Saturday, March 26, 2016

Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael

I refer to some parts of RPK’s Much ado about nothing (part 2), wakakaka those which states:

Abraham with (at that time) a futuristic mode of transportation, wakakaka

According to Genesis, Abraham had a wife named Sarah who was barren and could not give him any children. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar, so Sarah told Abraham to use Hagar as a surrogate mother since she (Sarah) could not give Abraham any children.

Hagar soon became pregnant and not long after that Sarah, too, became pregnant. So now both of them were pregnant. Hagar’s son was named Ishmael while Sarah’s son was named Isaac. But Ishmael was elder to Isaac since he was born first.

Sarah soon became jealous and told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Hagar’s son, Ishmael. So Abraham dumped both of them in the desert and left them there. God, who called Himself, El Shaddai, then appeared and told Sarah that she will become the mother of all nations.

Now, there are two things to note here. First of all, God acknowledged Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham.

and

Oh, by the way, Jews practice circumcision, an Egyptian practice at that time -- and Hagar was Egyptian while Sarah was not. Does this mean the Jews follow Hagar and not Sarah? 

Let me comment on the last part first, that of circumcision.

Gulp, I don't like the look of what appears to be a pair of pliers (on right)
what's that tool on the left?

RPK is correct that circumcision was then an Egyptian practice. The Egyptians were probably the first people to conduct circumcision, but then only among the royals and nobility.

Please note that when we refer to the biblical Egyptians we’re NOT talking about today’s Egyptian who are and have been mainly Arabs, and of course mainly Muslims since Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) introduced Islam to the Middle-Eastern world.

The biblical Egyptians were a different race, no, not even the people of Ptolemy’s and Cleopatra’s who came later and were mainly Macedonians and Greeks, remnants of Alexander’s army. The original Egyptians were a race of a much earlier era, and have since long gone; no one other than perhaps historians of ancient Egypt or Egyptologists know where they are now - perhaps in Padang and Negeri Sembilan wakakaka.

In a post earlier this year titled B-D,the new G-D of ‘Truth’ I had written about the same thing.

Strangely, for the Hebrews, a people who despised the Egyptians for their pagan beliefs, yet they adopted many Egyptian practices, including that of circumcision – see my post B-D, the new G-D of‘Truth’. Of course the Hebrews would claim that Abraham circumcised himself to show his covenant with YVWH.

OK then, we might as well begin our discussion with Abraham who the Bible told us came from Ur of the Chaldees, as in Genesis 11:27-31, which say:

27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Abraham was born around 2000 BC according to those who also believed that Adam and Eve and their Fall happened around 4000 BC). But archaeologists said that Chaldeans (of the Chaldees) didn’t even exist until around the sixth to fifth century BC, nearly 1500 years after Abraham’s time.

Thus the claim that Abram (before he became Abraham) came from Ur of the Chaldees was likely a latter day invention (or writeup) at a time (after 586 BC) coincidentally when the Judeans, as slaves in Babylon, first wrote down the oral tradition of Abraham’s story while compiling the written Hebrew Bible Tanakh).


Now, just note Genesis 17:17 which says Abraham became hilarious when God told him he would have a son:

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

This tells us that the age gap between Abraham and Sarah was 10 years.

OK, flashing back to an earlier period, specifically 25 years earlier, to Genesis 12:4, we have (before he changed his name to Abraham):

So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him: and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

Abraham was already 75 years old when he was instructed by God to leave Haran after his father died. Therefore Sarah would be sixty-five years old, being 10 years younger than her husband. It also tells us that there was a gap of at least 25 years between entering Egypt and having their son Isaac.

In Genesis 12:14-15 we have:

And it came to pass, that, when Abrams was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

The princes also of Pharaoh also saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.

When entering Egypt, Abraham wanted Sarah to pretend she was his sister. The biblical reason was that he was afraid of being killed if it was known she was his wife, for he anticipated Sarah would attract lustful attention. And he was right. Pharaoh was told of her beauty, took her into his Palace and rewarded her ‘brother’ generously.

Here, some questions begged to be asked.


(1) What did the Egyptians see in a 65 year old Hebrew woman that made them acclaim she was fair (beautiful), and recommend the beauty to the Pharaoh, and why would a Pharaoh, who could have any woman in the land, want an old crone as his lover?

(2) Did the Pharaoh have his naughty ways with Sarah after taking her into the Palace?

(3) What was a pastoralist (shepherd) like Abraham doing in a cosmopolitan city like Ur (apart from the archaeological-historical fact that Ur existed only 1500 years later)? One would expect him to live in a tent in a rural area, but we are told by the bible he came from Ur of the Chaldees.

(4) Then, what would be the likelihood of a foreign commoner, a mere pastoralist, even allowing for him having a beautiful 65-year old wife, coming into contact with the royal house of Egypt, namely the princes and the Pharaoh? (Genesis 12:15) Can a great empire like Egypt be so small that a mere foreigner would, on entering its border, come into contact with or to the knowledge of its princes?

(5) Why is there a leitmotiv in the bible surrounding Abraham and Sarah, of the man and wife pretending to be brother and sister, of a Pharaoh or King taking (or attempting to take) the wife, of God then intervening to return the wife to the husband, and of the husband profiting greatly from the separation? The leitmotiv may be discerned in:

  • Abraham and the Pharaoh (Genesis 12:11-20)
  • Abraham and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) – Sarah was even older by then, around 90.
  • Isaac and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 26: 7-16) – we aren't too sure whether this was the same Abimelech for it was then more than 50 years later, but the King had a chief captain of the army named Phichol (Genesis 26:26) as was in the case of the earlier or Abraham’s Abimelech (Genesis 21:22).

    If it was the same Abimelech, 
    then it would suggest that Abraham and Isaac could well be the same person.

(6) Why was Sarah told to change her name from the original Sarai to Sarah, the latter in Hebrew meaning Princess? (Genesis 17:15)


What were the authors (or author) of Genesis trying to say, or do?

I leave the above for you to find out, wakakaka, including Genesis 12:16 which states: And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

If according to Judeo-Christian belief, Abraham was supposed to live around 2000 BC, then camels weren't domesticated yet for another 800 years, until around 1200 BC, coincidentally around the time when the Chaldeans existed and indeed, coincidentally around the time the Judeans compiled their written bible, the Tanakh.

You can draw your own conclusion as to the reliability of the Judeans' story as written by them in the Tanakh.


Carrying on with other biblical mysteries, wakakaka:

The Israelis journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children ….. (Exodus 12:37)

The Book of Exodus narrates the preparation of the Hebraic exodus after the Pharaoh, cowered by the 10 plagues including the death of his firstborn, gave Moses leave to lead 600,000 male Jewish slaves plus their families, totalling some two million people, out of Egypt.

2,000,000 Hebrew slaves migrating out of Egypt!

Even allowing for some ancient exaggerations, yet there is not one single mention of this monumental migration in an ancient Egypt famed for its recording of anything and all things! No, not one!

Continuing:

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the Lords’ division left Egypt ….. (Exodus 12:40-41)

Nearly half a millennium of residence in Egypt by the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Hebrews – again there was not one ancient Egyptian record of them! Not one hieroglyphic, hieratic or demotic line anywhere!

As mentioned, this was a nation which recorded everything, about Pharaohs, their gods, floods, harvest, births, deaths, ownership of this and that, weather, social events, wars, etc, but not a skerrick of written line about 2,000,000 Hebrews living in their land for 430 years, let alone making a mass exodus.

This was an unexplained omission of amazing proportion by the Egyptian scribes. Or, was it?

Surely there must be something to explain the mysterious and very monumental omission in ancient Egyptian records on the significant Hebraic presence there, unless of course there was no Hebrew ever in Egypt, and thus no Hebraic exodus took place.

The most puzzling mystery has been that in a land of such fastidious recording of events, not one single line of hieroglyph or hieratic or demotic in Egypt’s famed and vast repository of recording made any mention of this race, their or their mass exodus from Egypt.

The only account of the Hebrews living in Egypt and their exodus out of Egypt is in the Tanakh, which coincidentally was written by their descendants, the Judeans while they were slaves in Babylon from 586 to 539 BC.


OK, as mentioned, the word Pharaoh is mentioned 274 times in the Bible in various descriptions and forms. In the first two books of the Old Testament (OT), namely Genesis and Exodus, it is referred to 155 times.

Yet, in that 155 times, the OT fails to identify which Pharaoh was involved in the respective events involving Hebrews. The time span as chronicled by the Books of Genesis and Exodus would logically suggest that the Pharaoh of Abraham and Sarah should be a different person to the Pharaoh of Joseph son of Jacob, and indeed to the Pharaoh of Moses and the Exodus.

In the story of Joseph, he was sold to an Egyptian Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials (Genesis 39:1). After interpreting his famous ‘seven fat and seven lean years’ for the Pharaoh (Genesis 41: 25-32), the latter made him the Grand Vizier, the No 2 man in the land, and conferred on him an Egyptian name, Zapethnath-Paneah and married him off to an Egyptian wife, Asenath (meaning Gift of the Sun-God). She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Genesis 41:45).

Notice how detailed were the personalities identified, yet the name of the Pharaoh was not revealed. Instead the Pharaoh was merely referred to as ‘a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph’ (Exodus 1:8).

As for Moses, we read of Pharaoh learning of the killing of an Egyptian by this Prince of Egypt (Exodus 2:12), and naturally wanting to have Moses executed (Exodus 2:15). Of course by then Moses had fled.

Much later, after marrying Zipporah and witnessing the burning bush, he heard that the Pharaoh died. Around then, God ordered him back to Egypt to demand from the new Pharaoh the release of the Israelite slaves (Exodus 3:10).

Again, we observe the lack of details about one of the most significant Pharaoh in the biblical saga. Who was this Pharaoh? Or better, who were the Pharaohs, the one who died as well as his newly crowned successor?


Compare the seemingly evasive or, if one wants to be less conspiratorial, broad brushing of the Pharaohs’ identities, specifically those associated with the stories or events of Abraham to Moses, with the detailed genealogies of others in the Old Testament, as presented in Genesis Chapter 4:17-22 (Cain’s), Genesis Chapter 5 (Noah’s, he of the Flood and Ark fame), Genesis Chapter 10 (The sons of Noah and their families’), Genesis Chapter 11:10-32 (from Shem to Abraham), and the list of details goes on.

WHY?

So, were there Hebrews in Egypt after all? Was there ever an Exodus?

Incidentally, the word ‘Egypt’ appears in the Bible more than 750 times while ‘pharaoh’ is mentioned over 274 times. More than any of the Israelite nation’s neighbouring countries, Egypt was the most described country in the Scriptures.

·   Egypt – the nation that, according to the Bible, held 2,000,000 Hebrews in slavery until God instructed Moses to lead his people out of Egyptian bondage. The Egyptian pharaoh only released them after a bitter and acrimonious struggle resulting in the deaths of all Egyptian first-borns including the pharaoh’s own.

·   Egypt – where the Israelite people including its kings would always run to for refuge and sanctuary when threatened by other warring nations such as the Babylonians. The Israelite so-called prophet Jeremiah threatened the Israelites about running to Egypt for refuge when the Babylonians were advancing, by relaying God’s message: “As my anger and wrath have been poured out on those who lived in Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you go to Egypt” (Jer 42:18). But the Hebrews nevertheless went to seek sanctuary in Egypt, and Jeremiah, notwithstanding his own warnings, followed, purportedly to rail against the Israelites for picking up Egyptian worship (Jer 44), but more likely to save his own bloody skin, wakakaka.


On Egypt as a perennial sanctuary for the Israelites-Judeans, it may worthwhile venturing across into the New Testament to recall Matthew 2:13 which advised Yusuf (Yehoshua’s dad, you know, Joshua or with the Greek name of Jesus)  in a dream, of Herod’s murderous hunt for the newborn Messiah:

Arise, He said, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I bring the word ………

And most surprising of all, in Deuteronomy, under 23: Exclusion From the Assembly, God warned the Hebrews not to allow the neighbouring nationalities to enter the assembly of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, except for the Edomites and the Egyptians.

The Edomites were of course also Hebrews, ‘cousins’ to the ketuanan Israelite people, as they were descendants of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, who lost his birthrights to Jacob through trickery and deceit.

In fact, Deuteronomy 23:7-8 read:

You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land; the children of the third generation born to them may enter the congregation of the Lord.

The Edomites I can understand, but why this special treatment for their so-called mortal enemies, the Egyptians, those oppressors who supposedly kept the Hebrews in bondage for 430 years, and required a series of terrifying divine-sent plagues to intimidate the Pharaoh before he released them from slavery.

Indeed why?

I am afraid that again, I’m going to leave all the above for you to find out, wakakaka. Call me a bloody tease if you like, wakakaka.

So now we come to RPK’s first statement I posted at the beginning of this post, namely:

According to Genesis, Abraham had a wife named Sarah who was barren and could not give him any children. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar, so Sarah told Abraham to use Hagar as a surrogate mother since she (Sarah) could not give Abraham any children.

Hagar soon became pregnant and not long after that Sarah, too, became pregnant. So now both of them were pregnant. Hagar’s son was named Ishmael while Sarah’s son was named Isaac. But Ishmael was elder to Isaac since he was born first.

Sarah soon became jealous and told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Hagar’s son, Ishmael. So Abraham dumped both of them in the desert and left them there. God, who called Himself, El Shaddai, then appeared and told Sarah that she will become the mother of all nations.

Abraham casting Hagar and Ishmael out

Now, there are two things to note here. First of all, God acknowledged Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham.

On RPK's last paragraph, whether it was the Hebraic God who acknowledged ‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’ would, in my opinion, depend on who was the Hebraic God, wakakaka.

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was written by various people but mainly by (though not all) Davidic supporters (obviously of the House of Judah). ‘Davidic’ supporters mean supporters of King David who was of the House of Judah, the most evil and treacherous man in the entire bible.

David was even more treacherous than his eponymous ancestor, cheating Jacob. He plotted the murder of King Saul who doted on him, and f**ked Saul’s wife and Saul's son Jonathan (yes, he and Jonathan were lovers) to get to the throne.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. ... Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle Samuel 18:1-4 (KJV).

David and Jonathan

Though both his lover Jonathan and his wife Michal (Saul’s daughter and Jonathan’s sister) helped the bloke all the time, nonetheless he eventually had both of them murdered as he did to their father King Saul.

Naturally the Bible was written by his supporters to show that Saul became mad with jealousy etc etc and was forsaken by God, to justify David's trail of f**king and murders right up to the Israelite throne.

He also shagged the wives of many others to get what he wanted (presumably he must be a handsome Adonis) including the most infamous of all, Bathsheba, the wife of his most loyal general Uriah whom he deliberately sent into the thickest of battle to be killed.

Uriah, cuckolded and murdered by King David, so-called God's beloved

David was also guilty of many other crimes including treasonably consorting with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines, against Israel.

In the way that the New Testament would not have been written if there was no Yesohua ben Yusuf, the Tanakh would not have thus been written if there was no David.

David's supporters wrote the Tanakh to exonerate his many crimes, but fortunately for posterity they weren't the only writers of the Tanakh, hence through the writings of those who weren't his supporters we catch glimpses of his evil as well as the treachery of his eponymous cheating ancestor, Israel, or as Jacob was known by, in the Old Testament.

But an important point his supporters wanted to make was to show that contrary to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, God wanted him to be King.

So what does Deuteronomy 21:15-17 say? Essentially and significantly the following:

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

So, where did that leave Ishmael as compared with Isaac in the eyes of God?

That’s the reason I opined earlier: Whether it was the Hebraic God who acknowledged ‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’ would depend on who was the Hebraic God – wakakaka again.

But why did David’s supporter want to diminish the age-old concept of primogeniture, which is (until even today in many races and cultures) the right, by law, or usually by custom and even religion as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17, of the firstborn son to inherit the family title, properties, even greater blessings compared with other sons, and which was what buggered Ishmael out from being Abraham's rightful heir.

That’s because David was not the first born of Jesse of Bethlehem. He was the youngest of Jesse’s eight children (sometimes mentioned as seven).

How could an eighth child become King of Israel?

Of course he could ........ BUT only if the Bible showed that God didn't favour primogeniture despite Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

And we'll see how a bible commentator would cunningly get around these two conflicting points, wakakaka.

Thus, in the story of Cain and Abel we have God favouring Abel over Cain, the first born. Conveniently the Tanakh had Cain murdering Abel.

Yes, no reason of whatever sort was provided by the Bible for God’s favouritism. It would only be in other subsequent explanatory documents or books that embarrassed clerics creatively explained away God’s inexplicable bias.

was the Hebrew God a meat lover who thus preferred
Abel's barbeque offerings over Cain's veggies?

Then we have our Ishmael and Isaac, with Ishmael conveniently being an Egyptian. Guess which nationality was Isaac, wakakaka. Don't know? Well, go back above and re-read my post, wakakaka.

Following that, we have Esau and Jacob. Again, conveniently we are told Esau sold his birthrights away to his younger brother for a bowl of lentils. Even allowing for that pro Davidic creation, we have their mother conspiring with Jacob to cheat, yes, CHEAT, his father into blessing him when the old blind man wanted to do that for his first born Esau.

How could God love such a cheat? How could God love his descendant David, the most treacherous murderous adulterer?

Can lah, because the Davidic supporters, not unlike our Utusan Malaysia and Biro Tatanegara, wakakaka, could write any bullshit!

As if that was not enough, when Joseph (of the Technicolor coat in the Old Testament) went to see his father Jacob the Cheat for blessings for his sons, Manasseh (first born) and Ephraim (the younger), make a guess who Jacob blessed more, wakakaka.

The Bible tells us that despite Joseph positioning his sons before Jacob so that the elder son Manasseh would be blessed by Jacob’s right hand (this being the hand which gave the greater proportion of blessings) and Ephraim by his father’s left hand, Jacob crossed his hands so that his right hand was on Ephraim’s head instead while his left hand blessed Manasseh but less according to Hebraic custom.

When Joseph tried to catch hold of his father’s right hand to have it on top of Manasseh head, Jacob resisted and said “I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 48:19) - Wakakaka.


And we have the biblical commentator who wanted it both ways, saying as we have suspected all along, that

This shows how the idea of firstborn in the Bible (as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17) is often a position of pre-eminence, not necessarily meaning 'first out of the womb'. Wakakaka, what utter bullshit.

Thus by creative biblical composition, David enjoyed the position of firstborn, even though he was the youngest son. Thus he was fit to be King of Israel, as was conveniently written by men and not God.

So naturally we have those Judean BTN writers (wakakaka) with Psalm 89:20-29 (KJV) informing us how God viewed David:

20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.

22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.

23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.

24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.

26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.


That’s how and not why the Hebrew God inexplicably loved Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, cheating-Jacob over Esau, Ephraim over Manasseh, and of course the most evil man ever in the Bible, David the adulterous traitorous murderer and 8th son of Jesse of Bethlehem - all courtesy of the pro David bible writers.


91 comments:

  1. Dear Kaytee, this is the 'difference of opinion' between the Jews and the Muslims. The Jews say Isaac was 'the chosen one' while the Muslims says it was Ishmael, although both accept the father, Abraham, as the 'founder' of the Abrahamic faiths. The law then was that the eldest son is son number one even if that son is from the second or younger wife. Hence Ishmael is number one son and not Isaac. And masters can have sex with their slaves, who are their property. So it is not illegal sex or adultery. And Abraham had sex with Hagar at Sarah's behest, who owned Hagar.

    RPK

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes Peter, but how can the Jews-Christians argue against Ishmael being the rightful heir to Abraham when the Judeo-Christian Bible (not the Muslim al Quran) in its Book of Deuteronomy Chap 21:15-17 say quite clearly and significantly the following:

    "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love."

    "He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."

    Clearly from the above, Ishmael was undeniably and by Hebraic Law, as per the Book of Deuteronomy the rightful heir of Abraham, but then, as I wrote in my post, the Judean biblical writers during their Babylonian exile, creatively wrote the Book to justify David's right to being King, and in that "creative" process, demonized or disadvantaged Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Manasseh etc (I'm sure there are more biblical examples but I could only find the ones I have written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! Clap! Clap! kaytee has embraced Islam. This call for celebration Time to invoke CLF to join in the debate. This is a fucking shame that both of you who are residing in aussie land......won't engage in debate

      Delete
    2. http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/60167-a-daniel-come-to-judgment

      OH WHAT THE FUCK LA! THE PROBLEM OCCUR WHEN THAT CIBAI SYED HAMID BAN HERALD.

      TIME TO INVOKE PAK BEAN TO ENGAGE WITH YOU

      BUT FUCK, WAIT A MINUTE

      Why smart people like CLF & Pak Bean refused to debate people like you kaytee?

      Who the fuck is Pak Bean?

      Pak Bean called Tunku Abdul Rahman Tok Tam. Tunku unlike RPK, an esteemed royalty

      Frankly, I found RPK's message on Yap Ah Loy damn insulting. If Yap Ah Loy were given much free hand, what make you think it would not be like this

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_PhBbcsnSc

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzNXeVeG1iw

      Delete
    3. my dear looes, just a mere post though your reaction and worse, your accusation of kaytee embracing Islam is typically Myrmidon-ish (mindless and moronic), wakakaka

      my next post will surely freak you out, wakakaka again

      Delete
    4. When Abraham "disowned" Ismael and sent him and Hagar into exile in the wilderness, there goes the birthright attached to the firstborn. No longer Abraham's son. Ancient China also has this tradition of disowning a firstborn and giving the birthright to a younger son. Emperors and Kings have done that. A daughter first out of the womb is not even counted.

      Delete
    5. Who gives a damn abt ancient China?There was no China in ancient time. Oh yeah, there were lions and serpents also in Ancient China. Not to mention giant turtle, giant bird and flame breathing unicorn.Love reading Pedang Setiakawan comic book.

      Delete
  3. A Very good one Dr. Bart Ehrman !!

    Vango

    ReplyDelete
  4. His-story is been written by the winners, wakakaka!

    So, iff KT's right, then the two greatest holy books of the world, r based on story-tellings by ancient script-writers, who were trying to 'ampu' their masters!

    Brilliant hypothesis.

    The Bible is gamed to mentioned the writers of its compilation of selected canonized scripts as dictated by the Council of Tridentine. There were many other 'books' not selected by the council due to, perhaps their controversy contents. The book of Mary Magdalene was one example.

    However, the rediscovery of the Death Sea Scrolls should throw some new insights into the evolution of Bible.

    OTOH, the Quran is silent about its writers. Bearing in mind that both Christanity & Islam share same origin, so the same description should apply. The only catch is Islam is established about 640 yrs after the founding of Christianity, so its writers must had used some earlier non-selected canonized books as a base. The selection of Ishmael over Issac as the chosen one in Islam is a clear cut example.

    Now, KT, what's yr point besides hinting that his-story is most properly following the all obvious datum of winner writes history?

    Like RPK wrote, religion is based on FAITH. What can u accommodate even if u r proving to be correct on this take? Faith builts on non-questionable blind trust by its followers. Logic & scientific deduction play NO role when the core foundation of the faith is been questioned.

    But, still tapik u for this write-up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't forget it is Goid's choice. In Genesis 17: 19 Yes, Your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you wil call him Isaac. I will establish a covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. In verse 20 God will also bless Ismael but vs 21 said that "But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."

    The important thing is not what we said, but what God said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'God said' as in accordance with what those Judean bible compilers in Babylonian bondage wrote

      Delete
  6. The most sinister part in the formation of both the Bible & Quran is the mysterious selection process of various books, to form their ‘intended’ contents.

    Thus, there were MANY others books stated VERY differently about many of the same topics raised. However, these books were not canonized to form the base of the Scriptures. So why chose those that were favoured, as mentioned by KT? What benefit would arise out of doing so to both religions?

    Granted that victors wrote his-stories, BUT both Bible & Quran were compiled long after the writers, some obviously sycophant, penned their words. Moreover, many of these writers were using their creative minds generously to re-create incidences which happened VERY much earlier. They were not describing current events, BUT events happened hundreds of years earlier based on selection of hearsays!

    So the Bible & Quran content integrators of the later age, must had reason(s) to choose one from the others. The interesting question is what was it(them)?

    Here lies a conspiracy theory that would drive Christian, Islamist & possibly KT, up the wall.

    Yes, it involves the calculative & long-thinking Zionist Jew to dominate the world. Interested readers should comb the internet for this hidden proclamation. The only saddest part is that at the end, all these champions of the various versions of the Abrahamic faith, r fighting on behalf of the Zionist. Then if one think closely, it’s actually a family in-fightings – after all, they r all people of the books.

    RPK is wrong when he stated that Judaism, Christianity & Islam r versions 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3 respectively of the SAME Abrahamic faith. Wrong! Judaism should be version 1.0, while Christianity & Islam r versions 1.1 & 1.2 respectively.

    What's the difference in the numerical placing? Those, who r well verse in modern digital science would know the significant of such numeric connotation. In short, the digit placed after the decimal, indicates the latest minor updated version, while the number before the decimal, indicates a major overhaul in system design. Since Judaism is the founding version of the Abrahamic monotheism, thus it's 1.0, while Christianity & Islam r the later minor updates, hence 1.1 & 1.2. Perhaps, someone in the distant future could come up with a version 2.0 of the Abrahamic faith, wakakaka!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judaism practiced today is very much different from the Judaism of the Old Testament, apart from there being many branches. As for Christianity there are so many varieties, many of which are at odds with each other. And Islam itself has major differences among its adherents, as in the Sunni-Shia irreconciable split

      Delete
    2. Then called those sub-branches versions 1.01,1.02 .... or 1.11,1.12 ... or 1.21, 1.22 ......

      They r all differed in minor details, as in procedural matters & succession heirs. The MAIN 'teaching' of the Abrahamin monotheism faith remains.

      That the House of David triumph for eternity!

      Sound zionist???????

      Delete
  7. Great research and write up.
    Enjoyed the discussions put forward.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MIC (Melayu, India, Cina)11:01 am, October 29, 2013

    So, Islam is a Ciplak from bits and pieces of Judaism and Christianity (which was itself Ciplak from Judaism).
    Judaism itself is largely woven out of Self-serving fictional tales , maybe with some limited basis of truth in actual events.
    Like one of those Holywood movies which purport to be based on true events, but details of names and places have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty - plus "Creative Licence".

    I was born as a Muslim with a strong Christian element on my maternal side family.
    Looks like I was right to leave religion alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Judaism is ciplak of Ugama Hanifa-Ugama Nabi Ibrahim.
      Why Kaytee never discussed abt Abraham's religion/suhufi

      Delete
  9. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/church-still-waiting-putrajaya-to-explain-herald-episode-in-sabah

    Herald BM edition seized in Sabah - even without a single "Allah" word in it.
    I think at bottom of the issue is a deep rooted Malay (mainly Peninsular Malay) suspicion of any Christian action which may appear of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.
    Any Christian writing in Bahasa, ranging from Bibles to Church newpapers falls into this category.

    By the way, the Herald is not on sale or distributed to the general public.You can't buy the Herald from a newsagent or sundry shop.
    Its is only available in Catholic Church premises or mailed out to people on subscription list (all Church congregation members)..

    Why so much fear and insecurity among Muslims ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because many of Christians want to convert the Malays from peninsular.

      Delete
  10. In traditional polygamous societies, (Abraham, Sarah and Hagar certainly looked like a polygamous relationship), there is often the status of Principal wife and subsidiary wives.
    The firstborn son of the Principal wife usually has the status of the rightful heir, even if there is an elder son by one of the subsidiary wives.
    If the Principal wife has no son, that changes the whole calculation.

    Among royalty and also families with wealth or power, this arrangement was very important to preserve the class and social hierarchy. The subsidiary wife(ves) are sometimes women of inferior social status, and this arrangement prevents trouble from usurpers.

    Based on this well-established custom, it is not surprising that Isaac was considered Abraham's heir and not Ishmael.

    My great grandfather was a man of considerable wealth and social standing, and he had a number of wives. The principal wife he married to preserve family alliances, the other wives later for their beauty , some from very humble backgrounds (so I was told) ...so I'm very familiar with such customs...Hahaha..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a Hebraic theocratic state or society, in which Abraham and family lived, the religious-social 'laws' listed in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers etc were the words of God and had to be obeyed on pain of death.

      And Deuteronomy 21:15-17 says:

      ** If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

      He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. **

      Abraham and Sarah were subordinated to Hebraic religious laws, so thank you very much, but please don't introduce your non-relevant own family laws into the biblical issue of whether Ishmael or Isaac should have been the rightful heir to Abraham.

      Delete
  11. Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens both consider believing in all this holey shmoley stuff no different from believing in fairies, elves, walking zombies, werewolves and lusty vampires. All a total, utter waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OMG !! A bunch of people arguing and debating over fairy tales which were concocted by writers and their followers who obviously have vested interest. Man....surely you guys have better things to do ??? More than half the population of the world are now atheists...welcome to our world. Wake up guys !

    ReplyDelete
  13. KTee is a man of letters. Schooled in English literature, Greek mythology, Hindu epicism and ex-cemetarian, ooh seminarian...

    He knows the Deuteronomistic traditions, so like going through a lecture from Gerhard von Rad.

    However, the general reader must remember that the TaNaKH is from the Jewish sciptures and in these narratives, accredited to the prophet Musa. Like their cousins, a translation into another language would lose its meaning. However, it sounds like the Christians made this up... all they did was translated books in universal languages where this critic is based on...

    Aaah but the leitmotiv, see KTee has the necessary tools..... wakakakaka

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Torah and not the Tanakh was attributed to Musa or Moses. The translation of the Tanakh into English were done by biblical experts-scholars, but even then, if there were lost meanings in the translation as you alleged, pray tell me how much of those that I have posted were affected?

      Delete
    2. Aiyah, my bad.... "and in these narratives..." meaning the ones you are quoting from the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses. Of course, of couse, the Nabiim is the various prophets and Kethubim, the writings and sayings.

      See, other comments attribute to KTee exposure or maybe partial training in the fine arts of theology, otherwise how such a fine exposition. However, leitmotiv can also be explicated in other ways which includes the sitz im leben couple with the structural narrative forms. Wakakakaka.. Just messing around-la...

      Its just that before some wise crack say, "Christianity" ada lobang, these text are from the Judaistic Hebraic tradition. So, will that make 1.1 & 1.2 faulty? Wakakakaka...

      Delete
  14. You are very knowledgeable in scripture, my dear KT.
    Wonder why you chose to be an atheist.???
    God's will I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is presumed that the very fact that KT became an atheist after being so thoroughly knowledgeable in scripture is VERY telling, no ? So wonder no more...and for sure it has nothing to do with god's will.

      Delete
  15. Kepala pusing la reading this post. Give up la. Hehehe.

    ReplyDelete
  16. was age measured similarly to what we do now, at biblical times?
    anyway too much tales in holy books that only Aesop can rival.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there was a reason the biblical writers-in-exile-in-Babylon inflated the ages of the Old Testament personalities to ridiculous years, wakakaka

      Delete
  17. Kaytee,

    If not mistaken, the pharaoh during Joseph era was Nebuchadnezzar while the pharaoh during Moses time was Ramsey. I remember someone told me this but not sure if accurate?

    Camelot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nebuchadnezzar was Babylonian, not Egyptian. He was the one who caused the Judean 1st Diaspora, by taking into slavery most of the Judeans (from the southern kingdom of Judah - by then, the northern kingdom of Israel comprising the 10 tribes were taken away much earlier by the Assyrians into slavery and were considered lost, hence "The Lost 10 Tribes of Israel"). The Judeans were subsequently released and allowed to return to Judah by the Persian King Cyrus when the Persians defeated the Babylonians.

      As for Ramsey, you mean Rameses. But this has to be another story, wakakaka

      Delete
  18. Here is a perplexing question that maybe someone is kind enough to answer.

    How come a mere thousand or so years ago (an eye blink in geological time) god talked so readily to his prophets but in the present day he is totally silent? Surely his commandments and laws will need some updating. Software and technical books need updating all the time.

    Take the commandment: Go forth, be fruitful and multiply.

    Considering that the world's current population is slightly more than 7 billion, I'd imagine god surely must have something to say about this. You know, something along the line ... "Okay, guys and gals, I am pleased that you have followed my commandment so faithfully and have multiplied so very, very fruitfully. There are now 7 billion of you walking on my land - I am impressed! You are now way more numerous than any swarm of locusts that I sicced on that lousy pharaoh. But this can't go on - you are chomping up everything on this planet which is now in danger of turning into a barren wasteland. So, I have a new commandment for you: Cease and desist. Stop the multiplications and start the subtractions. Yes, all you guys and gals, especially you guys, you really, really do need to put a cap on. And to all you strapping, robust young men, I have a commandment for you: Take more cold showers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God became silent together with those biblical writers of the exile-in-Babylon days.

      But no worries, I heard He is back today talking directly with some Americans, Israelis, ayatollahs, etc including some Malaysians, as have been claimed, wakakaka.

      And as for your 'strapping, robust young men', they can use condoms ;-)

      Delete
    2. KT,

      There r latest evidence on

      1)the 2 mil Jews migrating out of Egypt. Apparently there is a mis-translation of the Hebrew term used to describe the 600K man. It could be more likely to be 6K.

      2)the out-of Egypt move was done over a period - ie many migrations. The Biblical writers, perhaps just add a little creative touch too generously.

      3)parting of the Red Sea is more like parting of a peat swamp, a location somewhere along the Nile delta.

      More could be found in the latest BBC doc on Moses, done in 2011.

      Delete
    3. sorry mate, there is no evidence but rather speculations. The most convincing element that there was no such story as told in the Bible (Exodus) is the COMPLETE absence of any records by ancient Egyptians.

      Delete
    4. Let me give u some pointers;

      1) The ancient Egyptians might not call Jew, Jew. The Jews were more likely to be known as Canaanites.

      2) Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.

      So, the biblical writers might want to create the term jew, in order to distinguish the non pig eating Jews from the pig eating Canaanites.

      Check the earliest usage of Jew, could confirm that. The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite. Jew is a new term used identify the earliest Israelite.

      3) If the above is true, then there were written records of Canaanites migrations in ancient Egyptian writings. But the number cannot be 2M as stated.

      Delete
    5. Nice valiant but futile try - really, you're light years out of whack about the word Jew.

      Incidentally, many ancient Egyptians also didn't eat pork - see my post Why Orthodox Jews Don't Eat Pork! http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2005/03/why-orthodox-jews-dont-eat-pork.html

      And wait for my new post on the difference between Hebrews, Israelites, Judeans, Jews, Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites, etc

      Delete
    6. U r VERY single-minded about this Jew's thinggy!

      '...light years out of whack about the word Jew..

      Hoe it's not as as in the etymology of Jew, vis-a-vis Allah?

      By insisting Jew as definite in the Torah, I suppose u r supporting Jew as the chosen people of the Almighty. Bcoz that's the only way, the label could make Jew stand out from the other Canaanites

      BTW, pls note my take of '..."Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites'. Those villages were from Canaan, NOT in Egypt.

      Anyway, obviously u have done quite an in-deep study into the his-story of the Jew. No surprise, since u r a die-hard opponent of the Zionist, vis-a-vis the current debacle in Palestine, one MUST prepare, wakakaka!

      Let's hear & hope it can stand up to amateur review, wakakaka.

      Delete
    7. 'out of whack' in that your 'Jews as Canaanites' didn't then exist under that word 'Jews'. Jews (Yehudim) only came after Israel split into two kingdoms post-Solomon-ic reign, and most certainly not before Jacob (or Israel) had his 4th son

      Delete
    8. Read my post.

      'The Jews were more likely to be known as Canaanites.'

      That's exactly what I'd written.

      BTW, let's hope the infos come out CAN be justified by archeological field research. Many of a time, as far as biblical/Islamic records r concerned, ONLY references in the scriptures (& /or related writings) r quoted as authentic source. This is NOT on.

      To prove beyond doubt, one must have;

      1)Archeological artifacts

      2)2 or more different sources, if it was written texts

      3)Logically deductible. (Not the faith part, OK?)

      So, dont jump the gun!

      Delete
    9. As I said, during the times of the Canaanites there were no such word as 'Jews', so your "The Jews were more likely to be known as Canaanites" still doesn't stand.

      And on your demand for archaeological evidence, doesn't its absence prove the written word in the so-called good Book is nonsense or at best, "creative" BTN-rized fiction to teflonize the evil King David and his multitude of sins?

      Delete
    10. we r going round the bush for the same thing!

      I might be dumb at time, but KT u r having it BIG.

      '"The Jews were more likely to be known as Canaanites"

      Means during that time Jew, as a tribe, is not known. The ancient Egyptian probably grouped them as Canaanites.

      This is the last from on this loopy, dog-bite-tail, of Jew-then-was-known-as-Canaanite question.

      On yr last part about absence of archaeological evidence, r u indirectly imply that what the 'Good Books" say, is indeed Gospel, teflonized/BTN-rized/creative licensing or NOT.....

      Those who suppose the existence of HangLiPo, in the case of Malacca 'empire' fairy tale, must be very please with yr type of argument!

      LOTFLOL......

      Delete
    11. wakakaka, my dear, actually I know what you meant - I was teasing saja lah. Be patient, wait for my next post on what's a Hebrew, Israelite, Judean, Jew and Israeli, wakakaka

      Delete
  19. I would disagree with you. I think God loves Ismail and Hajar more. Why?

    Adjacent to the Ka’abah there is place called Hijr Ismail. This is the place where Ibrahim constructed a shelter for Ismail and Hajar and left them. Hijr Ismail is considered part of the Ka’abah and pilgrims would queue to pray inside Hijr Ismail.

    Then there are the two hills Safa and Marwa where Hajar ran up and down seven times until she found water at the spot where Ismail thumped his foot and this place is known as Zamzam Well which is near the Ka’abah. It is a MUST for pilgrims to walk/ran up and down Safa and Marwa seven times like what Hajar did.

    Then there is the Hari Raya Korban or Hari Raya Haji to remind the pilgrims/Muslims of the episode of Ibrahim and Ismail.

    Then there is Maqam Ibrahim which is just next to Hijr Ismail where pilgrims would queue to pray behind Maqam Ibrahim.

    Not much about Ishak and Sarah though. But both Ismail and Ishak are prophets that Muslims must remember their names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God apparently said to Abraham (Genesis 17:20 - KJV):

      ***And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.***

      Hmmm, I wonder why 12 princes - sounds suspiciously like the 12 tribes of Israel. Maybe Ishmael and Isaac (or Jacob = Israel) were the same person?

      Delete
    2. Your write is slanting/pitching in favour of Christianity... wakaka

      Delete
    3. appreciate if you would spread that opinion around, wakakaka

      Delete
  20. KT, don't waste time. Let people believe what they please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not attempting to influence anyone's belief. Am just blogging, wakakaka.

      Delete
  21. Change no one. People have been brain washed to believe what they believe. You make no differece. Waste effort.

    ReplyDelete
  22. KT,

    Superficially u r writing about 'gaps' in the Biblical his-stories. And many of these 'gaps' r been teflonized/BTN-rized by the interested parties throughout the history.

    Thanks goodness, majority of the Christians have out-growth their intolerance against their sacred religious believes.

    So u r spared!

    Just imagine, if those blur-sotong Islamic extremists could read deeper into yr takes & 'discover' that u r also poking fun at their prophets & their equally sacred believes, u WOULD be famous!

    Right now, they r treating yr writings as the case of same-enemy-thus-friend. Just dont show too MUCH, ok? Oz would not be spared u like UK does to Salman Rashid.

    For u would be one of the 'must beheaded' kafir for blasphemy against their religion.

    Wakakaka!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KT would not dare to say that the prophet that he is poking fun could probably be dot dot dot .... wakaka

      Delete
    2. Yes, it's time for KT to listen to this theme song

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AghxgAh6y94

      Delete
  23. Dawkins debated with many peolple who are highly knowledgeable in their respective religions. Had to argue based on solid scientific evidence and facts. Even aknowledge there're areas science could not explain at this time. His opponents, however, based their reasonings solely on holy scripts which often fail to stand the tests of science. Dawkins never succeeded in convincing his opponents. KT, you've almost no chance to succeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the way not many read Darwin's works, and as you rightly implied even very few understood him.Thus, many of his ideas are popularized by propagandists who disseminate "slogans" and relies upon ignorance and not substance of the audience... wakaka

      Delete
  24. See http://waytruthnlife.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-dialogue-of-ipuwer-and-lord-of-all.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thank you for this, as cynical and sadistic your viewpoint is, your conclusion has made me fall in n love with the almighty God of Israel all over again. "God's ways will never be our ways, and woe on to the man that's thinks he can ever figure him out". With all the facts you have, if you ask God for his spirit of understanding, you would be unstoppable. Unfortunately you seem angry and have a bone to pick with the almighty, which means, with all the understanding you have, your still yet a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re your "if you ask God for his spirit of understanding", would that be of any use when as you said "God's ways will never be our ways, and woe on to the man that's thinks he can ever figure him out".

    You may fall in love with god all over again but I on the other hand have fallen OUT of love with him for the evil he has perpetuated on earth, for example, like the Boxing Day tsunami which murdered approximately half a million innocent people, and the famine, drought, floods and natural disasters that have killed millions and millions of innocents through the centuries. No thanks to your god

    ReplyDelete
  27. ISLAM is the one and only true faith. All others are sesat.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Israel is the name given to Jacob, the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham. Christians and Jews called Jacob as Israel.

    Jesus was sent for the Jewish people. This was emphasized by Jesus: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” [Matthew 15:24]. But the Jews rejected him and then expelled him from Palestine. The followers of Jesus then became known as Christians.

    However, the Christian religion or the Christians of today is actually established by a person known and mentioned as Paul (Saul of Tarsus). According to Paul (NIV): [At once he (Paul) began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.] (Acts 9:20); [Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel…] (2 Timothy 2:8); [Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.] (Galatians 5:2); What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?] (Romans 3:1).

    Apparently, Paul added his personal views onto the original teachings of Jesus and brought into being a new doctrine. Jesus was not mentioned as a Prophet and Messiah, as he should be, but was elevated and given the divinity characteristics. However, Jesus never claimed to be God, or part of a God. He never mentioned Trinity. “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and Him Only’ [Matthew 4:10]; “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.’ [Mark 12:29]

    Nevertheless, after two and a half centuries of resistance among Christians, Paul’s doctrine prevailed and was accepted and used as what is known today as the Trinity doctrine. Perhaps, this explains the enmity between David and Saul, and the casting of aspersions on David by KT. Wakakaka…

    According to Islam, this trinity doctrine is indeed a deviation from the original teachings of Jesus and his early followers; and six centuries after Jesus, Allah then revealed the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad, an Arab, the descendants of Abraham and Hagar and their son, Ishmael.

    Remember, the Jews/Israelites did not acknowledge/recognise Ishmael. And Christianity does not accept Muhammad as the Prophet of God either. Hence, the Jews/Christians hated the Arabs/Islam/Muslims and likewise the Arabs/Islam/Muslims hated the Jews/Christians, so to speak. This confrontation between the Jews, Christians and Muslims shall go on and on and to be resolved only when Imam Mahadi and Prophet Jesus appeared. When? I don’t know!

    From his write, I am of the opinion that KT is not an atheist but a strong and devout Christian who regularly goes to Church. He is certainly not a Jew or a Muslim! Wakakaka…

    - hasan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is what you say to justify the existence of Mohammad. Even the holy spirit also kenna hijacked. Can't muslim create their own book without referencing to others?

      Delete
  29. two "huh's"

    (i) Paul’s doctrine prevailed and was accepted and used as what is known today as the Trinity doctrine. Perhaps, this explains the enmity between David and Saul, and the casting of aspersions on David by KT. Wakakaka…

    Now how did the trinity thingy "... explains the enmity between David and Saul, and the casting of aspersions on David by KT" when David & Saul were almost a thousand years before Jesus and Paul?

    (ii) I wonder why you didn't mention that the Christians and Jews hated each other (maybe still do), the Christians because Jews treated Jesus as a heretic and egged the Romans to execute him, and the Jews because Christians persecute them for centuries.

    Finally, as your belief that I am "... not an atheist but a strong and devout Christian who regularly goes to Church. He is certainly not a Jew or a Muslim! Wakakaka"

    may I say Hallelujah and wakakakakaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hallelujah is Allah ya Allah repeated very fast over many many times.

      Delete
  30. Fuyoh... that's a long wakakaka? Which one tickled you most?

    Oklah my bad. The deviation started with Paul centuries after Jesus's departure. I withdraw that bad statement of mine. My apology. BTW I sincerely don't like you kutuk/casting aspersion on David! There is nothing about that in the Qur'an. David is a good man.

    As I mentioned before, I still hope you would find that illuminative wisdom that this universe has got a designer after all.

    - hasan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. theer are numerous books on teh evils fo David - I believe the best one (or worst for David, wakakaka) would be Gary Greenberg's "http://www.amazon.com/Sins-King-David-Gary-Greenberg/dp/1402201443".

      In his book GG tells us of how David massacred Saul's family, and committed numerous evils.

      According to Amazon, GG is the President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York and a Fellow of the Jesus Project, an organization of biblical scholars concerned with issues related to the "historical" Jesus. National Geographic Television's Science of the Bible series retained Greenberg as a consultant to the series and featured him in a documentary on the story of Cain and Abel. He has also been a guest on numerous radio and television shows, including Tony Brown's Journal on PBS, and proved to be a provocative and entertaining speaker and skilled debater.

      so, wakakaka, GG is not like kt, an atheist but in fact a Christian

      Delete
    2. I only know about the evils of kaytee. Loves to screw people even when they ar incarcerated

      Delete
    3. Another great deviation by Paul is when he was pondering alone in a cave hiding fr the Roman persecutioners he wrote that it is OK to eat everything incl. Pork.

      Delete
  31. Only one religion is right but I won't tell which one. From TheTweetOfGod -huaren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no doubt YOUR religion wakakaka

      Delete
    2. That's the mother of so many problems! -huaren

      Delete
  32. You like repeating your stories, don't you ? Last years edited expose ? Per my reply

    http://waytruthnlife.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-dialogue-of-ipuwer-and-lord-of-all.html

    Also, more empirical, historical, and archeological evidence to counter your latest fairytale which nicely ties into RPK's assertion for non-biblical evidence as proof

    See part I,II,III,IV

    http://waytruthnlife.blogspot.ca/2014/06/is-bible-word-of-god-part-i.html


    On the notion of a first born inheritance

    You yourself quoted Yahweh telling Sarah that she would be the
    'Mother of all Nations' Her barren womb would be renewed.
    While it was Abraham who chose to use his loins to sire Ishmael.
    The right of the first born is based on tradition. Yahweh chooses
    whom he wills

    Per David. What did the Prophet Samuel tell Saul

    The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart,
    and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over
    His people, because you have not kept what the Lord
    commanded you.” ~ 1 Samuel 13:13-14

    Unless the Prophet Samuel was lying, you are making
    another fairytale up. David was an imperfect man, who,
    did Sin greatly but the Lord still found favour with him.
    He paid the price for his adultery by the death of his
    child and ultimately ended with the treachery of Absalom
    his son.

    Per Samuel 18:1-4

    I supposed there could not be any other meaning to
    that verse other than what you think it should be. They
    could not have been Blood Brothers, or Best of Friends ....
    but bi-sexual lovers...

    The Bible is a prescriptive book. It shows the black and
    white, both sides of humanity. Yeshua himself spoke in
    parables. Some understood, some choose not to....

    Why do you think he said this...

    “Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw
    your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample
    them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

    ~ Matthew 7:6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the bible was written by pro David people - naturally (not unlike our UMNO's BTN) the Isaac-Jacob (Israel)-Davidic line would be promoted. What YHWH said to Sarah was written by these people so what do you expect

      wakakaka

      go back to my post above and read what I have written, to wit, starting from:

      The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was written by various people but mainly by (though not all) Davidic supporters (obviously of the House of Judah). ‘Davidic’ supporters mean supporters of King David who was of the House of Judah, the most evil and treacherous man in the entire bible. [...]

      Naturally the Bible was written by his supporters to show that Saul became mad with jealousy etc etc and was forsaken by God, to justify David's trail of f**king and murders right up to the Israelite throne.

      He also shagged the wives of many others to get what he wanted (presumably he must be a handsome Adonis) including the most infamous of all, Bathsheba, the wife of his most loyal general Uriah whom he deliberately sent into the thickest of battle to be killed.

      David was also guilty of many other crimes including treasonably consorting with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines, against Israel.

      In the way that the New Testament would not have been written if there was no Yesohua ben Yusuf, the Tanakh would not have thus been written if there was no David.

      David's supporters wrote the Tanakh to exonerate his many crimes, but fortunately for posterity they weren't the only writers of the Tanakh, hence through the writings of those who weren't his supporters we catch glimpses of his evil as well as the treachery of his eponymous cheating ancestor, Israel, or as Jacob was known by, in the Old Testament.

      But an important point his supporters wanted to make was to show that contrary to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, God wanted him to be King.

      So what does Deuteronomy 21:15-17 say? Essentially and significantly the following:

      If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

      He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

      So, where did that leave Ishmael as compared with Isaac in the eyes of God?

      That’s the reason I opined earlier: Whether it was the Hebraic God who acknowledged ‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’ would depend on who was the Hebraic God – wakakaka again.

      But why did David’s supporter want to diminish the age-old concept of primogeniture, which is (until even today in many races and cultures) the right, by law, or usually by custom and even religion as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17, of the firstborn son to inherit the family title, properties, even greater blessings compared with other sons, and which was what buggered Ishmael out from being Abraham's rightful heir.

      That’s because David was not the first born of Jesse of Bethlehem. He was the youngest of Jesse’s eight children (sometimes mentioned as seven).

      How could an eighth child become King of Israel?

      Of course he could ........ BUT only if the Bible showed that God didn't favour primogeniture despite Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

      And we'll see how a bible commentator would cunningly get around these two conflicting points, wakakaka.


      ... so on so forth, starting from Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Joseph's sons, until David - the aim was to destroy the doctrine of primogeniture by using "God's words", "God" in thsi case being basically the pro-David clerics wakakaka

      Delete
    2. I wonder if cibai kaytee is the descendant of Saul. Why so passionate over this? Why kaytee never talk about atheist soviet union massacre the entire polish intelligensia during ww2

      The soviets does not believe in god..........aiyaa

      Dtan will tell you what happen to David towards the end of his reign

      Why no write up with King Ahab and Jezebel? Is it because kaytee loves rosmah mansoh

      Delete
  33. There is only One Hebraic God who dwelt over the Ark of the Covenant. Are you talking about a different God ? It was David, followed by Solomon, who precided over the Ark of the Covenant. What other Clerics would there be ? other than David-ic ones. Clerics that prance around the Kaabah ? ( A factitious comment on my part). Per Deuteronomy 21. I agree, it is an enigma. Does Yahweh then value tradition over what HaShem sees in the human heart. Remember Yahweh called Abraham a prophet and his friend even-though he Lied to Pharaoh and Abimelech.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dtan, the Hebraic God who dwelt over the Ark of the Covenant was what you say he was, a god of the so-called Hebrews,in other words, a tribal god, and which has been why those Israelites were designated by "Him" (but really, by the clerics who wrote the bible, wakakaka) as the 'Chosen People'. Naturally those Israelites or more correctly Judeans could write up the bible as if their god went around ordering them to massacre other tribes, or their god Himself killing Egyptian first born's a la genocide, etc

      What kind of God would do that - nominating ONE race as His chosen people, massacring his 'other' creations, forgiving the evil David as His beloved when David was a murderer, adulterer and utter sinner, forgave Judah for committing incest with his daughter-in-law which was very much against Hebraic Laws and who should have been executed, etc? By the by, Judah was of course the founder of the House of Judah from which (coincidentally, wakakaka) came David

      The answer would be none other than a Judean tribal god whose words were claimed to be so uttered by those pro David Israelite clerics (not unlike some of our ulamas, eg, a la the divine wrath vis-a-vis the recent flood).

      It also helped when all the other Israelite tribes disappeared with only Judeans (House of Judah) left by the time of the 1st Diaspora. thus the bible was written by Judean pro Davidic clerics, who among other things, went about badmouthing Saul when Saul was in reality a good king (as written by biblical scholars)

      watch out for more of my biblical stories, wakakaka

      Delete
    2. Just like what you do in this blog. God's perogative ma........Buay song, hoot God lor.

      There are millions of chinese lang loved Mao even though he is indeed a murderer, adulter and guaranteed sinner

      And he is an atheist

      Delete
  34. Your continuous "promotion" of this post is getting really boring for a true atheist like me. I have very little interest in the fine print of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. freedom of expression includes freedom not to read my posts

      Delete
  35. dtan wouldnt play yr ball here!

    close this damned master piece of yrs now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. aiseh, you've forgotten the freedom of expression wakakaka and you're free not to come here and read my posts, wakakaka again

      Delete
  36. Don't u dare used freedom of speech to litter the WWW.

    WWW is not yr owned turf! U r mis-using it, under the misguised notion of it's yr blog so u can do whatever u want with it. Others could fuck off from yr blog if they don't like what u've done.

    U r wrong.

    In the WWW, if u dare to put up something to reflect yr thought, then be prepared to face snipers of all sorts. If u don't like it, then stop publishing yr shots on the WWW.

    That's the 1st rule of blogging in WWW!

    Do remember that next time u ask someone not to visit & read yr posts!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He can do whatever he likes. hence, I will do the same by calling him a hedonistic pig

      Delete
  37. Muhammad descended directly from Ismail. Funny, some Jews do name their boy Ischmail.
    Pls refer to Deedat's explanation.In the ori Jewish bible or Taurat, Muhammadain was mentioned but later on changed from a person' name to a good feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Definitions of syiah (shiite); follower, member, succession (in leadership).

    The following quranic verses concering the above that many including muslims themselves claim to be syiah’s doctrine.

    037.079 Peace be unto Noah among the peoples!
    037.080 Lo! thus do We reward the good.
    037.081 Lo! he is one of Our believing slaves.
    037.082 Then We did drown the others.
    037.083 And lo! of his persuasion (syiah in Arabic) verily was Abraham

    002.124 And when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee a leader (imam in Arabic) for mankind. (Abraham) said: And of my descendants, He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.

    Names of prophets (not Muhammad s.a.w. of course) mentioned in both old and new testaments were all descendants of ishak a.s. the second son of Ibrahim a.s. If they were not syiah, what to call them then? (what about bani umaiyah, bani abbas & today’s al-saud, al-sabah etc?) Was the prophecy in 002.124 not fulfilled? (am referring to bani Israel). Paul the tarsus, saul was his jewish name, also mentioned, but was he one of ishak’s a.s. offsprings? Remember, the jews even rejected their own country man (kaki lang) isa ibn maryam a.s., let alone paul the tarsus. For they have been waiting for their true messiah, just like the ‘kalki’ for the hindus. (the same can said to a certain extent for muslims – about al-mahdi).

    In today’s muslim world, we can see a repeat of the event if we look at countries such as iran, Syria, Lebanon, yemen, india etc. though they are from branches of allegiance (twelvers in iran is headed by grand ayatollah (sign of allah) aka imam, Ismailia in india is headed by aga khan for example), but all are(were) descendants of Hussein, the younger brother of Hassan both were the grandsons of the prophet s.a.w. thru his beloved daughter, Fatimah and her husband ali bin abi tholib, the bani hasyim. My question: since prophet Muhammad s.a.w. descended from ismail a.s., the ibrahim’s a.s. firstborn, where are the descendants of Hassan? Some critics say the prophet s.a.w. did not have surviving males to continue his generation. Let’s see alquran;

    108.003 Lo! it is thy insulter (and not thou) who is without posterity.

    Isa ibn maryam a.s. descended from his mother's lineage according to the new testament.

    I stand corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  39. KT, it is good that you have resurrected this topic of Isaac and Ishmael a couple of times to keep it alive but Ithink we should move on to a new topic. What about the similarities between the Bible and Alquran wrt Jesus' virgin birth and what the Torah has to say about this. I have read that many Jews including an old Rabia, now believe that Jesus was indeed their long awaited Messiah. That would make more interesting reading. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, it should be Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri.

      Delete
  40. He did give Ishmael a double portion of the PROPERTY as Dt 21 rrequires. Notice the fabulous oil wealth to be found in the zishmaelite nations to this day.The dexcendants off Yitshaq on thd other hand have little material wealth by comparison. So did the Hebraic deity not kep his promise? You conflated PROPerTY with other rights, I feel. Thanks.
    andyho@alum.mit.edu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you're assuming Ishmael was an Arab. There was no arab in his time. He was a Hebrew. His mum was Hagar, an (ancient, not Arab) Egyptian. Abram/Abraham was also an ancient Egyptian, as was Sarai/Sarah

      Delete