The Instigator
mendel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
voxprojectus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Any believer in the bible has to agree that the land of israel belongs to the jewish people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 748 times Debate No: 56716
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

mendel

Pro

One condition of the debate is that con has to believe in the bible.

The bible says tons of times that the land of israel is given by g-d to the nation of israel. The boundaries are clearly delineated in the end of the book of numbers. Therefore i say that a believer in the bible cannot in any way think that the palestinians should get a state in the land of israel. For that would constitute theft from the jewish people to whom g-d gave the land as an eternal inheritance.

I will just quote one of dozens of verses which state this clearly Genesis 17:7-8 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."

G-d bless the jewish people, and the palestinians should realize that their claim for palestine is a war against g-ds eternal word.
voxprojectus

Con

As a Torah believing Jew who wants to see pragmatic answers in Israel but does not believe in Zionist principles, I accept your debate.

As you have not stated that the first round is for acceptance, I will launch into a biblically based argument against Israel inherently belonging to the Jews.

Let's start here:

P1. Israel belongs to the Jewish people as a result with their Covanent with God.
P2. Not all Jews have KEPT the Covanent of the Ten Commandments.
P3. Due to P2, the Convanent is broken, null and void.

Therefore, Jews have no Biblical claim to Israel.

Okay, your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
mendel

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate, and we begin.

My opponent had suggested without substantiating his claim in any way that A. the covenant of g-d with the Jewish people is null and void if the Jews don't keep the torah and B. that the land of Israel is contingent upon that C. the Jews have broken the covenant. If any one of these three things is not true, then my opponent's argument is dis proven.

All of these things can easily be refuted. But first let us show that from the very verses that I quoted we can disprove his statement. G-d says in these verses that he is making an everlasting covenant and Israel will be an everlasting inheritance. My opponent is saying that g-d lied over here, because g-d said he's making an everlasting covenant and that covenant has ended.( Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?). The way I see it we are left with one of two options, either g-ds covenant is not contingent upon the Jewish people keeping the Torah or g-d is promising that there will always be Jews who will be keeping the Torah, or else it would not be an everlasting covenant.

If my opponent would have read the verses quoted he would have seen that it's not their covenant with g-d rather it's g-ds covenant with them. I'll just quote two places where g-d says that he will not nullify his covenant with them. In Leviticus chapter 26 g-d tells the Jews the 48 curses which will befall them if they don't keep the Torah and then he concludes verse 44 "And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God".

Now g-d says clearly in Ezekiel that even if the Jews don't want the Torah any more they don't have a choice and g-d is their g-d no matter what. Chapter 20 verses 32 Quote "But what enters your mind shall not come about, what you say, 'Let us be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone.' As I live, says the Lord God, surely with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with poured out fury, will I reign over you. And I shall take you out of the peoples, and I shall gather you from the lands in which you were scattered, with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with poured out fury". And then it goes on in verse 41 quote "With a pleasing savor I shall accept you when I take you out of the nations, and I shall gather you from the lands in which you were scattered, and I shall be hallowed through you before the eyes of the nations. And you will know that I am the Lord when I bring you to the land of Israel, to the land that I lifted My hand to give to your forefathers". Hence point number one is disproven.

Now the concept of a covenant is a common thing in the bible, and it could be for a number of things. For example we find Jacob making a covenant with Laban that they won't be at war with each other. So there's a verse in the bible where g-d makes a specific covenant that he's giving the land of Israel to the Jewish people, and that's the whole covenant (not in the context of a covenant of being their g-d). This is a verse in Nehemiah where it says in chapter 9 verse 8 quote "You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite". Hence point number two is disproven.

I'm sure my opponent is aware that there are a few million Jews in the world who do exactly as g-d asks of them keeping all the laws of the Torah etc. as there always had been religious Jews. So I see no reason to accept his statement that the Jews broke the covenant.

(I completely did not understand his statement about the covenant of the Ten Commandments, surely he's aware that there are 613 commandments not 10, and what was the basis of saying that "all" Jews have to keep it or it's null and void).

To be quite honest I very surprised that someone that introduces himself as a Torah observant Jew, can say that the covenant between g-d and the Jewish people is null and void. After all it's one of the principles of faith that the Torah will never be changed and is eternal.

Now my opponent introduced himself as a pragmatist. Implying of course that I'm just being dogmatic, I respond like this. On every level I believe it's a mistake to create a Palestinian state. On a safety, common sense level, on a moral level, and on a religious level. Each one of these is a debate in its own right; our debate is regarding the religious level. I'm proposing that anyone that believes in the bible (and that's a few billion people) must accept at least religiously that g-d gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people, and therefore religiously the Palestinians should perhaps get a state elsewhere, but not in Israel.

I have so many more verses which clearly say that g-d had given the land of Israel to the Jewish people. If my opponent wants to say that there is "no biblical claim" he's going to have to do better than just say that the covenant with the Jews is over.
voxprojectus

Con

I thank my opponent for the exhaustive and well-thought response.

My only point in stating my own pragmatic approach to the situation in Israel was to make it clear why I had an interest in the debate. While I'd love to have a larger discussion on that view, I am doing my best to keep these arguments purely in a textual basis, I did not intend to suggest you were being dogmatic or didn't have other non-religious reasons to believe what you believe. If I somehow conveyed that to you or to the voters, you have my sincere apologies, though in my defense, I believe you took something of a leap there from what I actually wrote.

I think it's interesting that you say up front my point on the Covenant is not relevant, then spend so much of your second round responding to it.

In this round I'd like to examine your initial claims more closely.

In Genesis 17:7-8 God does indeed promise to Abraham the land of Canaan. As an Area, Canaan dominated a much larger area than present-day Israel http://en.wikipedia.org...(8343807206).jpg

Yet according to Genesis 28:13-28,
13 There above it[a] 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.

That verse is subject to two different interpretations that seem to contradict present day claims, and the claim laid forth by god in the earlier verses.


In the first interpretation, the tribe of Abraham did not remotely hold the lands known as either present day Israel, or the much larger land of Canaan, but rather, a small section of what we now call Palestine. By this language, only that which is already held is promised, and Jews would not have control of more until much later. Even then, they never held all the boarders laid out in the earlier verse, nor do they today, so "the land on which you are lying." means nothing to present-day claims.

In the second interpretation, one I like better (and is held by a large number of Orthodox Jews) Israel is actually a separate concept than Canaan. Israel exists in essense where you happen to be lying, a sort of home-is-where-the-heart-is for the Tribes. In many ways, this is a more beautiful view, stating that however wide we are cast as a people, however the tribes may be divided, however the Jewish people beaten down, we already have our Israel, and unlike a parcel of land, that can never be taken from us.

If you find this interpretation blasphemous, consider Exodus, in which the Bible repeatedly makes reference to our departure from Egypt as slaves. If we are to be faithful Jews, we must take that with a grain of salt because we know impirically now that Jews were not kept as slaves in Egypt, nor is there any evidence to support a mass Exodus from Egypt to The Promised Land.

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com...

http://www.haaretz.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yet we still have every right to hold the story of Exodus near and dear to our hearts as one of triumph over adversity, in which the Egyptians serve as a general stand-in due to their status as the greatest power of the time these words were penned. It's symbolic value is greater than the sum of its biblical parts, just as is true of Israel.

Debate Round No. 2
mendel

Pro

Ok for the last round, thank you everyone for reading.

I will respond to my opponent's words; however it should be clear that one cannot believe in the bible and think that the story of the exodus is a myth. Half of the book of exodus is describing the exodus; the exodus is referenced hundreds of times in the bible.
Dozens of commandments of the bible the reason given in the bible is as a remembrance of the exodus of Egypt. Included amongst those commandments are the first of the Ten Commandments "I am the lord your g-d that took you out of Egypt", the major biblical holidays of Passover, sukkot and Shavuot are all about the exodus. I could go on and on, but obviously whether I find my opponents statements blasphemous is irrelevant, the salient point here is that he does not believe in the bible.

Every orthodox Jew in the world would consider my opponent a heretic. This is America he has that right, but I find it offensive that he calls himself an orthodox Jew. My counterpart had not kept the condition of the debate of actually believing what it says in the bible.

Now to respond, my opponent went into some kind of back and forth about the boundaries of Israel. He posed some kind of problem about what the exact borders are, because g-d told Jacob that this land which you are lying on will be given to you. I guess my opponent understood that the verse meant the 5 feet or whatever amount of space that Jacob was lying on. Obviously that interpretation has no place in the context of the bible. The verse is clearly referring to the country.

Now I'll be frank at the risk of being a little rude. My opponent is either ignorant of the bible or doesn't care what the bible says, because the bible clearly says the exact borders of Israel. So his whole back and forth, that some "scholars" interpret it this way and some this way, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

Let us quote the bible, numbers chapter 34 verse 3 and on, quote "Your southernmost corner shall be from the desert of Zin along Edom, and the southern border shall be from the edge of the Sea of Salt [the Dead Sea] to the east. The border then turns south of Maaleh Akrabim [elevation of Akrabim], passing toward Zin, and its ends shall be to the south of Kadesh barnea. Then it shall extend to Hazar addar and continue toward Azmon. The border then turns from Azmon to the stream of Egypt, and its ends shall be to the sea. The western border: it shall be for you the Great [Mediterranean] Sea and the border this shall be your western border. This shall be your northern border: From the Great [Mediterranean] Sea turn yourselves toward Mount Hor. From Mount Hor turn to the entrance of Hamath, and the ends of the border shall be toward Zedad. The border shall then extend to Ziphron, and its ends shall be Hazar enan; this shall be your northern border. You shall then turn yourselves toward the eastern border, from Hazar enan to Shepham. The border descends from Shepham toward Riblah, to the east of Ain. Then the border descends and hits the eastern shore of Lake Kinnereth. The border then continues down along the Jordan, and its ends is the Sea of Salt [the Dead Sea]; this shall be your Land according to its borders around".

Here is a link with the map of biblical Israel as well as map of present day Israel.http://commons.wikimedia.org...
https://www.google.com...

There are those that may be familiar with the idea of greater Israel "from the Nile to the Euphrates". Indeed there is such a prophecy, but i haven't brought it up because the Talmud proves from a few verses that this is going to happen in the messianic era. In all the verses it talks about conquering the land of the seven nations, but in the messianic era we will conquer the three nations of kani, knizi, and kadmoni, as g-d told Abraham and we will have greater Israel. But for now g-d had given the Jewish people a piece of land,the holy land, and they should cherish it.

In conclusion over the course of this debate, my opponent has presented two arguments. First that the covenant with the Jewish people is null and void, as I discussed at length in the second round. Then he mounted another argument that either no physical land was meant or we simple don't know and it could be a tiny piece of land. To which I responded with one source (and there's many others) which discusses the exact boundaries, which obviously refutes his argument.

So I think it's clear who won. Thank you again Mr. whatever your name is, for this debate.
voxprojectus

Con

voxprojectus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
mendel
I know it was a mistake and i feel like an idiot, but what can you do...
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
@ArcTimes +1
And I think topic should be "has" instead of "had".
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
mendel
I just made that condition because i didn't want some petty debate about whether to take religion seriously or the integrity of the bible. But i don't really object to argue with someone who doesn't believe in the bible, long as they stay on course. I just used the term devils advocate as an expression.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
"One condition of the debate is that con has to believe in the bible, no playing devils advocate."

Why? I don't believe in a bible, but I could accept this without playing devil's advocate... I mean, I think believers in the bible doesn't have to agree with what says in the title.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
Are you serious Wylted?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Mendel, I'll pass on this debate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Mendel, I make it a point to change religions on a weekly basis.
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
Israel needs more bombs because my superstition says so!
Posted by mendel 2 years ago
mendel
Hey wylted whatever you want. Just wondering did you recently convert to Christianity, a few weeks ago i think your religion said scientology
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
Well, I'm definitely interested in accepting, but apparently I don't match criteria...
No votes have been placed for this debate.