would you be willing to give up your land?
2006-11-18 04:51:31 · 10 answers · asked by kissmybum 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ruth...I suggest you do some research on Theodor Herzl and the Zionist movement.
2006-11-18 05:15:35 · update #1
Stephanie...of course you wouldn't be willing to give up your land....so how can you ask the Palestinians to?.....and then be upset when they are unwilling to do so?
2006-11-18 05:21:16 · update #2
Oh well they also claim that Palestinians are not people and therefor have no right to the land.
No I would not be willing to give up my land. Palestine should have accepted the land they were offered by the UN in 1948 instead of being so stubborn about it. I am not saying the UN was right to create Israel out of someone eles land, but it would have solved alot of problems.
Oh no don't get me wrong I completely sympathize with the Palestinian people. Israeli soldiers cross into Palestinian land and kidnap their government leaders and put them in jail claiming they are terrorists. No No No not for one second do I believe Israel to be in the right.
I just think given the way the world works Palestine should have accepted a compromise, Im not sure if that would have even mattered since the Zionist regime in Israel has stated that they will not be happy until they control the entire middle east.
2006-11-18 05:12:18 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
LOL!! I will not try to correct all the ignorance in the answers to this question or the illogical conclusions that this question and commentary suggests but simply say that it is a hateful and evil attempt to attack the Bible without any logical basis. This is what one would expect from the most evil people on the planet who follow a book written by the angel of the dark. This is an example of spiritual warfare that has existed for all creation between Satan and God. What you have done is attack scholars who are trying to be as accurate as possible in doing a translation by footnoting to help the reader to understand the content and context of the translation. I was a Bible translator and supervised a translation team that translated the Koine Greek New Testament into modern Aramaic. I did this translation in Saudi Arabia and am well aware of the hateful nature of Muslims towards all things holy. In doing translations there is not always a directly corresponding word in the the destination language and a responsible translator will note this fact and make the reader aware that the word or words used is an approximation of the original language instead of a direct equivalent word or words being used. This is using responsible scholarship and not corrupting the text as your question, commentary and answers suggest. One answerer ignorant of the history of the Bible even said that the Emperor Constantine had a hand in the corruption of the Bible when the fact are the Emperor had nothing to do with the Bible or its canonization. The Canon did not even exist until well after the death of Constantine as a rule of faith of Christians. In any case, the Christian faith is one that is most reliably transmitted orally rather than in written form. Jesus did not teach to write Scriptures but left the Church as the regula fidei rather than a book. Christians are not people of the book as are Muslims but instead the book that you attack so ignorantly and hatefully is about the Church instead. The truth of Christianity comes from the Church through apostolic succession which is a living testimony protected by the Holy Spirits under the authority given by God Himself, Jesus Christ. The Church was lead to all truth before the Bible was canonized for 400 years and would remain in truth if it disappeared tomorrow. So, in conclusion your criticisms prompted by your question is just a bunch of hateful nonsensical nonsense. God bless! In Christ Fr. Joseph NOTE: "I hope you understand the meaning of "God's Words". My understanding of "God's Words" are, they are holy and cannot be modified, erased or added or subtracted. All other versions of the Bible do not contain such footnotes, why? Do you know there are millions of Christians who believe that the four Canonical Gospels are written by "disciples" of Jesus?" I do understand and respect the inspired Word of God. I also believe that the translation of His Word is of great benefit when taught through His Church which has the authority for teaching and not the written Word. There is no danger in translation when the Word is taught through the authority of teaching which is the Church. The Bible is NOT written for private interpretation. However as I have said responsible scholarship in translating behooves the translator to note when the source language cannot be translated directly because their is no corresponding word in the destination language. Such is NOT changing the meaning but instead respecting the meaning in the original language which is the definitive and reliable text. Some do not contain footnotes because they are not translated with the same scholarship of other translations. St. Matthew and St. John were disciples of our Lord. St. Mark and St. Luke were not but they were the disciples of St. Paul.
2016-05-22 01:01:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The land in question never belonged to the "Palestinians". It couldn't have because they are a made up people. Prior to the start of modern Zionism, there were very few people living in what is now Israel. Arabs weren't interested in it till Jews started moving there. Israel is 1/7 of 1% of Arab land. If Arabs wanted peace they could have had it at any time. They just like to murder Jews.
2006-11-18 08:24:01 · answer #3 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course is not...claiming land because an old book which facts no one knows are true or fiction tells you that God promised that land,it's wrong and stupid...
And of course I wouldn't accept to give up my land for no reason,especially this one...
2006-11-18 06:33:08 · answer #4 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are seriously mistaken about Israel's claim to the land. It is alot more recent than Bible days.
I kind of agree with Stephanie.
EDIT: I've probably done a bit more research into Zionism than most. I wholly endorse Zionism, but that is not what you asked.
2006-11-18 05:09:44 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No but the unlawful seizure in violation of treaties (535) of them with American Indian people is dead wrong and the us governement ought to return the land to us!
2006-11-18 04:57:10 · answer #6 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The people in the Bible also rode around on jackasses, wanta do that today?
2006-11-18 04:59:16 · answer #7 · answered by firewomen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Some states still allow homesteading.
2006-11-18 04:54:11 · answer #8 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It does happen in America, and is known as emanate domain!!!!!!!!!
2006-11-18 04:59:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Kiss my bum....Butty Boy...x
2006-11-18 06:41:38 · answer #10 · answered by Fudgie 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋