To scherzo - about the OT

Hi scherzo,

I'd like to bury the hatchet. I appreciated your last post to me in the "Who is Jewish" thread, which has become an abusive mudslinging brawl about circumcision.

I do have a serious question that I would have liked to ask a muslim, but have never had the opportunity.

Is it true that muslims accept the Old Testament as the word of God (Allah)? If not, then this post has lost its point and please ignore it.

However, if so, what do you do with all the pro-jewish, anti-palestine passages?

For example, the well-known David and Goliath story, where G was a Philistine (i.e. Palestinian) and David's (jewboy) God helped him?

Also, the story of Ishmael, father of the Arab nations, which was clearly born outside of God's original intention, (later passages confirm this). He was explicitly prohibited from having any part of Abraham's inheritance, all of which went to Isaac?

(In brackets, I can't help thinking that if Abraham had only had one son, the son of promise, then we would not today have had all the problems in the ME.)

There must be an official stance of Islam to this. Briefly, what is it?

In peace,

CJ

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi scherzo,

I'd like to bury the hatchet. I appreciated your last post to me in the "Who is Jewish" thread, which has become an abusive mudslinging brawl about circumcision.

I do have a serious question that I would have liked to ask a muslim, but have
never had the opportunity.

Is it true that muslims accept the Old Testament as the word of God ( ...[text shortened]... here must be an official stance of Islam to this. Briefly, what is it?

In peace,

CJ

Is it true that muslims accept the Old Testament as the word of God (Allah)? If not, then this post has lost its point and please ignore it.

We do accept the OT.

However, if so, what do you do with all the pro-jewish, anti-palestine passages?

Er ...

For example, the well-known David and Goliath story, where G was a Philistine (i.e. Palestinian) and David's (jewboy) God helped him?

Philistines and Palestinians are two different things. Philistines are not Arab. They're from the region, and they gave it its name (or one of them) but I don't identify as a Philistine; I identify as a Palestinian.

Also, the story of Ishmael, father of the Arab nations, which was clearly born outside of God's original intention, (later passages confirm this). He was explicitly prohibited from having any part of Abraham's inheritance, all of which went to Isaac?

Well, God in the OT can be a jerk. I guess it's also, the OT wasn't dictated immediately. Some may have been lost in translation or time.

You did forget to mention Samson and Delilah, which I would have thought would have been the obvious choice.

(In brackets, I can't help thinking that if Abraham had only had one son, the son of promise, then we would not today have had all the problems in the ME.)

The Palestine-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts are just two of them. Abraham needed to have one kid over in Europe or something.

Originally posted by scherzo
We do accept the OT.

Well, God in the OT can be a jerk. I guess it's also, the OT wasn't dictated immediately. Some may have been lost in translation or time.

Sorry, I'm not quite with you here.

Which one of these two statements is correct?

Do you accept the OT or is it basically corrupted in translation and hence untrustworthy?

Originally posted by CalJust
Sorry, I'm not quite with you here.

Which one of these two statements is correct?

Do you accept the OT or is it basically corrupted in translation and hence untrustworthy?

We accept it, but we accept the Qur'an more, i.e. if something in the Qur'an contradicts the OT, then we'll take the Qur'an.

Originally posted by scherzo
We accept it, but we accept the Qur'an more, i.e. if something in the Qur'an contradicts the OT, then we'll take the Qur'an.

i find this incredible Scherzo my friend, for the Hebrew scriptures were faithfully transmitted over thousands of years, for if you compare a portion of the dead sea scrolls, for example the book of Isaiah, its is almost identical to the modern day book of Isaiah, the only discrepancies being the spelling of proper names, in this instance a musical instrument, for it is well established that the Hebrews were excellent copiests, the Masoretes in particular, numbered each and every letter, and after making a copy the number of letters were counted on each page so that they could be found to correspond exactly with what went before, so we can be in no doubt that what we have in the form of the Hebrew scriptures is what the Ancient Hebrews also had.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i find this incredible Scherzo my friend, for the Hebrew scriptures were faithfully transmitted over thousands of years, for if you compare a portion of the dead sea scrolls, for example the book of Isaiah, its is almost identical to the modern day book of Isaiah, the only discrepancies being the spelling of proper names, in this instance a musical i ...[text shortened]... ubt that what we have in the form of the Hebrew scriptures is what the Ancient Hebrews also had.

Why do you find this so incredible when Jesus contradicted some teachings of the Old Testament?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i find this incredible Scherzo my friend, for the Hebrew scriptures were faithfully transmitted over thousands of years, for if you compare a portion of the dead sea scrolls, for example the book of Isaiah, its is almost identical to the modern day book of Isaiah, the only discrepancies being the spelling of proper names, in this instance a musical i ...[text shortened]... ubt that what we have in the form of the Hebrew scriptures is what the Ancient Hebrews also had.

I meant, they didn't take diction directly from God. They weren't writing as the Angel Gabriel or whoever gave the word of God.

Originally posted by scherzo
I meant, they didn't take diction directly from God. They weren't writing as the Angel Gabriel or whoever gave the word of God.

I can accept that people have a problem with the "verbal inspiration" bit, that every word is exactly correct.

However, what concerns me is not actually the detail, and some possible dark passages, but the entire gist and underlying global message of the OT, which seems to be that God punishes, but also looks after "His people, the jews".

To read this as favouring the other sons of Abraham as the Chosen People would be a little like explaining the Little Red Riding Hood story, and making the wolf the hero!

Originally posted by CalJust
I can accept that people have a problem with the "verbal inspiration" bit, that every word is exactly correct.

However, what concerns me is not actually the detail, and some possible dark passages, but the entire gist and underlying global message of the OT, which seems to be that God punishes, but also looks after "His people, the jews".

To read thi ...[text shortened]... be a little like explaining the Little Red Riding Hood story, and making the wolf the hero!

Well, neither Arabs nor Muslims were around in the Levant when most of the events in the OT happened. How could God favor nonexistent people?

Originally posted by scherzo
Well, neither Arabs nor Muslims were around in the Levant when most of the events in the OT happened. How could God favor nonexistent people?

Muslims, I accept. They are a recent invention and a sub-set.

However, weren't the other descedants of Abraham the forefathers of the Arabs?

I have always been under the impression that, because both Arabs and Jews trace their descent to Abraham, they are actually distant relatives!

Am I missing something here? Where do you say the Arabs come from?

Originally posted by CalJust
Muslims, I accept. They are a recent invention and a sub-set.

However, weren't the other descedants of Abraham the forefathers of the Arabs?

I have always been under the impression that, because both Arabs and Jews trace their descent to Abraham, they are actually distant relatives!

Am I missing something here? Where do you say the Arabs come from?

They are distant relatives, but Arabs didn't reach the Levant until over five centuries after Jesus' death. It's why so many Lebanese are averse to calling themselves "Arab" even though they speak Arabic, live in an Arab League country, eat Arabic food, and follow Arabic culture.

Originally posted by scherzo
They are distant relatives, but Arabs didn't reach the Levant until over five centuries after Jesus' death.

I think we are beating about the bush here. I don't really care how long it took whoever to reach whatever place.

Let's start from the point where you agreed that the Arabs and Jews have a common ancestor, even if distantly related.

God made a promise to Abraham, recorded in Genesis 15:18 "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abraham saying; Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

This promise was fulfilled in Solomon's time, as recorded in 1 Kings 4:21 "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river Euphrates unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt."

In other places it is stated that David's kingdom will "last forever".

So, my questions are fairly simple, in relation to the modern context:

1 Was David/Solomon an ancestor of modern Jews or Arabs?
2 Is the Genesis 15 covenant still binding and operational or not?
3 If so, who then is the modern beneficiary of that covenant?

Simple questions - simple answers, please!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why do you find this so incredible when Jesus contradicted some teachings of the Old Testament?

Actualy thinkofone, the Hebrews distorted the law to such an extent that it was unrecognisable, this plus there adherence to an oral tradition blinded them to what the law was really about. which particular teachings of Christ had you in mind, which contradict the teachings of the Hebrew scriptures? for one must keep in mind that there is a difference between the letter of the Law and the spirit of the Law. 🙂 but let us not detract from the discussion at hand for it is at once both interesting and instructional! lets see what our friend Scherzo will say?

Originally posted by CalJust
I think we are beating about the bush here. I don't really care how long it took whoever to reach whatever place.

Let's start from the point where you agreed that the Arabs and Jews have a common ancestor, even if distantly related.

God made a promise to Abraham, recorded in Genesis 15:18 "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abraham saying; U ...[text shortened]... is the modern beneficiary of that covenant?

Simple questions - simple answers, please!

God made a promise to Abraham, recorded in Genesis 15:18 "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abraham saying; Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

Right ...

This promise was fulfilled in Solomon's time, as recorded in 1 Kings 4:21 "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river Euphrates unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt."

Nothing about the Jews yet, by the way ... and there are Arab Jews.

In other places it is stated that David's kingdom will "last forever".

Which was a Jewish kingdom. It was not the Jewish kingdom, nor did it last forever.

1 Was David/Solomon an ancestor of modern Jews or Arabs?

Semitic Jews. Arab Jews, if you will, even though, as I've said, Arabians didn't come for another while.

2 Is the Genesis 15 covenant still binding and operational or not?

It is. But Ishmael is a son of Abraham as well.

3 If so, who then is the modern beneficiary of that covenant?

Arabs and Semitic Jews.