The Exodus. How real was it?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan... 

 

Dear Jonathan, let me help;

 

Hey Dan:  !

 

 

Yes.  Just so.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

If you look at a map , God did give the land of Ammon, Edom, and Moab as a heritage to the Ishmaelites . This was twice the land mass as an inheritance (Jordan) that Issac got from inheriting the promised land (Israel).

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21: 15-17)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

A map said so...it must be true.  Not made up at all by people who wanted the land.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

A map said so...it must be true.  Not made up at all by people who wanted the land.

 

 

Victors write the history -- and the mythology.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

 

     

 

If any place on Earth is truly cursed.....

 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Double the covenant?  Where does that leave Christians?  You do trace back through Abraham, Issac and Jacob; don't you?  Not if the Covenant passed through Ishmael.

 

As the verses stated, the firstborn get twice the inheritance, and Ismael got twice the land mass. So it was written, so it was done.

Christians are under the new covenant, not Mosaic rules. We got something far more valuable than land, our inheritance is eternal life, the Kingdom of God. 

The covenant didn't pass through Ishmael, just his inheritance. The covenant was with & through Isaac.

 

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

A map said so...it must be true.  Not made up at all by people who wanted the land.

 

The bible said so long before the map. The map just reflects what the bible set forth. Amazing isn't it? God gave the promised land to Abraham and thousands of years later his descendants occupy it. Another prophecy/promise that stands as solid evidence that God's word is true. But of course, Atheist deny that it could have ever of been possible. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

 

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Victors write the history -- and the mythology.     

 

God wrote it before it was history, and before anyone inherited anything. Since the Jews occupy the promised land (Israel) and the Arabs occupy more than twice the land surrounded Israel, there's nothing mythological about it.

 

I get the feeling that if God had foretold that native Americans would be conquered and their land occupied be foreigners, you guys would write it off as a fluke too. Because a map shows it as the USA now, would just mean to you that it was made up by people who wanted the land.   Good Golly Miss Molly,  ya'll make up an excuse for everything to uphold your biased belief, even in the face of concrete evidence. Hard to fathom, its either stubbornness or you just can't read the writing on the wall? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

As the verses stated, the firstborn get twice the inheritance, and Ismael got twice the land mass. So it was written, so it was done.

Christians are under the new covenant, not Mosaic rules. We got something far more valuable than land, our inheritance is eternal life, the Kingdom of God. 

The covenant didn't pass through Ishmael, just his inheritance. The covenant was with & through Isaac.

 

 

The bible said so long before the map. The map just reflects what the bible set forth. Amazing isn't it? God gave the promised land to Abraham and thousands of years later his descendants occupy it. Another prophecy/promise that stands as solid evidence that God's word is true. But of course, Atheist deny that it could have ever of been possible. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

 

 

God wrote it before it was history, and before anyone inherited anything. Since the Jews occupy the promised land (Israel) and the Arabs occupy more than twice the land surrounded Israel, there's nothing mythological about it.

 

I get the feeling that if God had foretold that native Americans would be conquered and their land occupied be foreigners, you guys would write it off as a fluke too. Because a map shows it as the USA now, would just mean to you that it was made up by people who wanted the land.   Good Golly Miss Molly,  ya'll make up an excuse for everything to uphold your biased belief, even in the face of concrete evidence. Hard to fathom, its either stubbornness or you just can't read the writing on the wall? 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

As the verses stated, the firstborn get twice the inheritance, and Ismael got twice the land mass. So it was written, so it was done.

Christians are under the new covenant, not Mosaic rules. We got something far more valuable than land, our inheritance is eternal life, the Kingdom of God. 

The covenant didn't pass through Ishmael, just his inheritance. The covenant was with & through Isaac.

 

 

The bible said so long before the map. The map just reflects what the bible set forth. Amazing isn't it? God gave the promised land to Abraham and thousands of years later his descendants occupy it. Another prophecy/promise that stands as solid evidence that God's word is true. But of course, Atheist deny that it could have ever of been possible. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

 

 

God wrote it before it was history, and before anyone inherited anything. Since the Jews occupy the promised land (Israel) and the Arabs occupy more than twice the land surrounded Israel, there's nothing mythological about it.

 

I get the feeling that if God had foretold that native Americans would be conquered and their land occupied be foreigners, you guys would write it off as a fluke too. Because a map shows it as the USA now, would just mean to you that it was made up by people who wanted the land.   Good Golly Miss Molly,  ya'll make up an excuse for everything to uphold your biased belief, even in the face of concrete evidence. Hard to fathom, its either stubbornness or you just can't read the writing on the wall? 

At least I'm honest.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

At least I'm honest.

 

 

Yes.  You are.  It helps that you're not trying to prove the absurd -- with the inadequate.  Then again, you understand the meaning of evidence.  That also helps.

 

 

Still, one suggestion.  ( Hi, Dan.      )

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Nihilism is not being honest, its just being closed minded. Closing your eyes to the obvious is not being honest with the yourself,  its just a stubborn unwillingness to accept a fact because it interferes with your preconceived notion that you can't be wrong. That's called  living in denial.. If the bible said grass is green, you'd deny it, simply because its in the bible.. Nothing honest about that.

 

 

What I wrote is factual, not questionable evidence. Over 4000 years ago, Abraham's descendants inherited the promised land, and today they have it. Your obviously unable to deny it, so instead divert with silly responses; "I'm honest" and "its absurd - inadequate".  Neither are true, and you both know it.. If you need direct evidence, fly to Israel and observe who occupies the land.

Is there a reason for your attack on my character?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Nihilism is not being honest, its just being closed minded. Closing your eyes to the obvious is not being honest with the yourself,  its just a stubborn unwillingness to accept a fact be

cause it interferes with your preconceived notion that you can't be wrong. That's called  living in denial.. If the bible said grass is green, you'd deny it, simply because its in the bible.. Nothing honest about that.

 

 

What I wrote is factual, not questionable evidence. Over 4000 years ago, Abraham's descendants inherited the promised land, and today they have it. Your obviously unable to deny it, so instead divert with silly responses; "I'm honest" and "its absurd - inadequate".  Neither are true, and you both know it.. If you need direct evidence, fly to Israel and observe who occupies the land.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Is there a reason for your attack on my character?

 

 

Relax.  It's just Dan, being Dan.       Let it bounce off your umbrella.       

 

Are you in the mood for some silly humor?  Dan said that you're "living in denial".  No.  You don't live in Egypt.     

I couldn't resist.

 

Stay happy.     

 

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Is there a reason for your attack on my character?

 

No attack, just a point of fact. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac occupy the promise land. You deny it, so your either in denial or your not being honest. If the bible said the grass is green and you denied it, your either not being honest or your color-blind. Forget the bible for a second, are you even aware that there are Jews in Israel today? Quite a coincidence eh? 

 

Don't be too sensitive, I'm just making a valid point.. As always, I'm being honest.

[cuchulain]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No attack, just a point of fact. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac occupy the promise land. You deny it, so your either in denial or your not being honest. If the bible said the grass is green and you denied it, your either not being honest or your color-blind. Forget the bible for a second, are you even aware that there are Jews in Israel today? Quite a coincidence eh? 

 

Don't be too sensitive, I'm just making a valid point.. As always, I'm being honest.

Show where I denied the descendants...or admit you weren't being honest.  Anyone else can read exactly what was written and see the truth.

Your honesty shows in your responses to Johnathan after agreeing in another topic to not respond to atheists in such a manner... it's why he waves at your answers.  He has more integrity in my opinion.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Show where I denied the descendants...or admit you weren't being honest.  Anyone else can read exactly what was written and see the truth.

Your honesty shows in your responses to Johnathan after agreeing in another topic to not respond to atheists in such a manner... it's why he waves at your answers.  He has more integrity in my opinion.

 

I understand your outrage.  Still, it's Dan.  There is nothing to gain by the use of reason and facts.  Neither intelligence nor logic will prevail.  It's Dan.  The man who puts faith above all other things.

 

Now, a philosophy question, for you.  How does a Stoic deal with barking dogs?  He does not bark back.  He ignores them.  At minimum, he does not concern himself with the dog's thoughts.  

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Show where I denied the descendants...or admit you weren't being honest.  Anyone else can read exactly what was written and see the truth.

Your honesty shows in your responses to Johnathan after agreeing in another topic to not respond to atheists in such a manner... it's why he waves at your answers.  He has more integrity in my opinion.

 

So you actually do agree that the bible is true about the rightful descendants of Abraham occupying Israel today? That's progress, congratulations. Sorry if I misinterpreted your response, I guess I'm just use to an automatic denial of anything biblical.

 

In that other thread, I wrote that I'd "continue with any bible discussions".. Topics like Genesis and Exodus are bible discussions. I also wrote that I'd "also try to avoid disrupting Atheistic and Agnostic threads, since I have no shared interest in those topics"..  And I have. 

 

I also misinterpreted the new Atheistic response of integrity? I assumed the waving emoji was Jonathan agreeing with me. I guess I'm no better at interpreting emoji's as you guys are at interpreting the bible.  

 

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

It's Dan.  The man who puts faith above all other things.

 

What can I say, you've got my number, nothing trumps faith.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

So you actually do agree that the bible is true about the rightful descendants of Abraham occupying Israel today? That's progress, congratulations. Sorry if I misinterpreted your response, I guess I'm just use to an automatic denial of anything biblical.

 

In that other thread, I wrote that I'd "continue with any bible discussions".. Topics like Genesis and Exodus are bible discussions. I also wrote that I'd "also try to avoid disrupting Atheistic and Agnostic threads, since I have no shared interest in those topics"..  And I have. 

 

I also misinterpreted the new Atheistic response of integrity? I assumed the waving emoji was Jonathan agreeing with me. I guess I'm no better at interpreting emoji's as you guys are at interpreting the bible.  

 

 

What can I say, you've got my number, nothing trumps faith.

 

 

I forget which thread it was.  RabbiO suggested that we cease arguing  -- and instead, simply wave at each   ( ) other, across the huge gap of our differences.  This makes a great deal of sense to me.  I'm tired of arguing with you.  It's not fun.

 

 

Truly, you are what you are.  You have the right to your integrity of belief.  It is not for me to change you.  Neither am I motivated to try.  There is no competition here, and nothing to win.  So, I wave.  Not in agreement.  Not in hostility.  Simply to let you know that I saw.

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I forget which thread it was.  RabbiO suggested that we cease arguing  -- and instead, simply wave at each   ( ) other, across the huge gap of our differences.  This makes a great deal of sense to me.  I'm tired of arguing with you.  It's not fun.

 

 

Truly, you are what you are.  You have the right to your integrity of belief.  It is not for me to change you.  Neither am I motivated to try.  There is no competition here, and nothing to win.  So, I wave.  Not in agreement.  Not in hostility.  Simply to let you know that I saw.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no arguing with someone who takes a book for 100% accurate. Arguing implies arguments used in argumentations, not the statement of something someone beloieves to be 100% accurate. That is a monologue... 

[cuchulain]

I saw a snake in the grass the other day.  It could not seem to stop wriggling and absolutely could not move straight, but always in zigs and zags.  It was in it's nature I suppose.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

There is no arguing with someone who takes a book for 100% accurate. Arguing implies arguments used in argumentations, not the statement of something someone beloieves to be 100% accurate. That is a monologue... 

 

 

You're a reasonable fellow.  Consider:

 

If a man has a stiff and rigid body, due to a condition such as Arthritis, we make allowances.  We do not expect him to move like an agile man, of great dexterity.  He can't do it.  He simply can't.  There is no point in being mean about it.  He has limitations.

 

If a man has a stiff and rigid mind, due to a condition such as religious belief,  we make allowances.  We do not expect him to think like a man of mental agility and dexterity.  He simply can't.  There is no point in being mean about it.  He has limitations. 

 

That being said, we can still be friendly and wave.  Like this.       If the religious man -- who is shocked and appalled by us -- also responds by waving  (  ) we at least have a friendly space.

 

It comes to perspective.  From Dan's vantage point, we are faithless and Godless.  If he can live with us -- then we can live with him.   

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl