Did the bible predict that the Arabs would be out of control?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Crono
I just studied this passage in-depth 2 weeks ago. To answer the question of the OP, the Bible says in that Genesis does say that the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) would be "wild" in the sense that they would be fighting against many nations and peoples, and that many nations and peoples would be fighting against them. And it's true, as countless wars and violence has been committed by (and against) them over centuries. This, while it is very interesting prophecy, is not the limit of the prophecies (in the future sense of the word) that have been fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future.

Well, that's just crazy. Sure,, the Middle East has been at war with many over the course of History, but so have Asians and Africans and Americans(Western Hemisphere) and Europeans. There's nothing unique to the Middle Eastern History in that regard.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Perry404
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (blah blah) and blah blah blah blah (blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.)
Blah blah blah blah blah (blah) blah blah blah blah (blah).
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah 16:11 says the following:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (blah), blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah; blah blah BLAH blah blah blah blah.

16:12 Blah blah blah blah blah; blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah; blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah?

Fixed it for ya.

You said so little, but none of it makes you look any more intelligent.

Oh, was that the intent of the OP? To look more intelligent?

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus


Oh, was that the intent of the OP? To look more intelligent?

He was asking a question.

 

[Caveman]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Crono
I just studied this passage in-depth 2 weeks ago. To answer the question of the OP, the Bible says in that Genesis does say that the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) would be "wild" in the sense that they would be fighting against many nations and peoples, and that many nations and peoples would be fighting against them. And it's true, as countless wars and violence has been committed by (and against) them over centuries. This, while it is very interesting prophecy, is not the limit of the prophecies (in the future sense of the word) that have been fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future.

Well, that's just crazy. Sure,, the Middle East has been at war with many over the course of History, but so have Asians and Africans and Americans(Western Hemisphere) and Europeans. There's nothing unique to the Middle Eastern History in that regard.

Some believe the bible says things about those nations too... As far as western nations, it's been said that the US traces it's roots back to the tribe of Manassah, and that Britain can trace it's roots back to Ephriam (brothers who were promised the "birthright"), France to Reuben, the Danes to Dan, the Norwegians (Vikings) as Benjamites, etc... These match-ups supposedly coincide with historical and archaeological findings of where the "lost 10 tribes" ended up after driven out of their land... Would be interesting to research.

Note various posts in the P&N and this forum... Many wonder why the US (and previously Britain) became/are great nations; their success being almost "over the top" illogical... The history of the US makes one wonder how this country "did so well". There were so many instances where it could have (should have) failed in the context of normal sociological evolution. Yet... it didn't. Because it "couldn't"... yet.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Crono
I just studied this passage in-depth 2 weeks ago. To answer the question of the OP, the Bible says in that Genesis does say that the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) would be "wild" in the sense that they would be fighting against many nations and peoples, and that many nations and peoples would be fighting against them. And it's true, as countless wars and violence has been committed by (and against) them over centuries. This, while it is very interesting prophecy, is not the limit of the prophecies (in the future sense of the word) that have been fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future.

Well, that's just crazy. Sure,, the Middle East has been at war with many over the course of History, but so have Asians and Africans and Americans(Western Hemisphere) and Europeans. There's nothing unique to the Middle Eastern History in that regard.

There is no area of land that has seen more violence and bloodshed, even going back to biblical times, than the middle east, specifically Palestine. Yes, the other continents have seen plenty of wars and conflicts, but not as frequent as the Middle East, especially considering the difference in geographic area between the continents (discounting the parts of Asia and Africa that are considered part of the Middle East).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Crono
I just studied this passage in-depth 2 weeks ago. To answer the question of the OP, the Bible says in that Genesis does say that the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) would be "wild" in the sense that they would be fighting against many nations and peoples, and that many nations and peoples would be fighting against them. And it's true, as countless wars and violence has been committed by (and against) them over centuries. This, while it is very interesting prophecy, is not the limit of the prophecies (in the future sense of the word) that have been fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future.

Well, that's just crazy. Sure,, the Middle East has been at war with many over the course of History, but so have Asians and Africans and Americans(Western Hemisphere) and Europeans. There's nothing unique to the Middle Eastern History in that regard.

There is no area of land that has seen more violence and bloodshed, even going back to biblical times, than the middle east, specifically Palestine. Yes, the other continents have seen plenty of wars and conflicts, but not as frequent as the Middle East, especially considering the difference in geographic area between the continents (discounting the parts of Asia and Africa that are considered part of the Middle East).

Says you. Perhaps number of conflicts, but I suspect more actual persons have died in Europe than the Middle East. Either way, it is nonsensical to attribute any of this to what the Bible says, simply because the Middle East was the where all Civilization began. Thus by shear length of time alone it should be no surprise that their History of warfare is longer.

 

[RESmonkey]

LOL RELIGION

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: apoppin
You need to remember this -
-The "Bible" is "Jewish and Christian Propaganda"

it *predicts* an outcome based on the views of the descendants of Abraham - through Isaac - and his relationship with their god - Yahweh

BtW, Yahweh - "God of the Jews" is Jesus Own Father [his name was Michael pre-earth] according to scripture - and the "Other Great Competing God" are half-brothers; or conflicting views of the same God ... but the Arabs would be most offended by even the thought of it - as they say there is "One" and their father is Ishmael True Son of Abraham and Mohamed is his True Prophet .. and yet the Jews cry there is "One Yahweh" and Christians scream "He is three" - even though Arabs and Jews are both descended from Abraham through different Wives and Jesus was a Jew that gave the Promise to Outsiders.

So Jews, Arabs and Christians are all cousins and were all promised => "The Promised Land" by their "GOD" [same one; different vision] - When THEY finally figure out how to ALL co-exist peacefully [Christian/Jew/Muslim; then Yahweh/Allah/Jesus's Will is Done and the Earth will be returned to Paradise; if not, Har-mageddon and YHWH will make everything "new - and the former things will not be called into mind any more"

Actually, Michael and Lucifer are Twin brothers.
--This is all according to the Oldest Word which predates the Old Testament

so it is a family affair

Do you want to base your life on predictions from 5,000 to 2,000 years ago that are subject to interpretation 3 ways?

That is mormon doctrine and is not found in the Bible.

Actually, that's not Mormon doctrine either. I'm not sure where that comes from.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: BouZouki
To all the ignorant people out there, evolution and religion CAN co-exist, in fact, many priests/pastors/whatever ACCEPT the theory of evolution without a problem. It is only the ignorant religious people that say the two cannot co-exist.

The bible is full of metaphors, not everything should be taken into text, some people are complaing saying, how the hell did I come from dirt, or how is someone supposed to walk on water. Maybe if you thought about it for a second, you will understand the meaning.

I guess the religious wackos and atheist nutjobs ruin it for the rest of us and make us all look bad in the end.

QFT

Uh, no. Of course the bible is full of metaphors, loads of it was made up (aside from the historical figures and true geographical locations). It was a bunch of ignorant people trying to explain creation and the world around them by turning to a supernatural being that they created.

The atheist "nut jobs" you speak of simply recognize this fact. Why would I want to read a book full of fables and myths? Talk about a waste of time. If I want history, I'll read one of the many non-fiction ancient history books that are available.

Uh, no. To be blunt, if you truly believe what you wrote, you must have more "faith" than the religious wackos. The ideas you are espousing are based on ignorance of what the bible is, and accepted to be, within circles of scholarship. This is not to say that those scholars "understand" the implications... But they do at least understand the pedigree and accuracy.

Uh, no. Historical fact is one thing. Myth is another. You must be confusing the two. The bible has the former and the latter. Whether one believes the latter to be true is where the line is drawn. Believing in logical, historical facts that are backed up by archeology and other primary sources requires very little faith.

Believing that Jesus is the son of God (or that there even is a God), in the Genesis version of creation, that the great flood literally covered the entire world, angels, story behind the 10 commandments, parting of the red sea, talking snakes....requires far more faith. To suggest otherwise is foolish, and you know it. Man up...if you believe in it, great. But call it like it is and stop hiding behind this non sense that atheists who discount such illogical and unreasonable events have just as much faith as the ones who believe in it.

To be blunt, the first sentence in your post basically nullifies the rest of it. How ridiculous to claim that I need more faith to believe in the relatively universally accepted, scholarly history of the ancient world rather than the 'rest of' the bible.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: BouZouki
To all the ignorant people out there, evolution and religion CAN co-exist, in fact, many priests/pastors/whatever ACCEPT the theory of evolution without a problem. It is only the ignorant religious people that say the two cannot co-exist.

The bible is full of metaphors, not everything should be taken into text, some people are complaing saying, how the hell did I come from dirt, or how is someone supposed to walk on water. Maybe if you thought about it for a second, you will understand the meaning.

I guess the religious wackos and atheist nutjobs ruin it for the rest of us and make us all look bad in the end.

QFT

Uh, no. Of course the bible is full of metaphors, loads of it was made up (aside from the historical figures and true geographical locations). It was a bunch of ignorant people trying to explain creation and the world around them by turning to a supernatural being that they created.

The atheist "nut jobs" you speak of simply recognize this fact. Why would I want to read a book full of fables and myths? Talk about a waste of time. If I want history, I'll read one of the many non-fiction ancient history books that are available.

Uh, no. To be blunt, if you truly believe what you wrote, you must have more "faith" than the religious wackos. The ideas you are espousing are based on ignorance of what the bible is, and accepted to be, within circles of scholarship. This is not to say that those scholars "understand" the implications... But they do at least understand the pedigree and accuracy.

Uh, no. Historical fact is one thing. Myth is another. You must be confusing the two. The bible has the former and the latter. Whether one believes the latter to be true is where the line is drawn. Believing in logical, historical facts that are backed up by archeology and other primary sources requires very little faith.

Believing that Jesus is the son of God (or that there even is a God), in the Genesis version of creation, that the great flood literally covered the entire world, angels, story behind the 10 commandments, parting of the red sea, talking snakes....requires far more faith. To suggest otherwise is foolish, and you know it. Man up...if you believe in it, great. But call it like it is and stop hiding behind this non sense that atheists who discount such illogical and unreasonable events have just as much faith as the ones who believe in it.

To be blunt, the first sentence in your post basically nullifies the rest of it. How ridiculous to claim that I need more faith to believe in the relatively universally accepted, scholarly history of the ancient world rather than the 'rest of' the bible.

ACtually, he was not making a statement regarding the content of the Bible, but rather the reliability of it as an ancient text. And, he was correct.

 

[Caveman]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: BouZouki
To all the ignorant people out there, evolution and religion CAN co-exist, in fact, many priests/pastors/whatever ACCEPT the theory of evolution without a problem. It is only the ignorant religious people that say the two cannot co-exist.

The bible is full of metaphors, not everything should be taken into text, some people are complaing saying, how the hell did I come from dirt, or how is someone supposed to walk on water. Maybe if you thought about it for a second, you will understand the meaning.

I guess the religious wackos and atheist nutjobs ruin it for the rest of us and make us all look bad in the end.

QFT

Uh, no. Of course the bible is full of metaphors, loads of it was made up (aside from the historical figures and true geographical locations). It was a bunch of ignorant people trying to explain creation and the world around them by turning to a supernatural being that they created.

The atheist "nut jobs" you speak of simply recognize this fact. Why would I want to read a book full of fables and myths? Talk about a waste of time. If I want history, I'll read one of the many non-fiction ancient history books that are available.

Uh, no. To be blunt, if you truly believe what you wrote, you must have more "faith" than the religious wackos. The ideas you are espousing are based on ignorance of what the bible is, and accepted to be, within circles of scholarship. This is not to say that those scholars "understand" the implications... But they do at least understand the pedigree and accuracy.

Uh, no. Historical fact is one thing. Myth is another. You must be confusing the two. The bible has the former and the latter. Whether one believes the latter to be true is where the line is drawn. Believing in logical, historical facts that are backed up by archeology and other primary sources requires very little faith.

Believing that Jesus is the son of God (or that there even is a God), in the Genesis version of creation, that the great flood literally covered the entire world, angels, story behind the 10 commandments, parting of the red sea, talking snakes....requires far more faith. To suggest otherwise is foolish, and you know it. Man up...if you believe in it, great. But call it like it is and stop hiding behind this non sense that atheists who discount such illogical and unreasonable events have just as much faith as the ones who believe in it.

To be blunt, the first sentence in your post basically nullifies the rest of it. How ridiculous to claim that I need more faith to believe in the relatively universally accepted, scholarly history of the ancient world rather than the 'rest of' the bible.

ACtually, he was not making a statement regarding the content of the Bible, but rather the reliability of it as an ancient text. And, he was correct.

QFT:thumbsup:

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Whelp, it looks like someone took a passage, drew conclusions about it that seem a bit of a stretch, then others used it to pounce on religion.

Another typical day P&N style.

Back to your favorite channel.

What channel are you watching?
:Q

SHARE!

apoppin: shouldn't you still in mourning for your white haired uncle Albert's passing yesterday?

Why aren't you in mourning for your lost intellect?
--i will get over losing unc pretty easily

You're one of the few that actually sound somewhat intelligent when talking about religion. Gotta give ya credit!

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
All I know is that the Bible made many predictions based on two things:

1. Generalities so vague that almost any event could conceivably be seen as "prophecy"
2. The human condition - greed, fear and the lust for power

Oh, I should also add that I loved Hagar's work with Montrose

If there were 10 prophecies I would agree with you. And if the prophecies were really just generalities, you would have a point. So many prophecies coincide with one another and had to do with the same events,as well as different facets of the events that it moves it beyond generalities. And to say that all the prophecies were about the human condition is to ignore a great majority of prophecies that were about Christ as well as other historical events.

Does that make Nostradamus a prophet then also? He has had as many "accurate" predictions as the bible has.

As for the prophecies about Christ, those are opinion and dogma and not fact. I would think the fact that Jesus is only believed to be the son of God (who also has never been proven to exist) negates any semblance of accuracy related to those.

You will have to be more specific about which historical events you are referring to for me to form a rebuttal to that statement. If you were talking about events that had passed prior to the writing of the bible, then those aren't prophecies, they are historical accounts.

I don't know much about Nostradamus, not that i think that question you asked really has any bearing on anythign either of us are saying. However, there is a possibility he could prophesy. I don't know though.

There are extra-biblical sources that refer to Jesus. Josephus and Tacticus. These coupled with other things such as consistency of message and history despite different authors and consistency of text through numerous replication.
The historicity of Jesus really isn't an issue in the present day. It was earlier in the 20th century perhaps. I know that I have seen some rather poorly reasoned and inconclusive shows on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel regarding this issue.

I will get back in reference to prophecies b/c there are a ton of them. I might just link stuff up instead

 

[everman]

why do people even participate in these discussions?

 

[Throckmorton]

Do people really believe this descendent claptrap? No, the whole Arab ethnic group did not descend from one man, and the whole Jewish ethnic group (not that today's Jews are part of that) descended from one man. Stories like that come from the need to explain the origin of neighboring groups of people, and since they didn't have much history or archaeological and geneaological evidence, they wrote stories.

 

[BeauJangles]

nm

 

[PricklyPete]

This got nasty fast...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
This got nasty fast...

You're right... I'm editing my post.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Just for fun, you should dig up Darwin's early work on evolution in which he claims whales evolved from bears. :laugh:

 

[tealk]

On this National Day of Prayer. I Pray for all of you. And this wonderful scripture of the Lord Jesus Christ given to us by the OP. Thank You, and God Bless.

 

[Finalnight]

P&N---------->

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Just for fun, you should dig up Darwin's early work on evolution in which he claims whales evolved from bears. :laugh:

Don't even get me started on stupid ideas.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Uh, no. Of course the bible is full of metaphors, loads of it was made up (aside from the historical figures and true geographical locations). It was a bunch of ignorant people trying to explain creation and the world around them by turning to a supernatural being that they created. The atheist "nut jobs" you speak of simply recognize this fact. Why would I want to read a book full of fables and myths? Talk about a waste of time. If I want history, I'll read one of the many non-fiction ancient history books that are available.

Hell I'm an atheist but this is just silly.
Why do you feel the need to push other people and their beliefs down? Could it be because an insecurity/prejudice on your part?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Just for fun, you should dig up Darwin's early work on evolution in which he claims whales evolved from bears. :laugh:

Don't even get me started on stupid ideas.

Totally different situations, Science doesn't Deify Words.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Crono
I just studied this passage in-depth 2 weeks ago. To answer the question of the OP, the Bible says in that Genesis does say that the Arabs (descendants of Ishmael) would be "wild" in the sense that they would be fighting against many nations and peoples, and that many nations and peoples would be fighting against them. And it's true, as countless wars and violence has been committed by (and against) them over centuries. This, while it is very interesting prophecy, is not the limit of the prophecies (in the future sense of the word) that have been fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future.

Well, that's just crazy. Sure,, the Middle East has been at war with many over the course of History, but so have Asians and Africans and Americans(Western Hemisphere) and Europeans. There's nothing unique to the Middle Eastern History in that regard.

It's not just war. This passage describes their very personality as a people.
They are as stubborn as Americans are arrogant.