Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush

[lionger]

Thanks to Waziri's persistence I've realised that no adequate response was given to his latest dip into the Old Testament, so I will try to do so now. I will first look into the 'shady' claims of a promised land for the Jews in the book of Genesis, as you Waziri has dubbed them.  It's claims like this that makes me wonder how some of you read the Bible. There is absolutely nothing shady about Genesis' take on the promised land, which is the very least that I could say about your contribution to this thread.

What does Genesis say about the promised land? Well it started with God calling a man called Abram:

Genesis 12:1-6
The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
  "I will make you into a great nation
   and I will bless you;
   I will make your name great,
   and you will be a blessing.
   I will bless those who bless you,
   and whoever curses you I will curse;
   and all peoples on earth
   will be blessed through you."
 So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan , and they arrived there.
 Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring(seed) I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

God promised Abram the land of Canaan, which today is the site of contention b/w Israel and the Palestinians, for the most part.
 After a while, Lot parted ways with Abram and went east, and God repeated His promise to Abram again:

Genesis 13:14-18
The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring(seed) forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you."
 So Abram moved his tents and went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he built an altar to the LORD.

In Chapter 15, God promises Abram a son (he had none at this point) and in fact tells him what will happen to his descendants who will inherit this promise:

Genesis 15:12-20
As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."
 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river(Wadi) of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

Notice that God prophecied that Abram's heirs would be enslaved in a foreign country (Egypt) for four hundred years. Remember also God's comments concerning the Amorites' sin as a hint to why they were going to be kicked off the land later. God wasn't just doing Israel a favor and injustice to everyone else! Keep this point in mind, for we will come back to it later when we look at Deuteronomy.
 When Abram was 99 years old, God appeared to him again, repeated the promises and changed his name to Abraham.

Genesis 17:1-8
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."
 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 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. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."


God also added that his son from Sarah, Isaac, would be the heir of Abraham's covenant with God and the promises. Ismael had already been born and was thirteen at the time:

Genesis 17:19-21
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. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.

God repeats the promises again to Abraham in Chapter 22 after he passed the test concerning his son Isaac:

Genesis 22:15-18
The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring (seed) all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

God confirmed the promises to Isaac himself twice in chapter 26, as Abraham's heir:

Genesis 26:1-6
Now there was a famine in the land?besides the earlier famine of Abraham's time?and Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines in Gerar. The LORD appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring(seed) all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So Isaac stayed in Gerar.

Genesis 26:23,24
23 From there he went up to Beersheba. That night the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bless you and will increase the number of your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham."

God also confirmed the covenant with Isaac's son and heir, Jacob, when he fled from home to avoid the wrath of his brother Esau:

Genesis 28:10-15
Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you."

More than twenty years later, when Jacob returned to Canaan with his wives and children, God reconfirmed the promises and gave him a new name, Israel, the name of the nation that would come out of him:

Genesis 35:9-12
After Jacob returned from Paddan Aram, God appeared to him again and blessed him. God said to him, "Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel. So he named him Israel.
And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you."

I think all this is enough to prove that promised land for Israel in Genesis can hardly be described as a shady concept. Waziri and the Fulanis cannot lay any claim to the promise through Esau, for it is clear that Esau did not inherit this promise; Jacob did. In fact Genesis 36 tells us that Esau and his descendants moved away from Jacob and settled in the hill country of Seir and the surrounding area. Waziri you ought to have known this at least from Deuteronomy 2 (which I assume you read, since you quoted from it in your 'passage' ;) ), because in that chapter God led the Israelites through Seir but warned them not to make war with its inhabitants as Seir was given to Esau as his inheritance.

This brings us nicely to the subject of your Deuteronomy 'passage', which I will look into in my next post. But before we go there I would like to bring attention to the phrases I highligted in red; one of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: that through them and their offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed. That, my friend, is the key point to remember, as long as we're discussing strict Scriptural interpretation. The reason I say that is because it answers the question, 'why?' Why did God choose these three men and bless them and their descendants? So that the rest of the world would be blessed through them.

[lionger]

Onto Deuteronomy:

In recent times Waziri your immediate reaction to the Israel issue has been to pinpoint the Jewish religion as the source of Israel's current 'belligerence', due to the sanctioning of racial hatred and violence in their Scriptures as you see it. You then quoted the book of Deuteronomy to prove your theory. Now when anyone makes such a serious charge as you have done, it is expected that he follows through with very careful, properly referenced scriptural analysis. My brother, this is exactly what you did not do. As I have said before, this 'passage' of Deuteronomy you presented here is not a passage in the true sense of the word. This is an amalgam of several verses scattered across the book. You smacked together several verses to form a 'passage' and in the process sacrificed background and  contextual respect of each verse. This is very wrong. Deuteronomy is a fairly large book that contains things that are quite harsh by our conventional sensibilities; all the more reason why we must take pay extra attention to background and context.

Firstly, let's establish the fact that your 'passage' from Deuteronomy is actually a collection of verses from Deuteronomy. I'll do this by properly referencing the verses you used and putting them on separate lines. At least you helped by putting ellipses, but what good is that when in some cases there are several chapters between verses? My annotations are in red, in this format: [Chapter # : Verse #].

[Chapter 2:Verse 2]And the Lord spake unto me, saying. . .
[2:25]This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee . . .
[4:15] And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it . . .
[4:37,38]And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. . . to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance . . .
[7:2,3]And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. . .
[7:5] ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images. . .
[7:6]For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth . . .
[7:16]And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . .
[7:23,24]But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed . . . He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven, there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them . . .
[11:24] Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours. . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be . . .
[20:16]Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save nothing alive that breatheth . . .
[28:12]thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shalt not borrow . . .
[12:2]Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . .

KJV translation

When presented this way, the concern for contextual analysis of each verse and chapter becomes more apparent. This really is what you should have done Waziri. You quoted sixteen verses from seven chapters but did not reference it as such. By lumping it into one paragraph you effectively created your own version of Deuteronomy; a work of fiction that obviously serves your purpose much better. Its easy to see racial hatred and prejudice in the commands of total destruction of certain peoples, abstinence from inter-racial marriage, the promises of territorial expansion and prosperity. All this without explanation and without context.

1. What land was Israel to conquer/inherit? What nation(s) were to be removed?

The Israelites were not given license to consume all that was before them. Waziri you quoted from Chapter 2, did you read the whole chapter? If you did you would have realised that three times God told Moses and Israel not to tamper with certain territories they were passing through(all my quotations are from the NIV):

Verses 2-6
Then the LORD said to me, "You have made your way around this hill country long enough; now turn north. Give the people these orders: 'You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They will be afraid of you, but be very careful.  Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the water you drink.' "

Verse 9
Then the LORD said to me, "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."

Verses 17-19
...the LORD said to me, "Today you are to pass by the region of Moab at Ar. When you come to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give you possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites. I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot.

Note that at the same time God said that Ammon was off-limits, he also said to take the land possessed by Sihon and the Amorites:

Verses 24,25
Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you."

There's the second verse you quoted Waziri; verse 25. God said that he would put the fear of them in all the nations, right after telling them  not to touch certain lands. Even so, Moses clearly did not take God's command concerning Sihon as a licence for an unprovoked attack. As Deuteronomy 2 and Numbers 21 show, Moses sent a message of peace to Sihon asking to pass through his land. Sihon refused, came out with his entire army and was subsequently destroyed.

So what land was Israel to inherit and settle in at this point? In the Torah it was largely referred to as the 'land of Canaan' or the land of the Amorites (both terms were used interchangeably), west of the Jordan, and flanked by the Mediterranean Sea, the desert and Lebanon. It also included some portions east of the Jordan. God himself defined the borders of this territory in Numbers 34:1-14:

The LORD said to Moses,"Command the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter Canaan, the land that will be allotted to you as an inheritance will have these boundaries:
" 'Your southern side will include some of the Desert of Zin along the border of Edom. On the east, your southern boundary will start from the end of the Salt Sea (Dead Sea), cross south of Scorpion(Akrabbim) Pass, continue on to Zin and go south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar Addar and over to Azmon, where it will turn, join the Wadi of Egypt and end at the Sea (Mediterranean).
" 'Your western boundary will be the coast of the Great Sea (Mediterranean). This will be your boundary on the west.
" 'For your northern boundary, run a line from the Great Sea to Mount Hor and from Mount Hor to Lebo Hamath. Then the boundary will go to Zedad, continue to Ziphron and end at Hazar Enan. This will be your boundary on the north.
" 'For your eastern boundary, run a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. The boundary will go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Kinnereth. Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and end at the Salt Sea.
" 'This will be your land, with its boundaries on every side.' "
Moses commanded the Israelites: "Assign this land by lot as an inheritance. The LORD has ordered that it be given to the nine and a half tribes, because the families of the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance. These two and a half tribes have received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan of Jericho, toward the sunrise."

The land east of the Jordan that was assigned to a few tribes was that which belonged to Sihon's Amorite kingdom and Og's Bashan kingdom (which was also taken in Deuteronomy 2). Note that practically all of Deuteronomy occurs here on the eastern banks of the Jordan. Here's some maps that shows the territory Israel inherited and settled in.
http://www.biblemaps.com/onlinemaps/12tribes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png

Who were the peoples that possessed these lands at the time, that were to be driven out/destroyed? There were seven nations - and they are mentioned specifically several times in Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy. Waziri you quoted quite extensively from Deuteronomy 7; but it begs the question, who do the words  'them' and 'their' refer to? Anyone Israel can get their hands on? Certainly not Edom, Moab or Ammon - we've already seen that their lands are off limits. The very first verse of Deuteronomy 7 tells us:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you..

Now these are the peoples that were to be completely destroyed, and their lands settled. These are the nations that Israel is forbidden from engaging in treaties or marriage relations, and whose idols they were to destroy. These seven peoples are the subject of these verses you quoted: 7:2-3, 7:5, 7:16, 7:23-24, 12:2.

Now what about 11:24, which seems to promise that every place where Israel sets its foot would be theirs? Well obviously this verse should be put in context of the chapter it came from. Chapter 11 is an exhortation from Moses to Israel to remember God and his commandments when they  settle in the land. Obedience to God will result in prosperity and even expansion of territorial control, while disobedience will result in destruction and ejection from the land. Let's read verses 22-25:

If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow-to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways and to hold fast to him- then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you. Every place where you set your foot will be yours: Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the western sea (Mediterranean). No man will be able to stand against you. The LORD your God, as he promised you, will put the terror and fear of you on the whole land, wherever you go.

The promise that 'every place you put your foot on will be yours' is put in context here by two things: first, this will only occur as a reward for obedience in following God. Second, the borders of their expanded territory is immediately defined. Note that this is pretty much the same borders promised to Abraham in Genesis 15. In fact, Moses himself is given the same borders in the first chapter of Deteronomy. Essentially what is being said here is that Israel would expand into a mini-empire of sorts with border states subject to them - if they presisted in obedience to God. This actually did happen during the reigns of King David and his son Solomon (click link to see maps).
http://www.biblemaps.com/onlinemaps/UnitedKingdom.html
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/solkingd.htm

28:12, the verse about Israel lending and not borrowing, also belongs here as well. Similarly to Chapter 11, Chapter 28 is wholly devoted to an extensive description of the blessings for obedience to God and curses/punishment for disobedience. You quoted one of the blessings. Btw, what do you make of the curses for disobedience section? Did you notice that it was much longer than the blessings section? And doesn't it also seem to describe ancient Israel's history much more accurately?


2. Why did God command the complete destruction of certain peoples? Why was Israel inheriting their land? Why the ban on intermarriage? Why, why, why???
I think it helps when reading the Bible to ask ourselves the question 'why'. If not, we could miss out on much meaning and significance, and will fail to understand much. This is especially important with the Torah/Old Testament. There's a lot of very gory here which I personally don't enjoy reading, and can understand why you object to them Waziri. But it helps to understand the context of these things. You can't just browse through a couple of verses ordering the total obliteration of certain peoples, intermarriage bans, designation of one race as 'chosen', etc. and say 'o well, the religion is racist, cased closed' - incomplete reseach. Is religion just empty, brainless submission?? Why were these orders given? What is the motive behind them, what is the purpose?? These are questions begging answers. And they're right there in the same Book of Deuteronomy.

Why the command of complete extermination of certain nations? And why does Israel get to inherit their land? Deuteronomy 9:4-6.

After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.

The Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites etc. were all going to be booted out because of their 'wickedness', i.e. their sin. God made this point clear to Abraham in Genesis 15 and he made it clear to Israel several times. Both the Bible and and secular historical records show that the peoples that inhabited these regions at the time had degenerated to a most barbaric, violent and uncivilized state. Even their religious rituals were filled with gross sexual perversion and child/human sacrifice. Many of the commands in the Torah, especially the laws regarding sexual practices in Leviticus 18&20 were simply God's rejection of Canaanite/Amorite culture. As such, part of God's reason for odering the complete destruction of those seven nations was to ensure that Israel did not also adopt their practices and thus end up like them. If we put your 20:16 verse in context w ecan see this clearly:
Deut. 20:16-18
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Now fast-forward to the time after Joshua, when Israel had settled in the land of Canaan:

Judges 3:5-8
The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 6 They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD; they forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asherahs. The anger of the LORD burned against Israel so that he sold them into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim (Northwest Mesopotamia),  to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years.

God warned the Israelites that they too would be ejected if they behaved like the previous tenants - which is exactly what happened.

Israel did not inherit the land because they were righteous; they quite simply weren't. Moses, the speaker in Deuteronomy 9, would know this firsthand. Of all the tens of thousands that originally came out of Egypt, only two entered the land promised to them. The rest died in the desert as punishment for disobedience. They were real sufferheads  :P . Israel did not deserve to get the land. They only got it as a result of God's promise to their 'patriachs' (forefathers), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which has already been looked into in my previous post. Remember again that this promise was not just about the establishment of a strong Israel, but that through them all nations would be blessed. As long as we're discussing scripture interpretation, you can't lose sight of this fact. It answers the question 'why'.

Now why the ban on intermarriage? Deuteronomy 7:3-4.

Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

Waziri, you quoted from verse 3 which  records the ban on intermarriage, but yet again failed to give mention to the next verse which puts the command in its proper context. This is no xenophobic concern for Israel's racial purity; or proof of Israel's race being 'better' or superior. God's main concern is religious purity; that inter-marriage with the Canaanite peoples would result in adoption of the latter's cultural mores. Once again this is exactly what happened time and time again in Israel's history right from the period after Joshua (Moses' successor) to the time of the exiles in Babylon and Assyria.

Outside of these religious concerns this command was hardly universal. Moses himself was married to a Cushite woman, and when his older siblings Miriam and Aaron got on his back for it, God rebuked them severely (Numbers 12)!  David's ancestral line included two non-Israelite women: Rahab, a Canaanite survivor of Joshua's destruction of Jericho; and Ruth, a Moabite immigrant, who has a whole book named after her in the Tanakh. With these women one thing is common: they obviously converted to the Jewish religion. As long as that was the case, it was fine. The law on intermarriage was meant to protect the faith, not the racial make-up per se.

With this I hope that we can put into context all the verses you quoted Waziri. The commands of complete extermination was restricted to certain nations and the purpose was judgement for sin and protection of Israel from their corrupting influences. Even Israel's territorial expansion was cleary controlled by God strictly and dependent on their continuing obedience to him. Wanton violence against other races was not sanctioned in Tanakh, short and simple.

One last thing I want to mention is the laws concerning the treatment of non-Israelite aliens living among them:

Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 23:9
"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33,34
" 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 24:17
Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice
Deuteronomy 23:7
Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country.
Deuteronomy 27:19
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow..."

I think the words speak for themselves. Native-born Israelites did have some advantages over aliens though. But in any case, racial hatred quite simply is not justified in the book of Deuteronomy or in any book in the Tanakh. Waziri, this is a very wrong and unfair charge. I am willing to concede, however, that overtime the Israelites did become guilty of despising other races, as is very evident in the New Testament of the Bible. At the very least they made the same mistake you made here in misunderstanding their scriptures; not realising that their designation as the 'beloved' of God was through no merit of theirs, but for the blessing of all nations through them.

I await your reply. God bless,
lionger

[Ete]

Waziri does your deliberate distortion of Bible passages to serve your purpose not constitute gross intellectual dishobesty? You are the one who claimed initially that Lionger and I insulted your collective intelligence, etc etc.  By the way, we did not. We presented an argument that you rejected. What you did with lumping up several verses in Deutronomy and presenting it as an original stand alone chapter is quite mischievous.

[mlbash]

Waziri does your deliberate distortion of Bible passages to serve your purpose not constitute gross intellectual dishobesty? You are the one who claimed initially that Lionger and I insulted your collective intelligence, etc etc.  By the way, we did not. We presented an argument that you rejected. What you did with lumping up several verses in Deutronomy and presenting it as an original stand alone chapter is quite mischievous.

you should have use more softer words mr ete. :)

[_Waziri_]

Salam,

Readers, I am sorry for resurrecting all the relevant threads again to post my earlier response to the first part of the claims lionger and co are puting in relation to the promised land, who also accused me of misreading and misquoting "their" holy scripts in order to serve my purpose of expressing hate against them. Pls I do this for no reason than the following:

1.    To establish within us and them that they have seen our thread and did not respond to what I said because they agreed with our points as such will not bother us again when we make points similar to these in future. It is a settled issue.

2.    That in truth it is not only them that hold the present Bible very dear for it is as dear to us as they believe it is dear to them. That they should never accuse us again of mutiliating the Bible. Yes, we maybe wrong in some of our assertions but they have no right to claim better right of ownership of the scripts than us. Here is it:

Having driven my points in the other thread started by my sister Husna, I will discuss, here, the falsity of the oft repeated claim, that there was an accord between God and the Jews which gave them Palestine permanently and for life, as promised. I will draw from the Biblical sources  through to Qur?an and side by side the insurmountable evidence of history which will portray in grim light that the activities of the Jews in the Middle East is a breach of human dignity, an exercise in avarice and an eccentricity of the highest magnitude in the sight of God. In doing that we will certainly find the following verse giving the true test of what prophesy is, most instrumental. It reads:


And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Holy Bible (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

Building in the submission of lionger in defense of the fraudulent accord we read in the same Bible how Abraham, the so-called, receiver of the promise, died in a land he bought for himself.

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave....
The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.
Holy Bible (Genesis 25:9-10)

How possible is it then that he was given a land when he had buy one for his own grave? This is especially true when we see how another verse from the scripture confirmed it this way:

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off..

Holy Bible (Hebrews 11:13)

Nothing is most explicit than the account given by Luke in the Acts of the apostles as follows:

And God said unto him (Abraham), Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and from there, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land (Palestine) in which ye now dwell. And he (God) gave him (Abraham) no inheritance in it, NO, NOT SO MUCH AS TO SET HIS FOOT UPON; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.....
Holy Bible (Acts 7:3-5)

No wonder Jesus Christ (AS), the Messiah, liberator of the Jews has never mentioned anything, with emphasis, like the promised land given to the Jews anywhere. But rather he found comfort in telling them the stark truth that the spiritual leadership of Mankind has been taken away from them permanently with his coming, only to be given to another? in his own word:

Therefore I say unto you (Jews), The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you (Jews), and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 21: 45

Earlier on Moses(AS) foretold them in this manner as seen in the following verses from our dear Deuteronomy:

Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day I knew you.

(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 9: 24

For I knew thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the lord; and how much more after my death?

(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 51:27

They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they (the Jews) have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are Not A People; I will provoke them to anger with a Foolish Nation.

(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 32:21

THE QUR?AN

Having found no any substantial answer as to where the issue for the Promised Land came from in the Bible, only some good references that suggested the whole idea to mean a lie against God, we will turn to the Qur?an, perchance our Jewish brethren can have some legitimate claim in the LAST TESTAMENT of God. Here we find the verses as referred to here, aptly, by my sister Husna. Let?s re-read them together:


20 And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Remember Allah's favour unto you, how He placed among you prophets, and He made you kings, and gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) of (His) creatures.

21 O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers:

22 They said: O Moses! Lo! a giant people (dwell) therein and lo! we go not in till they go forth from thence. When they go forth from thence, then we will enter (not till then).

23 Then out spake two of those who feared (their Lord, men) unto whom Allah had been gracious: Enter in upon them by the gate, for if ye enter by it, lo! ye will be victorious. So put your trust (in Allah) if ye are indeed believers.

24 They said: O Moses! We will never enter (the land) while they are in it. So go thou and thy Lord and fight! We will sit here.

25 He said: My Lord! I have control of none but myself and my brother, so distinguish between us and the wrong-doing folk.

26 (Their Lord) said: For this the land will surely be forbidden them for forty years that they will wander in the earth, bewildered. So grieve not over the wrongdoing folk. (Suratul Ma'ida verses 20 to 26).

Actually, there is no any point in the Qur?an where a contradictory claim, as is above is made, in relation to the story of the Jews and how they lost in the sight of God. As such we can easily conclude that the issue of the Promised Land found much substance only in the Qur?an. But then the truth of the matter as is consistent with every standard Qur?anic exegete, the Jews where given that land in their position then as the chosen people to lead Mankind in all their spiritual journeys in the universe. But as the time went, they proved arrogant and stiff-necked as seen in the accounts given above from the pages of Deuteronomy, by Moses, and Matthews by Jesus. So Allah said in the Qur?an:

O! CHILDREN OF ISRAEL! CALL TO MIND THE SPECIAL FAVOUR WHICH I BESTOWED UPON YOU, AND FULFIL YOUR COVENANT WITH ME AS I FULLFILL MY COVENANT WITH YOU AND FEAR NONE BUT ME.

Holy Qur?an (2:40)

That is to say they have not lived upto the expectations of God in their covenant with Him as such cannot continue to claim their status in His sight as the chosen people.

HISTORICAL REALITIES

From the point of view of history, Jews have never been known to have evolved as Jews, anytime prior to the time they stayed in the ancient Egypt, beginning at the time Joseph (AS) brought all the members of the family there to stay after he ascended a level, in the leadership of the ancient Egypt. Later the whole family was enslaved under the tyrannical administrations of the native Egyptians. Moses came to rescue them with the instructions that they should go and settle newly, in a Promised Land, from which they will give the desired spiritual leadership to mankind. They proved stiff-necked and rebellious until God changed them with the Arabs as the carriers of his message and the spiritual leaders of mankind in Islam under the leadership of Muhammad. But one truth remains like a hanging myth over the reality of human existence. The Jews under Talmudic prompting have never adjusted to the truth that they are no longer the favorites in the sight of God, as such; they attempted to kill Jesus and spent so many resources in bringing down the Prophet of Islam and his message. Palestine as a land that is chosen by God to be the heart of the earth with a great amount of spiritual goodwill was claimed and continued to be claimed by them.

It is a reality of history that since time immemorial, the ideology or nation that controlled the region has always been the nation that led the world in all other spheres of life. Think of Ottaman Empire, France and Britain. They were all world powers only when they were in control of the region, the moment they lost it, the moment their leadership slipped to the new occupiers of the place and Jews since they wanted to continue to lead mankind under a very false claim they kept the grudge touting the idea that its theirs hook or crook. But the truth of the matter lies in the words of Leopold Weiss another Jew, who converted to Islam around 1922 and having seen the evil machinations of the Talmudist in their plans to assume control of the region concluded about the ownership of the place, thus:

?It belongs to all those who mentally approach it with a humility born of faith in the one God, and particularly to those who, in the words of the Qur?an: ?Believe in all His messengers making no distinction between any of them.?

I remain most grateful, until I come with my analysis of Jewish worldview in the light of those laws of hate enumerated in the Deuteronomy. Thanks once again.

[lionger]

Click here for my response to your arguments

Readers, I am sorry for resurrecting all the relevant threads again to post my earlier response to the first part of the claims lionger and co are puting in relation to the promised land, who also accused me of misreading and misquoting "their" holy scripts in order to serve my purpose of expressing hate against them. Pls I do this for no reason than the following:

1. To establish within us and them that they have seen our thread and did not respond to what I said because they agreed with our points as such will not bother us again when we make points similar to these in future. It is a settled issue.

2. That in truth it is not only them that hold the present Bible very dear for it is as dear to us as they believe it is dear to them. That they should never accuse us again of mutiliating the Bible. Yes, we maybe wrong in some of our assertions but they have no right to claim better right of ownership of the scripts than us.

Waziri, you've made some rather objectionable and wild statements in this post, but my response is simple: please try to quote Bible verses in their proper context. It really is not that difficult. Haven't you noticed that I always say the same thing in response to your quotations? Out of context, out of context, out of context, out of context!  This is not good scholarship. Here's a suggestion: before you present another Bible verse that meets your fancy on this forum, read the entire chapter surrounding that verse, maybe two chapters. Be sure that you've grasped the context and background of that verse and then go ahead. If you don't, then rest assured that I will once again do your homework for you. If indeed the Bible is dear to you as you claim (which frankly is double-talk since you called it a fraudulent accord previously) then it is not too hard a thing to pay attention to context. From the tragic phantom Deuteronomy passage to this post, contextual respect has been constantly bypassed.  I'm not sure that I'd have enough time for more debate in this in the near future, but I strongly encourage you to read that whole chapter of Hebrews 11 again carefully. As I said before, if you quote the Quran in the same manner that's you've quoted the Bible often then one has to wonder if even that analysis can be trusted :( .

[_Waziri_]

lionger,

You can provide the context if u so so desire. But one thing is you cannot deny the thorough knowledge of what I am doing. You know quite all right that I couldn't have gotten those verses without having laboured thru the scriptures! When you cannot do that you give me the ground in this. You are already looking so much on the defensive and am afraid it is not a very helthy thing for u.

Thanks once again.

[alhaji_aminu]

Salam all.

I hate to bear off topic but I think the point I will be making is an important one- at least I think it is important. Mr Ahmedinejad is, by all accounts, a holocaust denier. He is a rable rousing populist determined, so say by 'divine' inspiration, to go full steam with a Nuclear WEAPONS program which will- undoubtedly but GOD forbid, lead to confrontation with either the USA or Israel.

I sincerely wish the proud Iranian people the best of luck.

My point here, which is also a question is, isn't denying the holocaust a mockery of tragedy and shouldn't Mr Ahmedinejad  by mindful of his comments in this regard?

regards!!!

[lionger]

LOL Waziri,

So I'm being defensive now eh  :lol:  ? Perhaps you should read what I was responding to. You still don't get it. You said I should provide context 'if I so desire' - well I so desire, and I have done so, and so should you! Surely we both desire to do the same, or do we want to mislead others? Come now, context is everything, no matter the material. If we won't pay attention to it, then its almost better that we don't read.

Yes, 'labouring through the scriptures' is good, but the objective is to achieve the correct result. Back in the day when we took those 'reading and comprehension' tests in primary/secondary school, we got marks for getting the correct answer, not for showing that we had read the relevant text. Weren't the Pharisees of Jesus' time experts in the Scriptures? Did that stop Jesus for rebuking them severely? And the Rabbinic scholars that in your opinion have spawned offensive and racist laws and ideas, have they not laboured through their Scriptures as well? So then, it doesn't matter whether we have read, but what the result is. Therefore we must be careful in how we 'labour'! I don't know how any one can read Hebrews 11:13 and conclude that God's promise to Abraham failed and was a false prophecy and a lie, when verses 14, 15, 16 and indeed the rest of that chapter states that God will keep his promise! Context, context, context! Anyways, I am once again growing rather weary of this debate, and in the absence of anything new to say, I bid you a good day and happy sallah.

lionger

[lionger]

Salam all.

I hate to bear off topic but I think the point I will be making is an important one- at least I think it is important. Mr Ahmedinejad is, by all accounts, a holocaust denier. He is a rable rousing populist determined, so say by 'divine' inspiration, to go full steam with a Nuclear WEAPONS program which will- undoubtedly but GOD forbid, lead to confrontation with either the USA or Israel.

I sincerely wish the proud Iranian people the best of luck.

My point here, which is also a question is, isn't denying the holocaust a mockery of tragedy and shouldn't Mr Ahmedinejad  by mindful of his comments in this regard?

regards!!!

alhaji aminu how bodi,

Actually your post is very relevant, since this thread was about Ahmadinejad until Waziri decided that we must 'labour through the  Scriptures' :D. I agree with pretty much all you have said. Your pertinent question should also be directed at our resident intellectual Waziri, who also believes that Holocaust denial is 'reasoned logic' and would rather have us discuss how the Jewish Torah incites racial hatred and violence. I certainly could not disagree more.

[_Waziri_]

Your pertinent question should also be directed at our resident intellectual Waziri, who also believes that Holocaust denial is 'reasoned logic' and would rather have us discuss how the Jewish Torah incites racial hatred and violence. I certainly could not disagree more.

Well at least you have taken us this far by attempting a mockery of my person which betrays an apathy on your part. Rather than try to continue to refute my claims you now turn to villifying my person, which has gone alongway to convince me as to how lowly I have degraded myself by agreeing to discuss this issue with you.

And if you could be bold enuff to claim what is in your quotes below, what can stop me from claiming the same about your positions? Concerning the contextual meaning of those verses, I thing I am now convinced that you are not necessarily knowlegeable in this regard and as such will sudedenly look for an alternative measure.

Yes, 'labouring through the scriptures' is good, but the objective is to achieve the correct result. Back in the day when we took those 'reading and comprehension' tests in primary/secondary school, we got marks for getting the correct answer, not for showing that we had read the relevant text. Weren't the Pharisees of Jesus' time experts in the Scriptures? Did that stop Jesus for rebuking them severely? And the Rabbinic scholars that in your opinion have spawned offensive and racist laws and ideas, have they not laboured through their Scriptures as well? So then, it doesn't matter whether we have read, but what the result is. Therefore we must be careful in how we 'labour'! I don't know how any one can read Hebrews 11:13 and conclude that God's promise to Abraham failed and was a false prophecy and a lie, when verses 14, 15, 16 and indeed the rest of that chapter states that God will keep his promise! Context, context, context! Anyways, I am once again growing rather weary of this debate, and in the absence of anything new to say, I bid you a good day and happy sallah.

[Cekenah]

After taking the time to re-quaint myself with this whirlwind joust between Waziri and Lionger on this and other threads, I have one question to make. First of all, let's deal with the Bible. Waziri, what are your methods of Bible interpretation? For the life of me I cannot make sense of them. Lionger, for his part, is not an expert (frankly neither am I) and could have done with a bit more dispassion in some of his later posts. However he dealt honestly enough with the material in front of him, IMHO. He certainly did a thorough job with the Deuteronomy passage, which along with your interpretation of Hebrews 11:13, probably represents your most glaring errors here. I find it extremely hard to see how a proper and contextual reading of the Bible can support any of your claims.

I normally suspect some degree of plagiarism when I see these sort of repeated contextual errors. However I am convinced of better things concerning you, because you clearly do not belong to that class of unintelligent anti-religion rabble-rousers that pervade many internet forums I frequent. That said, I've noticed that you did not come to terms solidly with any of Lionger's rejoinders. Perhaps you would be willing to do that now?

[_Waziri_]

After taking the time to re-quaint myself with this whirlwind joust between Waziri and Lionger on this and other threads, I have one question to make. First of all, let's deal with the Bible. Waziri, what are your methods of Bible interpretation?

First of all, if you are interested in sincere discussion, I'll advice that you avoid  simplifying our exchanges in derogatory expressions like " whirlwind joust" as in your quotes above except if you want others to describe your take here as part of the joust. As for my interpretative methods, I say, for Old Testament, I use;

1.  The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Bible,
2.  The Bible itself,
3.  Other books used by the Jews like Talmud and Midrash which are believed to carry the interpretations of the Bible .

These I must say are the agreed points of convergence among all serious scholars in the field both religious and not so.

In the case of New Testament, I am forced to use;

1.  The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Bible,
2.  The Bible itself both New and Old Testament

In the case of the Qur'an, apart from the above mentioned sources I also use;

1.  The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Qur'an,
2.  The Qur'an itself
3.  The Hadith(preserved saying of the holy Prophet)

And unfortunately this is what I think Lionger has failed to do all thru' cos he always plucks verses from the Bible and claims they must be exactly as he excavated them.

For the life of me I cannot make sense of them.

I hope you can now or at least ask more revealing questions!

I find it extremely hard to see how a proper and contextual reading of the Bible can support any of your claims.

How? This kind of conclusion needs to be supported with some degree of evidence both textual and interpretative.

I normally suspect some degree of plagiarism when I see these sort of repeated contextual errors.

What repeated contextual errors? Remember you did not highlight any as much as you did not site any reference of plagiarism. Are you sure you are ready for a serious discussion or is it simply to fiddle out suspicion of plagiarism on my part? After all this is not in any way an art work but rather more of academic work that needs to be making reference to other scholars. Or is copying from the Bible amounts to plagiarism?

However I am convinced of better things concerning you, because you clearly do not belong to that class of unintelligent anti-religion rabble-rousers that pervade many internet forums I frequent. That said, I've noticed that you did not come to terms solidly with any of Lionger's rejoinders. Perhaps you would be willing to do that now?

Well, I expressed my opinion of Lionger in my last post here, before this one, as much as my understanding of his scholarship, in this one, which I said, does not take into account history and context of the issues under discourse as I outlined my methodology above. But if you look carefully you will see that the discussion continued in different threads in which Lionger continued to want to just win his way without necessarily searching for points of agreement and sometimes at the price of getting at my person which shows frustration on his part.

But then if you are interested in a more serious discussion you can refer me to exactly and specifically what you believe I did not address in the discussion so that we can start afresh, with your own dispassionate clues and independent of the referral to what I have always believed to be a very insufficient and all encompassing argument.

Again I hope your reference above,  " because you clearly do not belong to that class of unintelligent anti-religion rabble-rousers that pervade many internet forums I frequent." is not intent at describing Muslims but rather the many lot of commentators that may belong to different regions, continents and belief system. 

[Cekenah]

As for my interpretative methods, I say, for Old Testament, I use;

1. The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Bible,
2. The Bible itself,
3. Other books used by the Jews like Talmud and Midrash which are believed to carry the interpretations of the Bible .

These I must say are the agreed points of convergence among all serious scholars in the field both religious and not so.

In the case of New Testament, I am forced to use;

1. The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Bible,
2. The Bible itself both New and Old Testament

While these are more than acceptable interpretative methods, I do not see enough evidence of their application in any of your work; either in the Deuteronomy passage or in the article on the promised land.

Let's start with the Deuteronomy passage, which falls under the Old Testament (OT). All you did with this passage was to impose your own interpretation on it. You made absolutely no reference to the historical context of those commands, nor did you attempt to demonstrate exactly how the Jews (then and now) understood and applied them - either through the Bible or the Talmud. A few times you stated that the Talmud supports your view, but that is not substantive enough. Where is the substantive evidence?

The problems with your second treatise on the promised land are less severe. This time textual criticism is insufficient, rather than non-existent. When all the evidence is considered, it becomes plain that the New Testament (NT) does not interpret the OT promises of Abraham in the manner that you depict. Firstly, Hebrews 11:16, 39-40 - which exist in the immediate context of verse 13 - thoroughy refutes the idea that God promise to Abraham failed. As it says,

16...they [Abraham and others] were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them...39These[Abraham et al]  were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

In other words, the promise to Abraham of his own posession of the land is not a failed prophecy but rather one that is to be fulfilled in the future - and this for the benefit of the church.

Secondly, your presentation of Moses' prophecies in Deuteronomy and Jesus' comments in Matthew 21 ignores the rest of Scriptural witness and thus paints an incomplete picture of Israel's position in the Bible. Neither the OT nor the NT supports the notion that Israel has been permanently sidelined, and that for another specific ethnicity like the Arabs. In addition to what has already been said, let's pick on one of your Deuteronomy verses:

They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they (the Jews) have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are Not A People; I will provoke them to anger with a Foolish Nation.

(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 32:21

In Romans 10:19, the apostle Paul also quotes this verse from Deuteronomy to show that Moses foresaw Israel's fall from divine favor as one that could not be excused by ignorance:
19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
"I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."

However in Romans 11, Paul emphatically rejects the notion that Israel would suffer permanent rejection. In verse 1 he says:
Did God reject his people? By no means!
And again in verse 11 he says:
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.
When Paul mentions Gentiles, he refers to the rest of the world, not specifically the Arabs or any other ethnic group. This becomes more evident in verse 12:
12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
Paul also confirms that Israel will not remain in disobedience (to the gospel of Christ, mind you) but will one day come to 'fullness'.In verse 16 Paul also adds that Israel's spiritual restoration will result in 'life from the dead' - i.e. the ressurection, and with it the beginning of God's final judgement on mankind and the installation of God's new and perfect world.
I trust that the above are more specific points for you to tackle!

What repeated contextual errors? Remember you did not highlight any as much as you did not site any reference of plagiarism. Are you sure you are ready for a serious discussion or is it simply to fiddle out suspicion of plagiarism on my part? After all this is not in any way an art work but rather more of academic work that needs to be making reference to other scholars. Or is copying from the Bible amounts to plagiarism?

Firstly, nearly all your interepretations of Bible verses suffer from unaccounted context to varying degrees. I have already highlighted what I consider to be the worst offenders: the Deuteronomy passage and Hebrews 11:13. Lionger already went through the pains to demonstrate this clearly and you did not exactly deny his criticism in this regard.

Secondly - and this is a bit of a side remark: I am not quite a novice to these kinds of discussions; be it with Muslims, atheists or other Christians. In previous years I wasted a lot of time debating people who did nothing but quote verses out of context. When I refuted their submissions, they'd respond with another set of verses, also out of context. Worse, they often preferred ad hominem tactics to defending their own exegesis. In time I realized that most of these people were not presenting the results of their own study but plagiarising jaundiced sources on the web. I see little point in engaging such people; so you may be sure that I would not be posting here if I detected conclusive evidence of such things in your posts.

But then if you are interested in a more serious discussion you can refer me to exactly and specifically what you believe I did not address in the discussion so that we can start afresh, with your own dispassionate clues and independent of the referral to what I have always believed to be a very insufficient and all encompassing argument.

Your eagerness in dismissing Lionger's rebuttals without substantially refuting his position is rather curious IHMO. I have made a few detailed arguments that are 'independent' of his writings which you may consider; however I have neither the time nor the desire to re-invent the wheel altogether. I certainly trust that you will not summarily dismiss my posts and I'm sure you would not want me doing that with you either.

Again I hope your reference above,  " because you clearly do not belong to that class of unintelligent anti-religion rabble-rousers that pervade many internet forums I frequent." is not intent at describing Muslims but rather the many lot of commentators that may belong to different regions, continents and belief system. 

By all means! After all, a Muslim can't be anti-religion, can he? ;D

[_Waziri_]

While these are more than acceptable interpretative methods, I do not see enough evidence of their application in any of your work; either in the Deuteronomy passage or in the article on the promised land.

Let's start with the Deuteronomy passage, which falls under the Old Testament (OT). All you did with this passage was to impose your own interpretation on it. You made absolutely no reference to the historical context of those commands, nor did you attempt to demonstrate exactly how the Jews (then and now) understood and applied them - either through the Bible or the Talmud. A few times you stated that the Talmud supports your view, but that is not substantive enough. Where is the substantive evidence?

I am sure if you read thru the other threads in which the discussion continued you would have seen first how I struggled hard with Lionger to just agree with me that the present Bible should be interpreted with history alongside the texts of Torah and the Talmud or Midnash for he was asking me to prove my case just using Bible alone. This is a link to one of the threads I am referring to:
http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?topic=2459.0

I am sure then as you will see in the link, had he agreed with me on my interpretative methods, the discussion would have ended in good time. But I pray we do that with you. You know there is always Jesus of History as different from Jesus of the Bible, Moses of History and Moses of the Bible, and  the Prophets of History and Prophets of the Bible.

If you agree with me on this we are certain to have a clean discussion as I'll be glad to address all the grey areas, God willing as you will be here to keep pointing at them. 

Firstly, nearly all your interepretations of Bible verses suffer from unaccounted context to varying degrees. I have already highlighted what I consider to be the worst offenders: the Deuteronomy passage and Hebrews 11:13. Lionger already went through the pains to demonstrate this clearly and you did not exactly deny his criticism in this regard.

You see, I am only hoping we are not threading the same path as you keep saying Lionger clearly demonstrated that I was wrong when in actuality what he did was only to go to the Bible and extract the long verses without making reference to history or other texts by the Jews even as he refused to agree with me that doing that should be the best way at getting at the truth.

Secondly - and this is a bit of a side remark: I am not quite a novice to these kinds of discussions; be it with Muslims, atheists or other Christians. In previous years I wasted a lot of time debating people who did nothing but quote verses out of context. When I refuted their submissions, they'd respond with another set of verses, also out of context. Worse, they often preferred ad hominem tactics to defending their own exegesis. In time I realized that most of these people were not presenting the results of their own study but plagiarising jaundiced sources on the web. I see little point in engaging such people; so you may be sure that I would not be posting here if I detected conclusive evidence of such things in your posts.

But unfortunately the quoting of verses of of context means also quoting them without reference to history, events, and circumstances regarding those verses which I struggled with Lionger to agree with me on but he refused and unfortunately you are here agreeing with me on that but going ahead to praise Lionger on what he did. Are we operation at the same wavelength? Should then I start preparing to pack out of the debate or should I wait for you to decide that I am not the one doing it the right way or Lionger's way which you appreciate most?

Your eagerness in dismissing Lionger's rebuttals without substantially refuting his position is rather curious IHMO. I have made a few detailed arguments that are 'independent' of his writings which you may consider; however I have neither the time nor the desire to re-invent the wheel altogether. I certainly trust that you will not summarily dismiss my posts and I'm sure you would not want me doing that with you either.

Yes, I dismissed his rebuttals for the lack of sufficient proof on his part on the understanding of the contextual meaning of certain occurances which I struggled with him to see as you will witness in the thread I referred you to. And sincerely I will not find it difficult to opt out of this debate if I see you threading his path.

By all means! After all, a Muslim can't be anti-religion, can he? ;D

Yes actually, there are Muslims who are anti - religion, remember Muslim is a label and a tag but the religion is Islam. So we can have those calling themselves Muslims who are not Islamic in anyway!