Is the bible the word of God or men?

yes. but it's also a hard situation. when the state of israel was established in 1948, there were a lot of people who lived there already. regardless of how legitimate the creation of the state was, people were displaced, and there is still a lot of resentment about it. many of the "jewish invaders" were holocaust survivors for europe -- that was the intention of establishing israel, afterall, to give these people a place to go.it's certainly not the case that "all israelis are invaders of arab lands." frankly, a fair percentage of the population of israel is arab, and gets along without any problems. the promised islamic genocide of israel seems to be one of those rhetorical politican claims in the arab world, like lowering taxes for us. nobody actually DOES it, people just want to hear it. israeli, on the other hand, has been holding its own with a very strong military force, one of the best in the world. and should a bigger country like iran decide to pick a fight, they'd very quickly have to face the US and brittain as well. which they don't want to do.and i'm not sure that there isn't any UN resolution regarding the issue. yes. well, no. sort of. the jews in palestine were called "palestinians." the term "palestinian" post-1948 means something a little different than it did pre-1948. thus the name change of the newspaper. yes and no. arabs continue to live in israel. let's not mix up "arab" and "palestinian." one is a subset of the other, and most of both groups are also muslim. there are a number of muslim holy sites throughout israel, and israeli is generally very tolerant of islam. it's really only the palestinians they are constantly fighting with.the issue of a soveriegn claim is basically that they lived there, and people came in and took their country away from them. regardless of what deals went on, they basically feel gypped. this is basically the same nonsense as the islamic leaders saying that israel isn't a real country. they don't recognize it as being legitimate sovereignty. the "there was never a palestine" is the product of a western view of the world. similarly, we didn't recognize native american nations in this country, because their lines weren't drawn by our cartographers.only with the added confusion that the lines around palestine were in fact drawn by brittish cartographers in the first place. if their other countries in the area are legitimate, why not palestine? just because they change their minds later doesn't mean it never existed. people don't like relocation. why should people living on the west bank be forced to move to jordan simply because they're arab? every palestinian i've ever heard from has been muslim. i'm not sure what you're on about, but you're clearly not quite in touch with reality on this issue. the palestinians want their own state. israel wants them to be part of israel. one or both of them should suck it up, and they should work out their differences. and, i think, it's going to be on israel to turn things around and give aid and such. while the problem may be with palestine, the only way to work things out is for israel to make it harder for palestinians to view them as the bullies. take away the poverty, and you take away the terrorism. i'm not sure what jordan would say about that. jordan and israel have been on pretty good terms for the last... 40 years or so? since the six days war. i don't think it's a good idea to write jordan into the "problem" column, and certainly not with the ideas that they should give their land to israel.and they certainly were not part of the modern jewish state. or even the ancient one, really. modern israel covers about the same land as the ancient kingdoms of israel and judah, and maybe a little bit extra. they WERE part of palestine under brittish mandate. but that's most definitely not the same thing as a jewish state.you're basically saying that because brittish mandate palestine was divided into israel and jordan, and you like israel, that brittish mandate palestine = israel, so jordan = israel. this is the same logic that leads to "moses was a christian (or muslim)." flawed all around. yes. the jordan river was the boundary to the promised land. west of the river, to the sea. except for philistine lands on the coast, to the south (gaza). no, the philistine lived around the 10th century onward. they seem to have come from the sea (cyprus?), and settled in the area. today's palestinians are probably more from the arabian peninsula.but again, the whole exodus/joshua story seems to be a fabrication anyways. as far as archaeology can tell, the israelites were not invaders, but native semitic peoples. i wouldn't call ruth a "history." it's a novella. as in "coming from history?" yes. as in "recordings of history?" not generally. as i said, exodus and joshua seem to be complete fabrications. after about the 10th century, it starts getting more accurate, because the books were closer to being contemporaneous to the events, and not mythological stories regarding origins. stylistically, the book of kings is a history -- the book of ruth is not. there's a big difference between a bedtime story and an academic work that cites sources and provides dates.

---

quote:

---

and i'm not sure that there isn't any UN resolution regarding the issue.

---

There's no Reso against the arab invasions, nor an equivalent refugee Reso for jews from Arab lands. But no one is bothered about it - least of all the good muslim majority.

quote:

---

there are a number of muslim holy sites throughout israel, and israeli is generally very tolerant of islam. it's really only the palestinians they are constantly fighting with.

---

More of jewish sacred sites in Arab lands - which bars Jews from there, and teaches its peoples a dis-history. They get away with it - no one bothers. So they continue: Jesus is a Pal [that's the result of Nimrod's assertions], and Moses a Muslim, 9/11 a zionist or american plot to blame innocent Islamists. Silence is a condoning and legitimising.

quote:

---

the issue of a soveriegn claim is basically that they lived there, and people came in and took their country away from them. regardless of what deals went on, they basically feel gypped.

---

I disagree. One cannot equalise living in a land and calling it their historic homeland, as can the jews. Most all Arab states today never existed before - and no one gypped about Jordan's creation: so why pick on one state, and demand that only arabs were displaced - and that too, in the most negilible numbers possible, and with no enforcement but by their own goals. The reason for the rejection of Israel is a theological issue, and based on racism and doctrines no one wants to confront. This is not the case with Israel.Of course, Jordan figures here - and is really the sole cause of this conflict, aside from the Brits. Had the UN issued a Reso against Jordan's illegal annexation of the west bank, and made it to allow the remaining 30% of arabs entry there - this issue would not exist today. Why would a new state be given, when the people it was given for - not be allowed entry there? Is Jordan the personal and private possession of a Saudi? The same occured in India - two states were carved out from her lands - and the muslims never went there. This means either jordan observe the only condition of its creation, or the previous legal status applies: Mandated palestine. The fact is, both India and palestine, are subject to corruption by Europe and the Arab league, making the UN the world's most notoriously corrupt body today.

quote:

---

There was never a sovereign state called palestine - it was an area with no official designation.

​

this is basically the same nonsense as the islamic leaders saying that israel isn't a real country. they don't recognize it as being legitimate sovereignty. the "there was never a palestine" is the product of a western view of the world. similarly, we didn't recognize native american nations in this country, because their lines weren't drawn by our cartographers.

---

I disagree again. There was NO Palestinian state - a FACT, not because of any border confusion. This was the jewish state - FACT. Both are in deniable by the Arabs - FACT. The palestinian issue is 3 decades old, and intended only as a negation of israel. The first multi-state arab attack was perpertrated when all of the lands demanded today was already in Jordan and Egypt's hands - and no muslim Palestinians existed on this planet - FACT.Had no Jews been involved in this conflict, this matter would be resolved in an hour - with a golf came thrown in. It is not related only to jews, but will impact other areas - it is the condoning of a racist doctrine, and highlighted most with the jewish state - which both european christianity and islam see as an affront to their theological sensibilities. It appears the truth does not always set one free - it can also call one to account. there should be reciprocity demanded of all Islamic states - or there will be a growing conflict the world over.

quote:

---

the palestinians want their own state. israel wants them to be part of israel. one or both of them should suck it up, and they should work out their differences. and, i think, it's going to be on israel to turn things around and give aid and such. while the problem may be with palestine, the only way to work things out is for israel to make it harder for palestinians to view them as the bullies. take away the poverty, and you take away the terrorism.

---

I disagree. The arabs are saying yes, you can have a state - but first we will chop your head off. That's the nature of their demands. No nation can prevail these demands and the only reason they demand them. The pal issue is a placebo. I'm not in denial.

quote:

---

as in "coming from history?" yes. as in "recordings of history?" not generally. as i said, exodus and joshua seem to be complete fabrications. after about the 10th century, it starts getting more accurate, because the books were closer to being contemporaneous to the events, and not mythological stories regarding origins. stylistically, the book of kings is a history -- the book of ruth is not. there's a big difference between a bedtime story and an academic work that cites sources and provides dates.

---

Choose your own. Israel works 10C equally well. But if there is any document which cannot be a fairy take in the entire OT writings, I'd pick the story of Ruth: there is no theological stuff here, only historical. I point you to Moab, Nebo, King David listed therein - that the stats and dates here are no failry tales, that became accidently historical? I doubt that. BTW, Ruth was a mere 100 years from David, who has been scientifically proven a true historical figure, but of whom was said as you do not of Ruth. Why act like you have another authentic contemporary document of disputation - you do not. Fairy tales.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

TALKING LAND - as we speak. Depending on this report being authenticated, and is dated prior 70 CE - there would be no Palestinians on this planet. It is 1000 years after David conquered the Philistines. Yes/No?Archaeologists find 2,000-year-old palace in east JerusalemWed Dec 5, 1:13 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071205...ologyjerusalemJERUSALEM (AFP) - Israeli archaeologists said on Wednesday they have unearthed a palace complex dating back to the first century AD in an Arab neighbourhood just outside the walls of Jerusalem's Old City.Archaeologists discovered a structure that is "relatively big in size and subdivided into main halls," said Doron Ben-Ami, the project director, adding that coins on site dated the structure to the time of the Jews' Second Temple.Ben-Ami said more work was necessary but that there was a "high probability" that the structure was a palace built by Queen Helena, a wealthy Iraqi aristocrat who converted to Judaism and moved to Jerusalem around 40 AD.The structure was destroyed 30 years later, when Roman troops violently suppressing a Jewish revolt razed much of Jerusalem to the ground, including the Second Temple of which only the Western Wall remains today, he said.The excavation is being carried out in a car park just opposite the City of David, the site of Jerusalem in ancient times and now an outdoor archaeological museum in the densely-populated Palestinian suburb of Silwan.

IAJ,infinity: a unmeasurable space. Clap!!!!Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

IAJ,
infinity: a unmeasurable space. Clap!!!!

---

I'm not sure this is the correct definition, and appears more an expressionism [immeasuable love/fame/wealth etc], or an acedemic math term.Technically, the term employed in the OT, says that the universe had a beginning, and is finite. Equally, it's antithesis is in the verse, 'I HAVE NOT CHANGED' - and the prefix of 'I AM THE LORD', applied in the text context it is attached to - namely that God knew Abraham, 400 years previously, in another country - is of a true, technical infinity and eternity ['From everlasting to everlasting'/Moses' words]. It is different in kind from immeasurable in the sense of very big or very much.This is also reflected in the term 'created' - it is a technical term specifically refering to 'something from nothing', as opposed 'something from something else'. Thus the technical term of 'create' [bara'Heb] does not occur outside the first chapter of genesis; it is replaced by 'formed'. It is no typo.And the critical separation of infinity from anything else, according to the OT, rests on the 'change' factor, exactly as nominated there. Because the universe is finite, nothing universe contained can be infinite, and there is nothing in the universe which can prevail the 'change' test. It is a deep logic, and I trust you will consider it as opposed an automatic contesting, cyclical mode: science is based on scientific logic, and requires deliberation. let not the seemingly simple biblespeak confuse - its preise is 100% science and logic.

Maybe if just one issue at a time is covered then maybe we can get somewhere (it will still require a significant movment toward honesty and integrity on Josephs part,which may not be a realistic hope on *MY* part). I never said anything about Moses being a Muslim though "Musilm" simply means "one who submits" (to God).I assume your problem is that Muslims (which I am not!) consider the religion known as "Islam" to be a record of Gods revelation from Adam to c600 AD/CE prophets.If you disagree with their religion then fine.It really has nothing to do with this topic(and especially with anything I said).As for the "...Jesus is a Pal[estinian]..." accusation of yours, let me explain the issue here.You claim that all Koran or New Testament believers (Muslims and Christians respectively) are not worthy of rights in the land of Israel/Palestine.Since Israel, as a modern nation, labels all Christians and Muslims as "Arabs" (which is also their official designation of Palestinians- simply "Arabs") , then my question to you is WHAT would you call Christians (which Jesus's converted family members's descendants were) in the land today called Israel?The entire word would call them "Palestinians".And the masterful Bob Brier in his 48 CD/cassette tape lecture series "The History Of Ancient Egypt" also pointed out that the modern day Muslims and Christian of Palestine (ie "Palestinians") are probably converts who once were Jewish.(Bob Brier is the great expert on mummies who proposed the theory that King Tut was murdered-popular for so long).CONCLUSION(IamJoseph, listen up man!)So its by YOUR exclusionary logic that Jesus and his family were "Palestinians" (ie non-Israelites).MY VIEW is that all peoples are equal and I really dont care what labels (whether it be Canaan, Terra Sancta, Filastin,Israel, etc.) people place on them.I would be happy for the land to be called "Israel" by official world bodies forever.I dont care what race somebody is becasue the teachings of Romans, Galations, etc. teach us that ones Jewish ancestry isnt an issue.But AGAIN, its by *your* logic, that all Christian (or Muslim) converts (in the land of Israel from times past) are no longer "Jewish" , thus they cant be considered "Israelites".The label is "Palestinian".By YOUR logic!(Im happy with the teachings of Galatians 3:28 and Romans 10:12 however, so I will gladly call them Israelites instead)Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

After I got done proving to IamJoseph that "Palestine" has been the designation of the land for 2500 years before 1948 including 500+ years before Josephus, he quoted me saying this; First of all, I never negated any history (I wouldnt dare take away a single detail of history!).I simply pointed out that Muslims and Christians (especially Palestinians) have Jewish ancestry.Endless U.S. court decisions have been the result of critical-judges being forced to accept that PROVEN historical fact!(care to respond to the decisions Joseph, or will you continue to ignore them and respond to Straw Men?)Anyway, here is what a Jewish convert to Christianity has to offer via his observations of RECENT history; Here is the popular fundamentalist Christian Bible Dictionary from old; I will add in the Bob Brier quote later when I find the exact tape it was on (out of 48!)The facts of history threaten to crush the baseless bull-crap of IamJoseph and other racist disensationalists!EDIT SEE POST 62 FOR BRIER QUOTE(see reply to this post below)Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

Gee thanks, that's much clearer now.
The above comments almost resemble English, but stop short of making even a scintilla of sense. I have no idea what you are talking about, and I doubt that it is because I lack the wit to grasp your lofty argument.
Infinite = without limit or end, boundless.
Right? It's that simple. Your "definition" is no more than "words mean what I choose them to mean" gobbledegook. Stop blathering.
I normally wouldn't criticise someone's English when they are clearly using it as a second language, but you seem to think that you have the right to redefine what words mean, when in fact, you have such a poor command of English that you can hardly string together a comprehensible post. Sorry to talk like that Joseph, but it needed saying. If you want to make your point clearly, try shorter, less rambling sentences. Try an in-line spell-checker.Edited by Granny Magda, : Minor tinkering.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

Infinite = without limit or end, boundless.
Right? It's that simple. Your "definition" is no more than "words mean what I choose them to mean" gobbledegook. Stop blathering.

---

This can be miscontrued with what cannot be seen, measured or transcended only, as is the case in expressionisms. There is also a mathematical placebo for this, whereby infinity is factored into equations as one of many factors. The terms 'limit; end; and bounds' cannot be applied - these are finite provisions, and does not subsist in infinity, only in finity.The proposal of 'change' marks the only factor which makes this concept non-negotiable and non-comparable with any other premise. I am quoting the source which introduced the premise of finite and infinite, and what constitutes it as seperate from all else.Only where there is NO change, can be said to describe infinity. If change occurs, it means whatever changed something is transcendent of what it changed.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

So you claim there were no Jews, Muslims or Christians in the land after 40 A.D./C.E. cbecause you are too stupid to study the history of the land?The only thing "authenticated" by your post is the genuine stupidity you constantly display.I will try and educate you yet more!Here is some history from a Jewish convert to Christianity who lived in israel for a time; Sorry to burst your bubble Joseph, but Jews, Christians, and Muslims continued to thrive for nearly 2000 years after 40 A.D.!A another thing ..... this is more evidence that many Jews converted to Islam!Granted, no Jews were present at the time of the Arab liberation (in 638 A.D./C.E.which biased historians call an invasion) due to Christian intolerance,BUT the Muslims allowed them to return to the land and Judaism thrived till the Crusaders killed all Jews yet again 461 years later!Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So you claim there were no Jews, Muslims or Christians in the land after 40 A.D./C.E. cbecause you are too stupid to study the history of the land?

---

Never said so, nor inferred anything like it.

quote:

---

The only thing "authenticated" by your post is the genuine stupidity you constantly display.

​

I will try and educated you yet more!

​

Here is some history from a Jewish convert to Christianity who lived in israel for a time;

​

-Israel Shamir-
What about Moslems? The Moslems venerate Christ. He is called "The Word of God", "Logos", Messiah, the Prophet and is considered "a Messenger of God", along with Abraham, Moses and Muhammad. Many chapters of the Kor'an tell the story of Christ, his virgin birth and his persecution by Jews. His saintly mother is admired, and the Immaculate Conception is one of the tenets of Islam. The name of Christ glorifies the golden edifice of Haram al-Sharif. According to the Moslem faith, it was there that the founder of Islam met Jesus, and they prayed together. The Hadith, the Moslem tradition, says in the name of the prophet, "We do not forbid you to believe in Christ, we order you to."

---

My understanding is, Judaism does not include any premises of the NT - coming 2000 years previously of it, yet these two religions have more in common than with islam: better an honest disagreement than a dishonest agreement, applies. My understanding is that christianity does not include any premises of Islam - despite that Islam upholds some of the NT provisions - which amounts o a greater rejection than with Judaism, namely the carot did not work, as with the premise of facing Jerusalem when praying did not work - then abruptly turned to Mecca. Christianity upholds the provisions of the OT - exactly as they uphold the NT - and of history according to the OT provisions. You are misrepresenting the situation here, exploiting only what is a common fact before islam happened.

quote:

---

Moslems identify their prophet with Paracletes, the Helper (Jn 14:16) whose coming was predicted by Jesus. They venerate places associated with the life of Jesus: the place of Ascension, the Tomb of Lazarus, the Holy Sepulchre are adjacent to a mosque and perfectly accessible by Christians.

---

Fine. I don't question your beliefs. Except if it impacts elsewhere, and if it is false and villifies and negates the entire history and heritage of others.

quote:

---

While Moslems do not consider Jesus God, they proclaim him as the Messiah, the Anointed one, the Paradise Dweller. This religious idea, familiar to Nestorians and other early churches, but rejected by mainstream Christianity, opened the gates for those Jews, who could not part with the notion of strict monotheism. That is why many Palestinian Jews and Christians of the 7th century accepted Islam and became Palestinian Moslems. They remained in their villages, they did not depart for Poland or England, they did not learn Yiddish, they did not study the Talmud

---

False, with not an inkling of truth. Palestinian muslims is a historical fiction, as is the notion of Jews condoning Islam and converting. Islam massacred 1000s of Jews in Medina, enforced women and children with a sword, and forbid leaving the faith upon a death penalty. This makes the notion of conversion itself a farce, and the notion of no compulsion. Better, that leaving a faith be made easy, and joining hard: the real test of one's sincerity.

quote:

---

Sorry to burst your bubble Joseph, but Jews, Christians, and Muslims continued to thrive for nearly 2000 years after 40 A.D.!

---

Your bubble is busted: there were NO muslims on this planet in 40 CE. When the article I posted refers to an Arab neighnourhood - it is speaking about arabs living there 'NOW' - not in 40 CE! In 40 CE, this was a soverign jewish state, denied today by arab muslims.

quote:

---

A another thing ..... this is more evidence that many Jews converted to Islam!

---

I cannot imagine a more notorious dis-history if I really tried. The evidence says, around this very spacetime, Jews put up the greatest defense of a faith in all recorded history with Rome. Over 1.1 M Jews sacrificed their lives, country and Temple and became the only peoples which challenged Rome's decree to worship Roman divine dieties. I guess the world's most vindicated proof of this history, the Flavius Josehpus Documents, written as it happened, is not part of islamic education: perhaps its because the pre-islamic Arabs bowed lowest to Rome's statues? Why do you think the arabs were not exile to Europe? This is what occured:'WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR'And the Arabs are first-hand witness to this event. Is the jewish temple a zionist myth? Then where did Mohammed ascend from - even that he never set foot in this city with a mythical temple? How does it explain the Gospels saying one jesus visited this mythical temple? Make up your mind - and declare what you run away from:Which was the Jewish homeland? Was Moses a Muslim by belief? Where did you get your rituals, traditions and laws from - the Quran via Revelation - or was all of these already precedent in the OT before 2500 years of Islam's emergence - and conducted by Jews in the Arab lands since 586 BCE? I bet you do not even understand the law of 24 hour burials - it is respect of the deseased, including an enemy: not for flaunting beheadings on TV: this is a violation, and not rectified by 24 hour burials of naturally deceased people. I bet you do not understand the law relating to not eating pig meat? tell us its reasons please by referring to your own scriptures?

quote:

---

Granted, no Jews were present at the time of the Arab liberation (in 638 A.D./C.E.which biased historians call an invasion) due to Christian intolerance,BUT the Muslims allowed them to return to the land and Judaism thrived till the Crusaders killed all Jews yet again 461 years later!

---

The first attrocity was by muslims - they failed to grant the jews their homeland again, and this attrocity continues, with unending false justifications and dis-historical teachings about this region. jews have never done any wrongs to arabs or muslims - not now nor in the past. Its the other way around exclusively.'TO COVER ONE LIE - A 1000 TRUTHS MUST BE COVERED'

I promised that I would source scholarly observation of the brilliant Egyptologist Bob Brier. Above there was about 10 minutes gap between the two quotes.The latter part had Brier talking about the Bibles text which mentions the 587 captivity to Babylon.Later he goes on to discuss the broader historical implications of the captivity From the scholarly Smiths Bible Dictionary of 100 years ago to Encyclopedia Britannica to dozens of U.S. court decisions to U.S. congressional studies to modern records to the expert opinions of modern scholars who are leaders in their field(like Brier), the acurate presentations of history show that Palestinians are as much descendants of the tribe of Judah as modern day Jews are.(I even have a Palestinian-American friend who took DNA tests with Jews at a university, and the match on the mothers side was identical!)Facts are facts!Sorry you dont like them Joseph.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

So you agree that the U.S. goverment should hand back all US territory to Native American tribes then? Or is 200 years enough "history" to claim it as your own?In any case, for many Muslims or Arabs in the area it is also their "historic" homeland. They had lived in the area for over 1300 years before the creation of modern Israel.

Native Americans and Palestinians have ancestry that stretches back thousands of years in their respective lands.Joseph supported (or supports) the elimination of both I would assume (he sure has made his view clear on palestinians).Right-wing "manifest destiny" in action.AND REMEMBER: Palestinians have ancestors from ALL peoples of the land-even Jews!Read any history of Palestine,and in ANY historical period. Whether 10,000 years ago.Whether 5,000 years ago.Whether 2500 years ago.Whether 1300 years ago.ALL are ancestors of modern day Palestinians!Thats a historical fact. (little know and at times quite ironic- especially true considering the brain-dead "fundamentalist Christian" Dispnsationalism doctrine, of which this 1800's fantasy demands rank ignorance of history in order for people to be "able" to accept)

quote:

---

In any case, for many Muslims or Arabs in the area it is also their "historic" homeland. They had lived in the area for over 1300 years before the creation of modern Israel.

---

So have jews - only far longer. I don't support the disregard or demise of any peoples, and reject the doctrine of islamic eradication of Israel and her history and heritage - under the guise of a ficticious suffering of Muslim Palestinians. This is an islamic genocidal agenda, and not confusable by any false notions. The analogy of the American natives do not apply here - unlike the modern Americans, Jews 'RETURNED' to their land, and never stole anyone's lands: the arabs know this and are lieing from every cell in their beings - thus the terrible proposal of jews being the ancesters of an invented palestinian peoples.Also, the statutory period does not apply when there is murder and enforceent [Judiciary law]. Jews never left of their own, and were fastediously barred from returning. The culprit here is hardly the jews or israel. There is no doubt what is meant by jews converted to islam and are thus a non-entity. It is shameless for any member of the human race to support such doctrines, and only says more of them than what they say. I would'nt remain silent of such attrocities and claims of any other peoples, including the horrific terrorism experienced by India - despite her being the most hospital and accomodating nation to muslims.