Which Son?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wonder why though. There's nothing in the story that a Muslim will gain by claiming it for themselves. And logically it doesn't really follow either: why would Allah throw in a story about Ishmael in the middle of a book about Jewish heritage? It seems like that would be a story more appropriate to tell the sons of Ishmael than the sons of Isaac.

The Muslims I've talked to suggest that it was left intentionally vague in the Qur'an because it doesn't matter.

 

[outhouse]

why would Allah throw in a story about Ishmael in the middle of a book about Jewish heritage?

Look at how far they changed Israelite history to meet their own needs, does it surprise you?

 

[Unification]

I wonder why though. There's nothing in the story that a Muslim will gain by claiming it for themselves. And logically it doesn't really follow either: why would Allah throw in a story about Ishmael in the middle of a book about Jewish heritage? It seems like that would be a story more appropriate to tell the sons of Ishmael than the sons of Isaac.

I don't think that the book has anything to do with literal Jewish heritage.

 

[Tumah]

I don't think that the book has anything to do with literal Jewish heritage.

Trust me: you've made that quite clear!

 

[Unification]

Look at how far they changed Israelite history to meet their own needs, does it surprise you?

May I ask why you choose most of it to be mythological stories and not historical except for the "Israelite" part?

 

[Nietzsche]

I don't think that the book has anything to do with literal Jewish heritage.

..It doesn't? It's more "Trojan War" than purely "Alexander of Macedon" certainly, but the history is very real.

 

[Unification]

..It doesn't? It's more "Trojan War" than purely "Alexander of Macedon" certainly, but the history is very real.

The history of the book is real or the history of the heritage is real? I see an entire plethora of different people/multitudes all occupying one area, historically and that was never even named "Israel" until 1948.

I just don't understand how scholars have clearly shown the events didn't happen historically yet still can claim anything about "Israelite history" using the book. It's illogical.

Especially when there were many versions of gods amongst the array of persons, such as Isis, Ra, Elohim and many of the persons came from areas which were influenced by other gods and texts.

 

[David1967]

Here's the thing; from a purely historical perspective there is no evidence that these people existed. I'm of the opinion that someone(or more likely a number of individuals slowly synthesized over the eons) like tis aem existed, but we'll never find anything about them. Their remains & artifacts likely ended up in the "trash heap" of history. Weathered away by centuries, misplaced by events or individuals intentionally or accidentally.

Nope. has nothing to do with an atheist.

It is factually the academic position. It is the factual status of the REAL history of Israelites.

You do understand monotheism in Israelite culture really was not accepted by all the people until roughly 200-400 BC????

These people were very polytheistic before King Josiahs monotheistic reforms after 622BC and after exile from Babylon.




I'm sorry, but do we match history to personal belief, or do we report what we know based in evidence and study?




Thank you David.


I don't use bias one way or the other, I just follow the knowledge.


Think about it. If islam changed it willy nilly to meet their needs, why not believe Israelites did the same thing, "IF" evidence points in that direction?

Yes history and personal belief can sometimes be at odds. And considering Abraham as an actual person his family was polytheistic until Abraham was called from his homeland by God. As far as history and personal belief I once asked a professor friend of mine who Is also Christian how he reconciled the fossil record with the bible. (We were on a dig at this time) His reply was simply "I dont. The bible is not a book on geology, it is a book on spirituality." Perhaps this applies to our discussion as well. Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Nietzsche]

The history of the book is real or the history of the heritage is real? I see an entire plethora of different people/multitudes all occupying one area, historically and that was never even named "Israel" until 1948.

I just don't understand how scholars have clearly shown the events didn't happen historically yet still can claim anything about "Israelite history" using the book. It's illogical.

Especially when there were many versions of gods amongst the array of persons, such as Isis, Ra, Elohim and many of the persons came from areas which were influenced by other gods and texts.

..Just because you don't understand how a culture can exist without a state doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Undoubtedly the "Israelites" of 1948 have little more than moniker in common with their ancient ancestors, but they are still their ancestors. Central Europe is awash in peoples who had cultures long before nation-states existed to give them voice. Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Bohemians/Czechs, Slovaks..I can list scores of cultures, with histories as complex(or more so) than Israel who existed without a state-entity.

 

[Unification]

..Just because you don't understand how a culture can exist without a state doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Undoubtedly the "Israelites" of 1948 have little more than moniker in common with their ancient ancestors, but they are still their ancestors. Central Europe is awash in peoples who had cultures long before nation-states existed to give them voice. Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Bohemians/Czechs, Slovaks..I can list scores of cultures, with histories as complex(or more so) than Israel who existed without a state-entity.

We are all from those ancestors from the plethora of different people all in the same area.

I think you may not understand myth from history. It's an instant assumption that the word "Israelite" from 3000+ years ago in a mythological book must mean "Israelite" heritage and be in relevance to modern-day "Israelites."

 

[Unification]

..Just because you don't understand how a culture can exist without a state doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Undoubtedly the "Israelites" of 1948 have little more than moniker in common with their ancient ancestors, but they are still their ancestors. Central Europe is awash in peoples who had cultures long before nation-states existed to give them voice. Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Bohemians/Czechs, Slovaks..I can list scores of cultures, with histories as complex(or more so) than Israel who existed without a state-entity.

I'll ask again, how can the book in which you say yourself is not historical and is myth develop literal "Israelite" history from it?

That's a pretty large gap, 3000-3500 years for a nation to be named.

 

[outhouse]

." Perhaps this applies to our discussion as well

Only problem I see David, is that OP asked a historical question.

Even if we went into the theological application, believe it or not, the real history behind it all builds value in the bible, it does not detract from it.

My educated Christian friends, actually back me on this type of history, yet their faith is strong.


The reason why they wrote this when they did, has more value then the literal interpretation

 

[outhouse]

how can the book in which you say yourself is not historical and is myth develop literal "Israelite" history from it?

First of all the bible serves as evidence, that more often reflects the people who wrote it at a specific time. Or redacted it at a specific time.

Now the OT evolved for hundreds of years, and if you don't understand the redactions your lost and their is no value.

But you have never studied the historical side, nor have you accepted credible evidence, so I'm sure I'm just killing time for no reason here..

 

[Unification]

Only problem I see David, is that OP asked a historical question.

Even if we went into the theological application, believe it or not, the real history behind it all builds value in the bible, it does not detract from it.

My educated Christian friends, actually back me on this type of history, yet their faith is strong.


The reason why they wrote this when they did, has more value then the literal interpretation

Do your Christian friends consider themselves "spiritual Israelites?"

Considering an "Israelite" means one who strives with "God." Not a heritage "Jew" or heritage "Israelite" or geological "Israelite."

 

[Unification]

First of all the bible serves as evidence, that more often reflects the people who wrote it at a specific time. Or redacted it at a specific time.

Now the OT evolved for hundreds of years, and if you don't understand the redactions your lost and their is no value.

But you have never studied the historical side, nor have you accepted credible evidence, so I'm sure I'm just killing time for no reason here..

There is no value in a historical OT. Why would someone find value today in a historical OT? A "spiritual" OT, sure... but a literal and historical one... enlighten me how?

Would it transform me "spiritually" today having knowledge of ancient historical Middle East?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Here's the thing; from a purely historical perspective there is no evidence that these people existed. I'm of the opinion that someone(or more likely a number of individuals slowly synthesized over the eons) like them existed, but we'll never find anything about them. Their remains & artifacts likely ended up in the "trash heap" of history. Weathered away by centuries, misplaced by events or individuals intentionally or accidentally.

Do you think people like Abraham were culture heroes?

 

[Unification]

First of all the bible serves as evidence, that more often reflects the people who wrote it at a specific time. Or redacted it at a specific time.

Now the OT evolved for hundreds of years, and if you don't understand the redactions your lost and their is no value.

But you have never studied the historical side, nor have you accepted credible evidence, so I'm sure I'm just killing time for no reason here..

For me it's quite simple, the Khazars had a book and stole the names and named their cities after biblical names and now most in the world are naive, guillable, and deceived into thinking that the book is talking about literal history, geology, literal heritages, literal cities and countries, a special heritage, literal holy land, and all sorts of other garbage that has caused and been the culprit to many of the world's problems and violence.

 

[David1967]

Only problem I see Daviif, is that OP asked a historical question.

Even if we went into the theological application, believe it or not, the real history behind it all builds value in the bible, it does not detract from it.

My educated Christian friends, actually back me on this type of history, yet their faith is strong.


The reason why they wrote this when they did, has more value then the literal interpretation

Yes. I actually do agree with the majority of what you are saying. And If from a strictly historical view I cannot disagree with your statements at all.

 

[Nietzsche]

Do you think people like Abraham were culture heroes?

Probably something like that, yes. Real stories about one person or many people that slowly coalesced into what we'd recognize as the narrative seen today. Real to a point, but the truth being far, far more mundane.

Of course, it could also all be literally true. That's not impossible. It's just also not terribly likely.

Yes. I actually do agree with the majority of what you are saying. And If from a strictly historical view I cannot disagree with your statements at all.

I'd like for you to know, whatever differences we undoubtedly have, I have more respect for your admittance to simple truths(that there simply is no hard evidence, or likely would/could ever be for the likes of Abraham and such), while still believing, than I do for countless others who either simply believe it all or believe none of it.

 

[David1967]

Probably something like that, yes. Real stories about one person or many people that slowly coalesced into what we'd recognize as the narrative seen today. Real to a point, but the truth being far, far more mundane.

Of course, it could also all be literally true. That's not impossible. It's just also not terribly likely.


I'd like for you to know, whatever differences we undoubtedly have, I have more respect for your admittance to simple truths(that there simply is no hard evidence, or likely would/could ever be for the likes of Abraham and such), while still believing, than I do for countless others who either simply believe it all or believe none of it.

Thank you Nietzsche.