" it's you.

There is really nothing more to stay to you. You've been smacked down right and left, and you come back acting as if your words still have any truth to them.

It's actually quite amusing.

I understand why you think they way you do.

Pure, unadulterated stubbornness.

Good luck with your self delusions.

You are gonna need it.

If anything this thread did good. It singled you out as the misguided troll you are.

You don't even realize how much credibility you lost in this thread bub.

Anyhow, there is nothing up for debate Tali. It's clear what the Bible says on a matter. And you aren't even close.

You want it to be true so badly, you have deluded yourself into believing it, even though it clearing says the opposite.

And that is kinda creepy.

[deomacius]

Taliesin,

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You're just wrong. A straight forward reading of the verses/chapter clearly paint a picture of Ishmael NOT being a part of God's plan for the covenant. God can know about all outcomes of his primary plan and yet have things that are not a part of it or necessary for the plan to be carried out. To me Ishmael seems to fit that description to some degree. In fact you might say that Ishmael IS part of the plan since his descendants HAVE helped to make Israel the "Cup of trembling" and the "burdensome stone" prophesied later in the Bible. Ishmael (himself) was not party to the covenant, but he was part of the plan I suppose.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Taliesin,

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You're just wrong. A straight forward reading of the verses/chapter clearly paint a picture of Ishmael NOT being a part of God's plan for the covenant. God can know about all outcomes of his primary plan and yet have things that are not a part of it or necessary for the plan to be carried out. To me Ishmael seems to fit that description to some degree. In fact you might say that Ishmael IS part of the plan since his descendants HAVE helped to make Israel the "Cup of trembling" and the "burdensome stone" prophesied later in the Bible. Ishmael (himself) was not party to the covenant, but he was part of the plan I suppose.

The problem is Taliesin isn't using facts based on the Bible. He is trying to rationalize his belief to make it fit.

It's almost like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

He has been doing that this whole thread. And then proclaiming that the square peg fits.

When we all see it sticking out and cracked from force.

It's that painfully obvious.

And I actually don't think Taliesin believes what he is saying.

He is just too stubborn and or insecure to admit he was wrong.

So instead he just throws a bunch of BS around, hoping it will stick, and no one will notice.

[MacManMikeOSX]

We could go on forever and ever arguing religious interpretations, I have my beliefs and others have theirs. The truth of this matter is that the Arabs or Palestinians (not to be confused with the ancient Philistines) in Israel reject to being a part of Israel. We the Jews in Israel have come to the conclusion that we reject the Arabs. At first when we began to return from our exile we were content among the Arabs for we were sister peoples. The Arabs began to hate us as they did every other Semitic non-Arab group (Assyrians, Yemenites, Ethiopians, Kurds (the Kurds were Semites converted to a Persian language)). So we the Jews accepted the partition of Palestine (the name the Romans gave it when the inhabitants, the Jews, were exiled or repressed completely), the Arabs rejected and attacked us. We won, yet still they sent fedayeen gangs across our frontiers to raid our small defenseless desert villages. Then in the Six Day War we seized the whole of former Palestine. Suddenly people that for the last 18 years or so had called themselves Jordanians and Egyptians decided that they were not Israelis, they were 'Palestinians.' So we sealed them off from us, but allowed them to work in Israel for high wages. We are now ready to allow them to have a state but we said Jerusalem is ours. Is this not our right in English there is a saying 'to the victor goes the spoils.' Maybe if The Arabs won we'd all be tossed in the sea, but we won so we're going to toss the Arabs out of Jerusalem. Oh wait I meant give them Israeli citizenship and access to the best developed country in the Middle East. I'm tired of this victimized Arab khara', in Arabic they talk of annihilating the Jews and raping our women, and in English they say we're killing their children. What sort of parent lets their child of 15 years strap a bomb to himself and blow up innocent men, women, and children in the shuq. Who allows a 9 year old to traffic weapons from Egypt through a tunnel; it is the parents committing the crime against humanity not the soldier defending himself. The great Palestinian Mufti during WWII broadcast live from Berlin about annihilating the Jews. There were even plans being drawn up for the extermination of Jews from Palestine once it was conquered by the Nazis.

I FEEL NO SYMPATHY FOR THE PALESTINIANS, IF YOUR LEADRS ARE TO BLAME THEN OVERTHROW THEM LIKE EVERY OTHER NATION.

[SVass]

By the way, chapters XII and XIII of the Whiston translation of Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus may not agree with your Christian version of the Bible and its source is certainly older. sam

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SVass:
Whiston translation of Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Taliesin,

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You're just wrong. A straight forward reading of the verses/chapter clearly paint a picture of Ishmael NOT being a part of God's plan for the covenant. God can know about all outcomes of his primary plan and yet have things that are not a part of it or necessary for the plan to be carried out. To me Ishmael seems to fit that description to some degree. In fact you might say that Ishmael IS part of the plan since his descendants HAVE helped to make Israel the "Cup of trembling" and the "burdensome stone" prophesied later in the Bible. Ishmael (himself) was not party to the covenant, but he was part of the plan I suppose.

Deomacious, please read the summary of the discussion I posted on this page, and you will see that I'm more than right:

The point I raised with the help of the Bible-quote was that God promised the land between nile-river and euphrat-river, the socalled promised land according to the Bible, to all descendants of Abraham. That is a whole other subject than the topic of the convenant. I have won that discussion by showing with the help of the Bible that Ismaeel and his descendants indeed settled upon the promised land. That much should be clear and proven by history and Bible.

The discussion about the convenant is only an additional discussion, which I think I have won, too, because I have shown with the Bible that there are obviously numerous convenants for every direct descendant of Abraham one, and in the Bible God says, that the circumscision is the sign for the convenant.

It's no surprise though that the Bible concentrates more on the convenant of Isaac since the Bible is written by and for the descendants of Isaac.

And since Ismaeel is the son of a slave and Abraham, it should also be clear why the Bible says that only Isaac is reckoned as heir to Abraham, since it reflects just the secular reality of slave/free person, but it doesn't reflect upon the sacral realities.

Yes, Ismaeel was split up because of the problems of slave/free-argues, and he and his descendants also settled inside the promised land.


Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How pretentiously droll Taliesin. If anyone here is having problems admitting "truth" it's you.

There is really nothing more to stay to you. You've been smacked down right and left, and you come back acting as if your words still have any truth to them.

It's actually quite amusing.

I understand why you think they way you do.

Pure, unadulterated stubbornness.

Good luck with your self delusions.

You are gonna need it.

If anything this thread did good. It singled you out as the misguided troll you are.

You don't even realize how much credibility you lost in this thread bub.

Anyhow, there is nothing up for debate Tali. It's clear what the Bible says on a matter. And you aren't even close.

You want it to be true so badly, you have deluded yourself into believing it, even though it clearing says the opposite.

And that is kinda creepy.

Not surprising that you go back to your old habits...

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Deomacious, please read the summary of the discussion I posted on this page, and you will see that I'm more than right:

Taliesin we all read it. We still KNOW you are wrong. And how does one be MORE than Right?

The point I raised with the help of the Bible-quote was that God promised the land between nile-river and euphrat-river, the socalled promised land according to the Bible, to all descendants of Abraham. That is a whole other subject than the topic of the convenant. I have won that discussion by showing with the help of the Bible that Ismaeel and his descendants indeed settled upon the promised land. That much should be clear and proven by history and Bible.

ANd we showed you were God told Abraham with help from the Bible that Ismaeel WAS NOT part of the covenant. He said it plain as day. Our proof overrides your "could be" You didn't win anything.

The discussion about the convenant is only an additional discussion, which I think I have won, too, because I have shown with the Bible that there are obviously numerous convenants for every direct descendant of Abraham one, and in the Bible God says, that the circumscision is the sign for the convenant.

No, you have given an opinion. Not shown. Learn the difference. You got smacked down on that too.

It's no surprise though that the Bible concentrates more on the convenant of Isaac since the Bible is written by and for the descendants of Isaac.

No, it not only concentrates. IT says Isaac was the only person to get it. ANd it has nothing to do with who wrote it. You are interjecting nonsense again, trying to pass it off as fact.

And since Ismaeel is the son of a slave and Abraham, it should also be clear why the Bible says that only Isaac is reckoned as heir to Abraham, since it reflects just the secular reality of slave/free person, but it doesn't reflect upon the sacral realities.

Yes, Ismaeel was split up because of the problems of slave/free-argues, and he and his descendants also settled inside the promised land.

Taliesin

I don't care where his decendents eventually setteled. He wasn't apart of the convenent.

You DO KNOW God told them if they stopped being favorable in his light, aka stopped believing and following, they would lose that land to people not part of the convenent. ANd they indeed did.

That doesn't mean the people who took said land is also part of said covenent.

You have proved nothing. You are teh lose.

You should actually win the "Biggest Denial" of the year award in here.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Not surprising that you go back to your old habits...

Taliesin

Why shouldn't I? You haven't changed any. You are still doing it.


And there is nothing more any of us can do. WE have disproved you and smacked you down time and time again, only for you to come out in total denial.

I've never met someone so deluded.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Why shouldn't I? You haven't changed any. You are still doing it.


And there is nothing more any of us can do. WE have disproved you and smacked you down time and time again, only for you to come out in total denial.

I've never met someone so deluded.

Thank you, I think the same about you, and I'm amazed at the level of projecting and denial you are engaged.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Thank you, I think the same about you, and I'm amazed at the level of projecting and denial you are engaged.

Taliesin

Cept your claim is baseless.

I have this whole thread as proof to mine.

Again Taliesin, you have ignored the facts over and over again in this. Your rational goes smack dab against what the Bible says, yet you claim it supports you. There is no denying what it says. There is no "Misinterpreting"

How is that not deluded?

5 people in this thread have told you the SAME thing. And have said you were wrong. It's just not me and ebuddy.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Cept your claim is baseless.

Hey, we could go on eternally, seeing who can launch the most personal attacks upon the other. But that isn't my style and I'm sure you would win that pesky game handsdown, you are the master in that category.

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic at hand, which was the promised land, that lies between nile and river. That land was promised to Abraham and his descendants way before any descendant of Abraham was born, and that means it was promised to all descendants of Abraham, as God clearly knew that Ismaeel would become Abraham's descendant as well as Isaac, since God knows all and He created Ismaeel just like He creates every born human.

God led Abraham into the promised land and promised him that He would turn Abraham's descendants into nations inside the promised land.

Additionaly Ismaeel and his descendants settled well inside the promised land and became nations therein as history and Bible has proved.

So, obviously I'm right about the promised land.

You and the other christian posters here are just latching onto the topic of convenant and thinking that there would be only one convenant and never again another for any other people besides the descendants of Isaac, but that idea isn't supported by the verse deomacious posted. The verse deomacious posted just says that God promised that he would establish a convenant with Isaac, but it doesn't specify that it is the only convenant forever.

Besides God said according to the Bible, a few verses before that one about Isaac, that the sign of the convenant would be the circumscision and Ismaeel and Abraham got circumscised on the same day, so Ismaeel was definetly part of a convenant.

Another prophecy in the Bible said that in the future nations would populate the promised land that would all believe in God, and that prophecy has definetly been fulfilled by the time after the arrival of the Quran.

Somewhat off-topic, it is clear that God has suspended the convenant with the descendants of Isaac numerous times in history and God even opened up the convenant to all humans with the arrival of Jesus, if you think Jesus was God or like I think just a prophet and wonder doesn't matter in that regard.

At the start of this side-debate you accused me of quoting out of context, but at this point of the debate, you are doing it yourself, you are taking one verse and interpret exclusivity into it and ignore all others.

If you are not willing to discuss properly and civilised, I will have to continue this discussion with ebuddy instead and ignore you.

Taliesin

[deomacius]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
So, obviously I'm right about the promised land.

Wow! I don't know what else to say.

You and the other christian posters here are just latching onto the topic of convenant and thinking that there would be only one covenant and never again another for any other people besides the descendants of Isaac, but that idea isn't supported by the verse deomacious posted. The verse deomacious posted just says that God promised that he would establish a convenant with Isaac, but it doesn't specify that it is the only convenant forever.

Besides God said according to the Bible, a few verses before that one about Isaac, that the sign of the covenant would be the circumscision and Ismaeel and Abraham got circumscised on the same day, so Ismaeel was definetly part of a convenant.

Am I the only one that realizes that God says "My covenant is with Isaac"? I take "My" to mean a specific covenant. Not covenants. The previous verses set it up pretty clearly in explaining which covenant is being discussed. But still you will not see.

Another prophecy in the Bible said that in the future nations would populate the promised land that would all believe in God, and that prophecy has definetly been fulfilled by the time after the arrival of the Quran.

It also says that Israel will be trampled over by the gentiles for a time as well. I suppose you believe that time has passed?

Somewhat off-topic, it is clear that God has suspended the convenant with the descendants of Isaac numerous times in history and God even opened up the convenant to all humans with the arrival of Jesus, if you think Jesus was God or like I think just a prophet and wonder doesn't matter in that regard.

God's covenant for redemption was opened up to the people, his covenant for the land is still in effect. I think this thread is becoming a waste of time now. Nobody is going to budge.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Hey, we could go on eternally, seeing who can launch the most personal attacks upon the other.

Telling you your claim is baseless is not, and I repeat not a personal attack.

But that isn't my style

Yes it is, you have been doing it the whole thread.

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic at hand, which was the promised land, that lies between nile and river.

Taliesin, I replied to what you posted. So if I wasn't discussing the topic at hand, that would be your fault.

That land was promised to Abraham and his descendants way before any descendant of Abraham was born, and that means it was promised to all descendants of Abraham,

You can keep saying that till you turn blue in the face. God said otherwise.
You are trying to rationalize your irrational ideals.

as God clearly knew that Ismaeel would become Abraham's descendant as well as Isaac, since God knows all and He created Ismaeel just like He creates every born human.

You are guessing God's intentions, and putting your own spin into it.

Tell me Tali, if God meant for him to be apart of the covenent, why did he tell Abraham later on, that he would not be?

Since you seem to be a (self appointed) expert on why God does things you should have no problems explaining it then.

Your "rational" could maybe be considered if it weren't for the fact that God said the exact opposite.

So, obviously I'm right about the promised land.

The only thing you have proved is more than the people promised the promise land lived there. Something even God said would happen. This does not, and I repeat DOES NOT mean said people were a part of the covenent.

There are people living there NOW, are they part of the covenent too? Of course not!

You and the other christian posters here

Not just Christian posters. People that can actually read and comprehend.

are just latching onto the topic of convenant and thinking that there would be only one convenant and never again another for any other people besides the descendants of Isaac,

Nope, no one ever said that. What we said is this particular covenent was only for Isaac and not Ishmaeel. This promise God made wasn't for him, or his offspring. God himself made that clear.

but that idea isn't supported by the verse deomacious posted. The verse deomacious posted just says that God promised that he would establish a convenant with Isaac, but it doesn't specify that it is the only convenant forever.

LOL!! Of course not. God made another covenent through Jesus. That covers us ALL.

But said covenent he made with Abraham, again does not effect Ishmaeel because God said it didn't.

Besides God said according to the Bible, a few verses before that one about Isaac, that the sign of the convenant would be the circumscision and Ismaeel and Abraham got circumscised on the same day, so Ismaeel was definetly part of a convenant.

Except God said Ismaeel was not apart of the covenent.
For some reason you keep forgetting that part.

It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, and you are trying to rationalize it.

It doesn't matter if Ishmaeel got covenent sheets for his birthday.

God COMMANDED that he will not be apart of the covenent.

Another prophecy in the Bible said that in the future nations would populate the promised land that would all believe in God, and that prophecy has definetly been fulfilled by the time after the arrival of the Quran.

Now the Quran part. That is your personal belief. Of course it's not supported in the Bible either.

At the start of this side-debate you accused me of quoting out of context, but at this point of the debate, you are doing it yourself, you are taking one verse and interpret exclusivity into it and ignore all others.

Really? Please show us where any of use have said that.

We haven't. You indeed have.

If you are not willing to discuss properly and civilised, I will have to continue this discussion with ebuddy instead and ignore you.

Taliesin

We have tried Taliesin. You putting your fingers in your ears ignoring the facts and being rude and codescending (You started it first) to people isn't having a proper and civilised discussion.

Don't throw rocks at people, and get upset when they throw them back, and then act innocent.

No one is buying it. Just like you "interpretation" of the events.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Wow! I don't know what else to say.

Me either, truely amazing .

I think this thread is becoming a waste of time now. Nobody is going to budge.

It shouldn't even be an arguement.

It says it there plain as day he wasn't to be part of the covenent.

Tali is just being thick headed again.

[ebuddy]

It would seem at the conclusion; that if you settle somewhere, it is yours. By this virtue each settler has laid claim to land they've settled upon on behalf of their race, nation, culture, and sociey. While brutal, historically these matters are resolved in war and the most fit in this situation wins the spoils. It is increasingly apparent with news accounts from the region that Israeli's will be expected to continue fighting for their sovereignty, and the Palestinian will continue to fight the Israeli for that land. One thing is for certain, there was no promise or Covenent of peace in that region. There is no promise of peaceful coexistence then and certainly not today. They will remain at odds. The Israeli with their military, and the Palestinian with stealthy attacks. There will be no peace, it cannot be done. Evidenced by centuries of unrest and failed negotiations whose fault can be lain down at the feet of both parties. To continue this fight for "peaceful" coexistence is futile. One must be happy and content with what one has. To hunger for another territory whether you believe it is yours rightfully or religiously, is to require, incite, and beget aggression and war. This is the truth of the matter. This is what we've seen yesterday, this is what we see today, and this is what we'll see tomorrow, and many more tomorrow's until Jesus returns.

[deomacius]

Amen.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It would seem at the conclusion; that if you settle somewhere, it is yours. By this virtue each settler has laid claim to land they've settled upon on behalf of their race, nation, culture, and sociey. While brutal, historically these matters are resolved in war and the most fit in this situation wins the spoils. It is increasingly apparent with news accounts from the region that Israeli's will be expected to continue fighting for their sovereignty, and the Palestinian will continue to fight the Israeli for that land. One thing is for certain, there was no promise or Covenent of peace in that region. There is no promise of peaceful coexistence then and certainly not today. They will remain at odds. The Israeli with their military, and the Palestinian with stealthy attacks. There will be no peace, it cannot be done. Evidenced by centuries of unrest and failed negotiations whose fault can be lain down at the feet of both parties. To continue this fight for "peaceful" coexistence is futile. One must be happy and content with what one has. To hunger for another territory whether you believe it is yours rightfully or religiously, is to require, incite, and beget aggression and war. This is the truth of the matter. This is what we've seen yesterday, this is what we see today, and this is what we'll see tomorrow, and many more tomorrow's until Jesus returns.

Hmm, don't you believe anymore in human's free will?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

[/b]
It says it there plain as day he wasn't to be part of the covenent.
(erased another personal attack)

You will be amazed at how plain the Bible can be about convenants:

Genesis 9:8-17:
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

There you have it, even before Abraham was born, God made a convenant with Noah and all of his descendants and all life on earth for all generations to come, this includes Abraham, Ismaeel and Isaac and co.

Not to say that the Bible is reliable on the story of Noah, it's really slightly different, for example the big flood has not flooded the whole earth but merely a portion of the country Noah preached in and in which his message was rejected, but ok, I promised that I would debate from within the Bible, so...

Oh, and just to make it complete, I even found a message in the Bible, in which prophet Moses says that God promises a new prophet that will be like Moses, meaning off course prophet Muhammad:

Deuteronomy 18:15-22:
15"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to him you shall listen-- 16just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' 17And the LORD said to me, 'They are right in what they have spoken. 18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. 20But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or[f] who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' 21And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Source: www.biblegateway.com (The Standard English Version)

Therein Moses talks to his people, aka the descendants of Isaac and promises a prophet "like me from among you" , "from your brothers". The brothers are off course the descendants of Ismaeel or at least some other tree of descendants of Abraham but not the tree of Isaac's descendants.

The description of the prophet therein, that God will put words in his mouth, etc... describes perfectly prophet Muhammad.

It doesn't require though prophethood to prophecize that this will be denied irrationaly.

Slowly, but surely I get the impression that the heated rejection of the proof I offered for the Bible's acknowledgment of a convenant with Ismaeel, like this one:

Genesis 17
Abraham and the Covenant of Circumcision
1When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty;[a] walk before me, and be blameless, 2that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly." 3Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4"Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5No longer shall your name be called Abram,[b] but your name shall be Abraham,[c] for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."

9And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Source: www.biblegateway.com (English Stadard Version)

, is only a protection-reaction, in order not to come into the position to acknowledge prophet Muhammad's legitimacy and fulfiller of the convenant with Ismaeel, because in prophet Muhammad's Quran-message God criticized that christians thought of Jesus as his son and rejected that idea.

You are though not alone in that regard, numerous christian/jewish theologians before you, centuries and even millenias before you had the same strategical idea like you and changed certain passages of the Bible, in order to make it look like Ismaeel was excluded from a convenant between God and Abraham's descendants.

Remember that the old testament is based upon the greek and hebraic written versions of witness-reports that were orally transferred among the descendants of Isaac:

We do not have the "original documents"; what we have today mainly are the "Greek Bible", the "Hebrew Bible", and the "Dead See Scrolls".

Source: http://religion-cults.com/Judaism/escript.htm

The reason why the original documents are lost are numerous, for example the destruction of the first temple through the Babylonians destroyed much of what was collected in written form, more severe is though that the Babylonians killed the priest-hood and many other jews and expelled them...

But more interesting is that there came a time when the "jews" changed their native language until most of the jews couldn't understand anymore the written scriptures and the content of the orally transferred knowledge changed according with the tongue used:

Hebrew Scriptures: The text was originally written in Hebrew, except for a few verses which were composed in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8 to 6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:4b to 7:28). While exiled in Babylon, the people of Israel learned to speak Aramaic, a language related to Hebrew. They eventually adopted it as their native tongue. By the time of the birth of Jesus, Hebrew had been abandoned by the Jews except for use in religious services, and in literary and scholarly usage. Many people also spoke Greek.
The books of the Apocrypha appear to have been originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. However, the original texts have not survived. Today, we only have translations in Greek and a few other languages, including Latin.

Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and Apocrypha

Relatively few Christians have actually read the Bible in its original form. Essentially all base their Biblical knowledge upon one or more translations of the Bible. There have been dozens of such translations, of varying degree of accuracy:

The traditional belief is that during the 3rd century BCE, 72 translators were locked up in separate rooms on the island of Pharos. Each spent precisely 72 days to translate the Hebrew text into "koine dislektos" a popular version of Greek. When the translations were compared, they were found to be identical. Few people believe this story today. Most theologians believe that the translation was completed in many stages between the 3rd century BCE and 1st century CE. By this time, few Jews were able to read Hebrew. There was concern that they would stray from the faith because they could no longer read the Torah.

The number 72 was rounded off to 70, which in Latin is Septuagint, and in Roman numerals is LXX. This translation has since been referred to both as the Septuagint and as LXX. It was the most commonly used translation among Jews at the time of Christ, and generally used by the writers of the New Testament. LXX contained many translation errors. Because of this, although Jerome (342-420 CE) and two women assistants started to use the Septuagint as a source for the Latin Vulgate, they quickly changed to the Hebrew texts. The Vulgate was used for many centuries by the Roman Catholic Church. (Later writers substituted the phrase "venerable brothers" for his helpers' names in order to suppress the knowledge that Herome was aided by women.)

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_oldt.htm

Another quote:

For some Jews and some Christians, the authorship of these scriptures is a matter of faith: they believe that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, that all of the writings in the book of Isaiah derive from a single prophet, and that every word now found in their scriptures was directly inspired by God. Scholars who consider themselves equally devout, however, have spent much the last few centuries applying to these scriptures the same kind of historical and literary critical tools as they would apply to other ancient documents. Some such scholars have reached relatively "conservative" positions, tending to affirm the essential unity and reliability of scriptural books, while recognizing that there have been some alterations introduced in the course of their transmission through the years. Others believe that it is very difficult to disentangle genuine traditions from later additions, especially in dealing with the early books.

Source: http://uwp.edu/~canary/canon.html

From the same source:

The northern kingdom (Israel) was destroyed by the Assyrians in 721, and in 587 the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and led the king of Judah and most of the ruling classes off into exile. When some of these exiles were permitted to return to Jerusalem by the Persians, they were determined to restore purity of worship; the temple was re-built in 520 B.C. It is clear from the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah that their efforts met resistance and were not always successful. The surviving scriptures generally assume the correctness of their insistence on purity. Ruth, however, which ascribes an alien ancestress to David, is sometimes read as a protest against their attempts to forbid inter-marriage with non-Jews, and Jonah certainly proposes a more universal notion of God than is suggested by Nehemiah's refusal to accept Samaritan assistence in rebuilding the temple. Even so, the revision of the earlier historical books found in Chronicles (c. 300 B.C.?) shows a determination to re-cast the scriptures of Judaism in the light of post-exilic reforms, and it remains a matter of debate to what extent earlier books were re-edited in the same spirit.

Note I used unbiased western, christian and jewish sources.

Taliesin
P.S.: Off Topic: Am I the only one who thinks the new design of the forum is much more uglier than the previous one?