Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do Muslims view the atonement?

Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:13:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am fully aware that Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, but what is their "alternative"? I was watching a debate between a trinitarian and a Muslim that touched on this subject. It seemed to me that the Muslim believed Allah plainly forgives freely. While this is not inherently strange to me, it does raise another question in my mind. Do Muslims accept that Isaac is the one who led God's people (at that time) into the future? If so, then the Old Testament becomes rather obtuse. The covenants in the OT become tedious for no real reason. For example, the Israelites were required to make sacrifices in order to make atonement (Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:20). Animals that were to be sacrificed had to be unblemished and Leviticus 17:11 makes it clear that it was the blood that made the atonement (purposely ignoring ties to the NT). However, it was not possible for them (the Israelites) to fully make atonement for their sins with imperfect and lesser creatures (Genesis 1:28; Hebrews 10:1-4). This is where the Christ comes in as the perfect being that would be the atonement for all sins. So if Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, then how do they view the practices of the Israelites in the OT?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Geogeer
Posts: 4,290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:26:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:13:14 PM, Elihu wrote:
I am fully aware that Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, but what is their "alternative"? I was watching a debate between a trinitarian and a Muslim that touched on this subject. It seemed to me that the Muslim believed Allah plainly forgives freely. While this is not inherently strange to me, it does raise another question in my mind. Do Muslims accept that Isaac is the one who led God's people (at that time) into the future? If so, then the Old Testament becomes rather obtuse. The covenants in the OT become tedious for no real reason. For example, the Israelites were required to make sacrifices in order to make atonement (Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:20). Animals that were to be sacrificed had to be unblemished and Leviticus 17:11 makes it clear that it was the blood that made the atonement (purposely ignoring ties to the NT). However, it was not possible for them (the Israelites) to fully make atonement for their sins with imperfect and lesser creatures (Genesis 1:28; Hebrews 10:1-4). This is where the Christ comes in as the perfect being that would be the atonement for all sins. So if Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, then how do they view the practices of the Israelites in the OT?

Thank-you!!!!

We need more well thought out discussions like this in this forum.
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:33:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:26:46 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Thank-you!!!!

We need more well thought out discussions like this in this forum.
I agree. I have been hesitant to post on this forum because of all the hostility and agenda-based discussions, but we will see how this goes.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:34:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:13:14 PM, Elihu wrote:
I am fully aware that Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, but what is their "alternative"? I was watching a debate between a trinitarian and a Muslim that touched on this subject. It seemed to me that the Muslim believed Allah plainly forgives freely. While this is not inherently strange to me, it does raise another question in my mind. Do Muslims accept that Isaac is the one who led God's people (at that time) into the future? If so, then the Old Testament becomes rather obtuse. The covenants in the OT become tedious for no real reason. For example, the Israelites were required to make sacrifices in order to make atonement (Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:20). Animals that were to be sacrificed had to be unblemished and Leviticus 17:11 makes it clear that it was the blood that made the atonement (purposely ignoring ties to the NT). However, it was not possible for them (the Israelites) to fully make atonement for their sins with imperfect and lesser creatures (Genesis 1:28; Hebrews 10:1-4). This is where the Christ comes in as the perfect being that would be the atonement for all sins. So if Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, then how do they view the practices of the Israelites in the OT?

The Muslims according to the Quran find atonement through works, charity and pilgrimage. They don't believe in human or animal sacrifice. The Arabs believe they are the descendants of Abraham through his son Ishmael. They also believe the Israelites or Isaac's descendants broke the covenant made between God and Abraham which resulted in them forfeiting the blessing of the covenant and God handing it over to the descendants of Ishmael or Arab nation.
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:39:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:34:30 PM, Harikrish wrote:

The Muslims according to the Quran find atonement through works, charity and pilgrimage. They don't believe in human or animal sacrifice. The Arabs believe they are the descendants of Abraham through his son Ishmael. They also believe the Israelites or Isaac's descendants broke the covenant made between God and Abraham which resulted in them forfeiting the blessing of the covenant and God handing it over to the descendants of Ishmael or Arab nation.
So they believe in salvation being earned (through works, charity, and pilgrimage)? I guess I am not sure who they view as the "righteous people" prior to Muhammad's message. To clarify, they do not view Isaac, and those onward, as righteous?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:42:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:39:04 PM, Elihu wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:34:30 PM, Harikrish wrote:

The Muslims according to the Quran find atonement through works, charity and pilgrimage. They don't believe in human or animal sacrifice. The Arabs believe they are the descendants of Abraham through his son Ishmael. They also believe the Israelites or Isaac's descendants broke the covenant made between God and Abraham which resulted in them forfeiting the blessing of the covenant and God handing it over to the descendants of Ishmael or Arab nation.
So they believe in salvation being earned (through works, charity, and pilgrimage)? I guess I am not sure who they view as the "righteous people" prior to Muhammad's message. To clarify, they do not view Isaac, and those onward, as righteous?

The Arabs were idol worshippers before the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) came on the scene 600 BC.
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:43:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:42:53 PM, Harikrish wrote:

The Arabs were idol worshippers before the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) came on the scene 600 BC.
I am aware. So how do they view the period between Abraham and Muhammad?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:43:44 PM, Elihu wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:42:53 PM, Harikrish wrote:

The Arabs were idol worshippers before the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) came on the scene 600 BC.
I am aware. So how do they view the period between Abraham and Muhammad?

I don't think they though much of it. The Jews were a divided tribal group and much as they celebrate their partiachs. The so called kingdom of David was just a small tribal kingdom.

"Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders -- descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants.

The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists."
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:03:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

The Arabs were idol worshippers before the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) came on the scene 600 BC.
I am aware. So how do they view the period between Abraham and Muhammad?

I don't think they though much of it. The Jews were a divided tribal group and much as they celebrate their partiachs. The so called kingdom of David was just a small tribal kingdom.

"Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders -- descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants.

The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists."
I am not sure that this was an answer I was looking for, but I will check out the book. I have been looking for some new literature to read.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Geogeer
Posts: 4,290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:37:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:13:14 PM, Elihu wrote:
I am fully aware that Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, but what is their "alternative"? I was watching a debate between a trinitarian and a Muslim that touched on this subject. It seemed to me that the Muslim believed Allah plainly forgives freely. While this is not inherently strange to me, it does raise another question in my mind. Do Muslims accept that Isaac is the one who led God's people (at that time) into the future? If so, then the Old Testament becomes rather obtuse. The covenants in the OT become tedious for no real reason. For example, the Israelites were required to make sacrifices in order to make atonement (Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:20). Animals that were to be sacrificed had to be unblemished and Leviticus 17:11 makes it clear that it was the blood that made the atonement (purposely ignoring ties to the NT). However, it was not possible for them (the Israelites) to fully make atonement for their sins with imperfect and lesser creatures (Genesis 1:28; Hebrews 10:1-4). This is where the Christ comes in as the perfect being that would be the atonement for all sins. So if Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, then how do they view the practices of the Israelites in the OT?

we muslims have the same way of forgiveness where it mentioned in the Bible Ez 18:20-21:
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

1) we dont believe sin is inheriting. everybody responsible to his/her actions.
2) forgiveness comes through repenting.

where u mentioned about the OT we believe also in the prophets like Moses/David/Abraham... were true prophets of God, but our belief is that the Torah of Moses wasnt preserved completely, ppl changed it, by adding/deleting stuff there, same for the songs of David. so our view is u can find word of God there, but also word of ppl.

for example we dont believe prophets committed sins intentionally (mistakes yes) or commanded by God to some some shameful deeds.
Never fart near dog
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:52:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...

Ok,so it is smaller than a cow town because only two structures were found in the entire cow town.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:25:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 8:52:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...

Ok,so it is smaller than a cow town because only two structures were found in the entire cow town.

Ummmm... this wasn't in Jerusalem. This was an outpost.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

Finkelstein has based his career on this narrative. In fact what he is doing is the same thing he claims his opponents are doing. He is a non-believer who tries to deny everything by pointing to absence of evidence. Minimalists like him would deny that David and Solomon even existed because nothing was found... until a 9th Century stone tablet was found at Tel Dan.

So now there may have been a David, but he was just a little king of no real consequence. I suspect that this viewpoint will further retreat over time.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:33:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:25:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:52:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...

Ok,so it is smaller than a cow town because only two structures were found in the entire cow town.

Ummmm... this wasn't in Jerusalem. This was an outpost.

Which makes Jerusalem smaller than a cow town after you take away the two structures.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

Finkelstein has based his career on this narrative. In fact what he is doing is the same thing he claims his opponents are doing. He is a non-believer who tries to deny everything by pointing to absence of evidence. Minimalists like him would deny that David and Solomon even existed because nothing was found... until a 9th Century stone tablet was found at Tel Dan.

So now there may have been a David, but he was just a little king of no real consequence. I suspect that this viewpoint will further retreat over time.

He is an Israeli archeologist trying to uncover Israels past professionally.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 9:43:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:33:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:25:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:52:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...

Ok,so it is smaller than a cow town because only two structures were found in the entire cow town.

Ummmm... this wasn't in Jerusalem. This was an outpost.

Which makes Jerusalem smaller than a cow town after you take away the two structures.

No... it shows that the kingdom was wealthy enough to build outposts and not only defend its capital city.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

Finkelstein has based his career on this narrative. In fact what he is doing is the same thing he claims his opponents are doing. He is a non-believer who tries to deny everything by pointing to absence of evidence. Minimalists like him would deny that David and Solomon even existed because nothing was found... until a 9th Century stone tablet was found at Tel Dan.

So now there may have been a David, but he was just a little king of no real consequence. I suspect that this viewpoint will further retreat over time.

He is an Israeli archeologist trying to uncover Israels past professionally.

And he has no biases is how he views the discoveries?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 1:13:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:43:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:33:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:25:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:52:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...

Ok,so it is smaller than a cow town because only two structures were found in the entire cow town.

Ummmm... this wasn't in Jerusalem. This was an outpost.

Which makes Jerusalem smaller than a cow town after you take away the two structures.

No... it shows that the kingdom was wealthy enough to build outposts and not only defend its capital city.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

Finkelstein has based his career on this narrative. In fact what he is doing is the same thing he claims his opponents are doing. He is a non-believer who tries to deny everything by pointing to absence of evidence. Minimalists like him would deny that David and Solomon even existed because nothing was found... until a 9th Century stone tablet was found at Tel Dan.

So now there may have been a David, but he was just a little king of no real consequence. I suspect that this viewpoint will further retreat over time.

He is an Israeli archeologist trying to uncover Israels past professionally.

And he has no biases is how he views the discoveries?

Why should he be biased when he has no control over the discoveries? His profession demands objectivity, he reports what he uncovers. His work would have been discredited if it was not backed by his peers.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 4:25:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 1:13:18 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:43:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:33:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:25:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:52:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...

Ok,so it is smaller than a cow town because only two structures were found in the entire cow town.

Ummmm... this wasn't in Jerusalem. This was an outpost.

Which makes Jerusalem smaller than a cow town after you take away the two structures.

No... it shows that the kingdom was wealthy enough to build outposts and not only defend its capital city.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

Finkelstein has based his career on this narrative. In fact what he is doing is the same thing he claims his opponents are doing. He is a non-believer who tries to deny everything by pointing to absence of evidence. Minimalists like him would deny that David and Solomon even existed because nothing was found... until a 9th Century stone tablet was found at Tel Dan.

So now there may have been a David, but he was just a little king of no real consequence. I suspect that this viewpoint will further retreat over time.

He is an Israeli archeologist trying to uncover Israels past professionally.

And he has no biases is how he views the discoveries?

Why should he be biased when he has no control over the discoveries? His profession demands objectivity, he reports what he uncovers. His work would have been discredited if it was not backed by his peers.

Lol. While aspects of Archeology has hard facts there is an interpretive context which makes it an aspect of the social sciences.
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 11:19:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 8:37:04 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

where u mentioned about the OT we believe also in the prophets like Moses/David/Abraham... were true prophets of God, but our belief is that the Torah of Moses wasnt preserved completely, ppl changed it, by adding/deleting stuff there, same for the songs of David. so our view is u can find word of God there, but also word of ppl.
So you accept all of the Old Testament, minus some man made errors?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 10:52:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 11:19:16 PM, Elihu wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:37:04 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:

where u mentioned about the OT we believe also in the prophets like Moses/David/Abraham... were true prophets of God, but our belief is that the Torah of Moses wasnt preserved completely, ppl changed it, by adding/deleting stuff there, same for the songs of David. so our view is u can find word of God there, but also word of ppl.
So you accept all of the Old Testament, minus some man made errors?

we dont accept OT from God we say some parts of it can be traced to its origin. for example God is one there is no another thing like unto him or Moses was prophet of God and God sent him to Children of Israel, but we cant accept for instance a prophet committing adultery.
Never fart near dog
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:32:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 4:25:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/1/2016 1:13:18 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:43:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:33:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 9:25:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:52:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...

Ok,so it is smaller than a cow town because only two structures were found in the entire cow town.

Ummmm... this wasn't in Jerusalem. This was an outpost.

Which makes Jerusalem smaller than a cow town after you take away the two structures.

No... it shows that the kingdom was wealthy enough to build outposts and not only defend its capital city.

"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

Finkelstein has based his career on this narrative. In fact what he is doing is the same thing he claims his opponents are doing. He is a non-believer who tries to deny everything by pointing to absence of evidence. Minimalists like him would deny that David and Solomon even existed because nothing was found... until a 9th Century stone tablet was found at Tel Dan.

So now there may have been a David, but he was just a little king of no real consequence. I suspect that this viewpoint will further retreat over time.

He is an Israeli archeologist trying to uncover Israels past professionally.

And he has no biases is how he views the discoveries?

Why should he be biased when he has no control over the discoveries? His profession demands objectivity, he reports what he uncovers. His work would have been discredited if it was not backed by his peers.

Lol. While aspects of Archeology has hard facts there is an interpretive context which makes it an aspect of the social sciences.

" Archeology is a science studing ancient cultures through the excavation and analysis of physical remains while humanity means the whole human race, all human beings taken together collectively, as one whole. These words have different notions and can't be mixed. They are not synonyms."
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:45:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:13:14 PM, Elihu wrote:
I am fully aware that Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, but what is their "alternative"? I was watching a debate between a trinitarian and a Muslim that touched on this subject. It seemed to me that the Muslim believed Allah plainly forgives freely. While this is not inherently strange to me, it does raise another question in my mind. Do Muslims accept that Isaac is the one who led God's people (at that time) into the future? If so, then the Old Testament becomes rather obtuse. The covenants in the OT become tedious for no real reason. For example, the Israelites were required to make sacrifices in order to make atonement (Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:20). Animals that were to be sacrificed had to be unblemished and Leviticus 17:11 makes it clear that it was the blood that made the atonement (purposely ignoring ties to the NT). However, it was not possible for them (the Israelites) to fully make atonement for their sins with imperfect and lesser creatures (Genesis 1:28; Hebrews 10:1-4). This is where the Christ comes in as the perfect being that would be the atonement for all sins. So if Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, then how do they view the practices of the Israelites in the OT?
You realise, I hope, that these characters are just names in a jewish folk tale?
They never existed.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:53:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 8:17:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/31/2016 7:55:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

So how would we explain:

http://www.antiquities.org.il...
I would explain it as an unscaled photo, what about you?
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:14:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 9:25:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Finkelstein has based his career on this narrative

He was already chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, When this study was written.
Do try harder for truth, I understand that as a christian trying desperately to defend a book of fantasy it's tough, but give it a shot.
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 7:01:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 10:52:01 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:

we dont accept OT from God we say some parts of it can be traced to its origin. for example God is one there is no another thing like unto him or Moses was prophet of God and God sent him to Children of Israel, but we cant accept for instance a prophet committing adultery.
Thank you, that helped clarify the position I was looking for.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 2:02:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 7:13:14 PM, Elihu wrote:
I am fully aware that Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, but what is their "alternative"? I was watching a debate between a trinitarian and a Muslim that touched on this subject. It seemed to me that the Muslim believed Allah plainly forgives freely. While this is not inherently strange to me, it does raise another question in my mind. Do Muslims accept that Isaac is the one who led God's people (at that time) into the future? If so, then the Old Testament becomes rather obtuse. The covenants in the OT become tedious for no real reason. For example, the Israelites were required to make sacrifices in order to make atonement (Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:20). Animals that were to be sacrificed had to be unblemished and Leviticus 17:11 makes it clear that it was the blood that made the atonement (purposely ignoring ties to the NT). However, it was not possible for them (the Israelites) to fully make atonement for their sins with imperfect and lesser creatures (Genesis 1:28; Hebrews 10:1-4). This is where the Christ comes in as the perfect being that would be the atonement for all sins. So if Muslims reject the atonement through Christ, then how do they view the practices of the Israelites in the OT?

- None of this resonate with Muslims. You're assuming a worldview not shared in Islam, it's a non<x>starter.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 2:12:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 2:02:59 AM, Yassine wrote:

- None of this resonate with Muslims. You're assuming a worldview not shared in Islam, it's a non<x>starter.
So the Old Testament is rejected?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 2:16:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 2:12:05 AM, Elihu wrote:
At 4/3/2016 2:02:59 AM, Yassine wrote:

- None of this resonate with Muslims. You're assuming a worldview not shared in Islam, it's a non<x>starter.
So the Old Testament is rejected?

- Not the point. Whatever the Judaic (or Christian) Tradition understood from the OT (&/or NT), that is, the Jewish (or Christian) worldview, does not necessarily extend to the Islamic worldview. Particularly, all concepts related to Inherent Sin, Original Sin, Sacrifice... are inexistent in the Islamic Tradition.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 2:29:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 2:16:58 AM, Yassine wrote:

- Not the point. Whatever the Judaic (or Christian) Tradition understood from the OT (&/or NT), that is, the Jewish (or Christian) worldview, does not necessarily extend to the Islamic worldview. Particularly, all concepts related to Inherent Sin, Original Sin, Sacrifice... are inexistent in the Islamic Tradition.
Wow, thank you for that information. Can you send me to a good source or even try and explain it yourself as to how Muslims generally view the Old Testament? I am aware that Muslims accept at least certain portions of it, but how do they distinguish what is valid and what is not?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 2:45:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 2:29:24 AM, Elihu wrote:
At 4/3/2016 2:16:58 AM, Yassine wrote:

- Not the point. Whatever the Judaic (or Christian) Tradition understood from the OT (&/or NT), that is, the Jewish (or Christian) worldview, does not necessarily extend to the Islamic worldview. Particularly, all concepts related to Inherent Sin, Original Sin, Sacrifice... are inexistent in the Islamic Tradition.

Wow, thank you for that information.

- My pleasure.

Can you send me to a good source or even try and explain it yourself as to how Muslims generally view the Old Testament?

- Certainly. Muslims believe in the revelation that is the Torah (or Gospel) as true revelation from God, but they are skeptical as to the content of the written book of the Torah (or Gospel), for they believe the original revelation has been tempered with while being transmitted & written down. The Prophet (pbuh) when he was asked about the Torah, he said: "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'" [http://sunnah.com...] . So, we believe the original version to be wholly true, albeit we don't know which of the current version is true & & which isn't.

I am aware that Muslims accept at least certain portions of it, but how do they distinguish what is valid and what is not?

- Whatever corresponds to the Qur'an we deem as valid, whatever is against it we deem as invalid ; & we are skeptical as to everything else.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Elihu
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 2:51:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 2:45:12 AM, Yassine wrote:

Can you send me to a good source or even try and explain it yourself as to how Muslims generally view the Old Testament?

- Certainly. Muslims believe in the revelation that is the Torah (or Gospel) as true revelation from God, but they are skeptical as to the content of the written book of the Torah (or Gospel), for they believe the original revelation has been tempered with while being transmitted & written down. The Prophet (pbuh) when he was asked about the Torah, he said: "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'" [http://sunnah.com...] . So, we believe the original version to be wholly true, albeit we don't know which of the current version is true & & which isn't.

I am aware that Muslims accept at least certain portions of it, but how do they distinguish what is valid and what is not?

- Whatever corresponds to the Qur'an we deem as valid, whatever is against it we deem as invalid ; & we are skeptical as to everything else.
Thank you, this was a very clear and precise answer. God bless.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24)