Talk:Land of Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Question

Is Eretz Yisrael really modern Israel + West Bank + Gaza Strip? It's a strange coincidence if a term that has been used for more than 2000 years so exactly match up to what some modern people consider "the land of Israel" when the borders have changed so many times. :) BL 03:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

"Eretz Yisrael" is somewhat like "Palestine" - it meant (slightly) different things to different people at different times. In its most widespread modern usage (more or less since the 1920s, when the borders of the British Mandate of Palestine were formed), the term corresponds to what used to be Mandatory Palestine, and now is Israel + WB + GS. No strange coincidences here. uriber 12:55, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nile

The Great River of Egypt is undisputedly the Nile. There was a 19th century dispute based on ignorance amongst Christian Biblical commentators over whether the "brook of Egypt" is the Nile. This results from the mistaken translation of Hebrew nachal as "brook" implying a small stream. While in later Hebrew nachal tended to be used for wadis or streams, in Biblical Hebrew it could also mean river and even the Euphrates is called a nachal. Jewish tradition was always that it was the Nile. One commentator specifically identified it with the easternmost branch of the Nile delta. There is also enough evidence from its usage that it refers to the Nile, e.g. it is equated with the Shichor which is equated with and is in fact a Hebrew translation of Egyption Yaor (dark/muddy river) which is undisputedly the Nile. Moreover the name Nile, is ultimately derived via Greek Neilos from Semitic nachal so the expression Nachal Mitzraim is probably best translated as "Nile of Egypt". Kuratowski's Ghost 10:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Land of Israel = Promised Land?

I have no problem with the definition in the first paragraph: "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל Eretz Yisrael) refers to the land making up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The term has been used by Jews and Christians throughout history." But most of the article is devoted to the religious belief in a "Promised Land" covering a much larger area. The "land making up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah" is not the same as the "Promised Land" extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. So I want to move the latter to its own article "Promised Land (Biblical)". 24.64.166.191 05:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Everything that was promised to the Jews by God in the Torah is called the Promised Land, which is the land of Israel. Guy Montag 06:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Passages

These don't look like any standard translations I have ever seen: "from this desert and Lebanon"???? Kuratowski's Ghost 1 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

Anon comments 1

Obviously some people have a difficulty with reading or will use any argument to justify their views. the issue in dispute is in the highlighted paragraph below. Exclusion of a view with which you disgaree is just as much a breach of the NPOV rules as stuffing your article with propaganda...

Except the criticism below is nonsense. There is a difference between explaining how the term is used - which happens to relate to Jewish and Christian religious belief - and stating that the belief cannot be challenged. The article makes no claim that one must accept either Jewish or Christian belief it merely presents the information about the belief. Similarly if an article states that Sif was the wife of Odin and presents a quote from the Eddas as evidence this would not mean that the writer expects you to start worshipping Odin. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't get your point. This is not a dispute about mythology but about the use of the term "Land of Israel" in modern Israel - about who uses it and why. You refuse to even let that discussion be referenced. Then you refuse to allow anyone to know about your censorship. You are abusing the encyclopedia.

You are asserting that only members of one particular political ideology uses the term in Israel today when this is not the case, anyone discussing the area defined in the article uses the term regardless of their political beliefs. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To carry on the analogy, I might also add that if one were to edit an article about Sif the wife of Odin and state that the name Sif is only used by a group of extremist neo-pagans in modern times, it would be reverted because anyone discussing the subject of Norse mythology uses the name not only a small group of neo-pagans. Ok not a perfect analogy but you get my point :P Kuratowski's Ghost 22:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is being maliciously edited by people determined to present only one view of what the meaning of "Land of Israel" - namely those who regard the definition of it as a Biblical gift to the Jewish people as a fact that cannot be challenged. Repeated attempts to place the use of this term in a contemporary political context - particularly important given the events of the last week or so - are being stopped by those who clearly are adopting a pov postition incompatible with producing an encyclopedia. it's a disgrace and it has to stop.

No this page is being maliciously edited by people who insist on falsely potraying the name as something only used by rightwing extremists when it is a term that Jews and Christians of all political persuasions typically use for the region defined by the Biblical passages listed in the article. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I dont understand any of this.. I really have no opinion as i am not of any religious faith, however I would like to say that this hole site has not been much help at all, and the people on this "comments" page are not really adding any thing of value, any real information, or opinions that would make a difference.

Anon comments 2

The issue here - for me at least - is the need for this article, if it is to be full, to include a reference to the fact that the zionist right (eg Netanyahu) are seeking to make the issue of the "land" of Israel central to Israeli politics. Those zionists who are committed to an Israeli state in the "land of Israel" are in conflict with those Israelis who - such as Sharon - support the withdrawal from Gaza and those zionists on the left who support a Palestinian state in some or all of the West Bank. I cannot see it as anything other than a failure to live up to the values of Wikipedia if this use of the term "land of Israel" is not even allowed to be discussed. I am happy to enter into dialogue with those who disagree with my interpretation of the debate within Israel but i refuse to accept that we are not even allowed to discuss it - especially when a dispute about the "land of Israel" has now split the ruling party in Israel. That sort of censorship just isn't on.

Do you have any encyclopedic references indicating that this is relevant and significant? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How about the fact that the phrase appears in the published political platform of the Likud Party?Brian Tvedt 03:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

For example, in the Peace & Security chapter we read

Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel.

Clearly the use of the term is not just a reference to the Bible, or the British Mandate boundaries. It carries with it an implicit assertion that the entire region belongs to the Jewish people and not to its current residents (in the case of the West Bank and Gaza). Brian Tvedt 02:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a different usage to the Biblical. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you deny that there are political implications in the use of the term? Brian Tvedt 11:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The term itself has no political implications. The Likud and other parties may have a political stance on the Land of Israel, this does not give the term political implications any more than a policy on water consumption makes "water" a term with a special political meaning. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Brian, who (aside from you and the anon) assert that this usage is a special political meaning of the term? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The usage by the Likud or Netanyahu (hardly what I would call rightwing, but whatever) is not a different usage to that already described in the article, they distinguish between the Biblical Land of Israel and the state of Israel and this usage is not unique to them. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Kuratowski's Ghost, Natanyahu is indeed the leader of the right wing nationalist Israeli political party, Likud.24.201.60.162 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why this article is not NPOV

The article pretends that Eretz Israel is a simple geographical denotation with no political implications. In fact everyone knows that nearly half of the people who actually live in the region in question would angrily deny that they live in the "Land of Israel". The use of the term in a modern context is every bit as politically charged as using "Palestine" to refer the same region is. Just as many Jews read in use of the term "Palestine" an implicit threat to drive them into the sea, so do many Palestinians read in the term "Eretz Israel" a threat of ethnic cleansing. Indeed there are some fanatics who use it in just this way, as this example shows:

Eretz Israel means "the Land of Israel." Meaning the land of the people called Israel. Precisely as Moab was the land of the people of Moab and Edom that of the Edomites. The concept, the logical concept of a land, is that it serves as the home and the receptacle for a people to lead their own unique and distinctive life style. It is not the geographical area that defines the person, it is the person who controls the land. No non-Edomite was ever a citizen on Edom just as no non-Philistine was a citizen of Philistia or had any say in its national concerns or character. So, too, with Israel - the Jewish people. The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. It is they who control it, define it. It is their vessel, their territory in which to create the society of Israel, the Torah society of G-d. Only Israel, only the Jew, has a proprietary interest in it.

Note that Kahane is not just expressing here an opinion about the Land of Israel. He is explicitly saying that the term carries in itself support for his program.

Even in the narrow terms of usage within mainstream Zionism, the anon is completely correct: Eretz Israel is used nowadays mainly by the Right. The term is much less used by the peace movement, and when it is it is mostly as a rejoinder to the Right. Consider this editorial that recently appeared in Haaretz:

However, the ethos of Eretz Israel that the followers of the Greater Land of Israel and the Jewish residents of the territories have appropriated for themselves is not their exclusive property. It is the ideological source of the Labor movement as well as of other sectors of Israeli society. The difference between them is that the latter, sooner or later, realized that the rebirth of Israel can be carried out only within the framework of a Jewish state, and that that state can be realized only in part of Eretz Israel. In the case under discussion here, 80 percent of it is involved.

Note that it is understood here that the term Eretz Israel has heavy connotations—it has an "ethos" associated with it. Although the Medinat Israel/Eretz Israel distinction is acknowledged, it is in the context of understanding a concept historically important in Zionism. In the here and now, the settlers are described as living in "the territories", not Eretz Israel. Brian Tvedt 03:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Haaretz shows that it is indeed not an exclusively rightwing term btw so I still don't know what you are getting at. Its your perception that it is rightwing, find a published analysis that says that the term is rightwing and we will accept it, otherwise it sounds like your original research. If you want to point out that the rightwing emphasize the standard Jewish teaching that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews then that is fine, it doesn't make the term inherently rightwing or mean that it has some different meaning now than what is has meant before. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. If the article was solely about traditional Jewish religious teachings, there would be no POV issue.
2. However, the article is not solely about tradional Jewish teachings,. It describes the use of the term Land of Israel to refer not to any exact region described in the Bible, but to the exact region defined by the British Mandatory boundaries, a peculiar, 20th century usage.
3. This peculiar, 20th century usage definitely has political implications. The Haaretz editorial confirms this: the term has an "ethos" associated with it, it is an "ideological source". One can argue whether the political implications are the same for Labor Zionists as for the modern day Greater Israel Zionists. What is untenable is the position that the word has no political implications.
4. As to the narrow question, whether the word is now associated specifically with right-wing Zionism: The Haaretz editorial asserts that the term has been "appropriated" by the settlement movement. I have produced a quotation from an indisputably right-wing figure, Kahane, in which usage of the term is crucial. I doubt you can provide a single quotation from any modern left-Zionist group (such as Peace Now) that uses without irony the term Land of Israel in the sense described in this WP article.
5. As to the broader question, whether people "of all political persuasions" use the term in the sense described in this article, obviously that is not true. The Palestinians, for example, do not call the region the Land of Israel. They call it Palestine. That at least ought to be mentioned.

Brian Tvedt 01:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tvedt, your link to "Kahane" (http://www.kahane.org) refers to a currently non-existent website. --AVM (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

merge

There is a discussion at Palestine (region) about merging "Land of Israel" with "Palestine region" as they both share a lot of content. I think redirecting "Land of Israel" to another merged article would be unacceptable to many people, but that that doesn't neccesarily have to happen. It could redirect to the Israel (disambiguation) page and this article's content could also be distributed to other articles such as Kingdom of Israel and Israel - Or not. --Yodakii 09:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Land of Israel" is a concept with a long and varied history in Jewish thought and Christian thought as well. The concept goes well beyond the issue of borders and geography. (Which unfortunately seems to have become a major focus of this article, but changing that has nothing to do with a merge or a redirect. More will be added with time in the wiki way, including "Land of Israel" as opposed Babylon and diaspora, and "Land of Israel" in mediaval and modern Jewish thought.)

So no way to a merge. The historical concepts of "Land of Israel" and "Palestine" obviously overlap geographically, but only out of ignorance could someone identify the concepts and try to merge the articles.Dovi 10:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. In addition "Palestine" has been used at different times in history for significantly different shaped regions within the Land of Israel but never for the entire region defined by the Biblical passages cited in the article. And lets face it, the idea of merging with Palestine is yet another lame attempt to suppress mention of the word "Israel" while promoting the term "Palestine" offensive to many Jews. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree and have said so there. As Dovi says, LoI has religious aspects which are not sufficiently weighted here imho too. KG, you should look at the discussion there, that is not the motivation or history. I don't think Palestine being strictly within LoI is entirely accurate even. (The southern Negev, probably/perhaps no, no?) I've tried to be neutral, objective and practical in my comments there. For instance Humus is OK with merging, but insists the merged article to be LoI, which would be offensive to many others. There is now a copied section from this article there, which in my opinion does not belong there, although the attached map, probably replaced with a better focused one is appropriate enough. I would welcome your and Dovi's input there.John Z 12:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Eretz Yisrael/Erets Yisrael

Erets Yisrael is a better transliteration then Eretz Yisrael, i think it should be the transliteration of ארץ ישראל. Toya 05:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Eretz is much more widely accepted. Google test is not perfect, but it shows under 1,000 for Erets and iver 260,000 for Eretz. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But Erets is more correct. T and S create a צ, but T and Z not. Toya 06:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To an English speaker a t followed by an s looks like two separate sounds especially at the end of a word (because it looks similar to English plurals like cats, hats, boats, while tz as in the English word waltz (borrowed from German) is recognized as a single sound. (Although for some reason when writing Japanese words like tsunami, ts seems to be more popular.) Kuratowski's Ghost 16:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also listen to the way English speakers pronounce the word cats and the surname Katz for example - tz in the surname Katz is always a single sound while ts in cats when spoken slowly and carefully is a separate t sound followed by a separate s sound. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Map

Why is there a map at the top of the State of Israel today? How is that relevant to the topic of this article? I think the map at the top ought to be the one of the traditional boundaries of Eretz Israel. Later, in the section on The Land of Israel and the State of Israel, we can have a map of the British Mandate. john k 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, can some one provide us with a map ?

Done! Emmanuelm 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic sentence(s) for this article

I think this article would greatly benefit from a more precise definition of what it is about and (accusations notwithstanding) believe that some progress was being made in the discussions above titled "Why this article is not NPOV" and "merge"

Perhaps some of the chief contributors could comment on the following:

This article concerns the "Land of Israel" in Jewish [and Christian] thought from its Biblical sources to the present day. The history of the area that is now the State of Israel and the occupied territories is treated in [Reference to other articles].

This definition, or one like it, does not unduly restrict the scope of the article (for example, it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss biblical or post-biblical ideas about the geographical boundaries in this context).

I'm not sure if there are modern aspects to this subject that are not subsumed within Zionism, but that question doesn't have to be answered for a helpful definition of the article.

Perhaps the article should be further restricted to Jewish thought only, since there is very little in here about Christianity now and that is actually a significant topic in its own right (one would want, for example to examine the sigificance of this concept during the crusades and to modern Evangelical christians in the United States.)

In light of the potential controversy about anything having to do with this topic, I'm reluctant to follow wikipedia's dicate to "be bold" and would prefer to reach some sort of consensus here first. --Sjsilverman 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok, be bold. Im gonna be bold and remove the State of Israel sidebar. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it for a topic sentence (made one slight adjustment). I also don't think the State of Israel template needs to be here. The only connection between the two needs to be how the traditional idea played out in modern Zionism (there is already something on that in this article anyways).Dovi 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

River of Egypt

Dear KG, the "River of Egypt" is most definitely not "unanimously" understood as the Nile, so please don't pretend that it is. AnonMoos 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The term Nahar Mitzrayim used in Genesis 15:18 _is_ unanimously understood to be the Nile, there is some debate still over Nachal Mitzrayim used in other passages. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I'm fully aware of the fact that you think that the Nile is the One True Interpretation, and that other views don't even deserve a hearing (hence your inappropriate use of the word "unanimous" to describe something which is far from unanimous) -- but unfortunately for your position, many people disagree, including a number of somewhat recently and somewhat scholarly sources (as I detailed on the Talk:Brook of Egypt page, where you chose to high-handedly dismiss them).

However, Wikipedia is not set up to give you a forum to exclude all views opposing what you consider to be the One True Interpretation, and it's not particularly appropriate to unilaterally impose one interpretation when many respectable sources disagree (however wrong you may think that they are). Furthermore, your current edit is even more unfortunate when it mentions Iraq -- I would greatly appreciate it if you would give a citation of one single scriptural passage which more or less unambiguously includes part of Iraq (and just citing the single word Prat won't do the job). AnonMoos 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it does do the job if you look at a map of where the Euphrates is. There was in fact a map included in a earlier version of the article that clearly showed this. Kuratowski's Ghost 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to superciliously condescend about the geographical location of the Euphrates. I'm perfectly aware of its location -- and also quite aware that the Upper Euphrates in northern Syria is quite different from the Lower Euphrates in Iraq. Unless you have some specific citation of some Biblical verse (other than the general vague occurrence of the word "Prat") to support your claims, then I would kindly appreciate it if you were to keep Iraq the hell off this article page. Unless the "Bead Artzeinu" map cites a specific Biblical passage (other than the general vague occurrence of the word "Prat") then its map represents purely extremist fringe political rantings, which has nothing in particular to do with the Bible, and so doesn't belong on this page. AnonMoos 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Vague occurrence of Prat"?? Whats vague about it? Its there. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's there. So what? A reference to "the Euphrates" doesn't immediately translate itself into coordinates of longitude and latitude of boundary lines on a map -- unless you know what part of the Euphrates is referred to, and what role it plays in determining the boundary. That's where interpretation of the occurrences of the word Prat comes in. There's no simple "Prat"="Iraq" equivalence, because the Euphrates also flows through Turkey and Syria. 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It means the Euphrates, the whole Euphrates not some segment of the Euphrates as you seem to be implying. If it meant up to some point on the Euphrates then that point would be mentioned. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's simply outright nonsense. Canada could still have its motto "From sea to Sea" (A Mari Usque Ad Mare) even if the only two Canadian coastal cities were Vancouver and Halifax. According to your line argument, Canada isn't entitled to its motto unless it owns ALL of both the ocean coasts, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and from Tierra del Fuego to Greenland!!!

Furthermore, a highly relevant historical fact which colors the interpretation of Genesis 15:18 is that the Bible records that Solomon had a trading outpost at Tiphsah on the UPPER Euphrates in northern Syria, but the Bible says absolutely nothing about any Israelite sovereignty or quasi-sovereignty of even the most tenuous kind in the area of modern Iraq (whether on the LOWER Euphrates or elsewhere), or anywhere even very near the area of modern Iraq. AnonMoos 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Reality check: a text refers to "river of Egypt", this is (a) the Nile, the river that Egypt is most famous for and the only significant river in Egypt? or (b) an insignficant wadi lying in a desert miles to the east of what was called Egypt in ancient times? Lets get real people. Yes there was confusion over the past few centuries about the geography of the Exodus because the ancient easternmost arm of the Nile delta had dried up, but lets not be silly and suggest that reinterpretations based on this confusion are what was meant in the ancient text. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, the Wadi el-Arish may be insignificant from your point of view, as you view large-area maps in your atlas with majestic detachment from the comfort of your armchair, but from the point of view of the ancient Israelites, it was a lot closer to where they were living than the Nile was. AnonMoos 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that Genesis 15:18 says Nahar which does not apply to wadis. Nor the fact that before anyone ever came up with a claim that the border was wadi el arish that Nachal Mitzrayim was always translated Nilus in Aramaic, nor does it change the fact that long before KJV and its "brook" translation, Rashi noted in his commentary on the word Shihor in Joshua: "From the Shihor: that is the Nile the same as Nachal Mizraim." Kuratowski's Ghost 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice -- that's your interpretation. Many other people (including scholars in the field) have different interpretations, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to give you a personal playground to suppress beliefs which you happen to disagree with. AnonMoos 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't you guys read? The South border is clearly delineated in Numbers 34:4-5 and Ezekiel 47:19. Both describe a river/brook that starts from Kadesh Barnea and goes to the sea. It cannot be the Nile, it can only be the Wadi Al Arish. If you do not trust your own eyes and brain and must read what experts think about it, go to the ISV encyclopedia. Emmanuelm 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jordan

The circuit of Canaan in Numbers 34 doesn't include the territory of the modern state of Jordan at all, which is presumably why Jordan was left off of earlier versions of the list in that section. Please try to remember that the purpose of this page is reporting on accepted Biblical interpretation, not collecting a series of extremist ultra-right Zionist irredentist fantasy maps. (Funny how the extremist ultra-right Zionist irredentist fantasy maps seem to coincide with Arab propaganda claims!) AnonMoos 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are forgetting the territory east of the Jordan. Half of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben lived east of the Jordan [...] Kuratowski's Ghost 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not forgetting that -- I drew every single Bezier curve bounding the pink area in image Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png by hand, and agonized to some degree over almost every little indentation or protuberance.

What I am doing is calling attention to the fact that there seems to be an unfortunate creeping tendency in the evolution of this article to increasingly define the land of Israel syncretistically, combining the most expansive features of several different definitions given in the Bible, even though these different definitions actually are conflicting in many cases. You take some parts from the circuit of Canaan in Numbers 34 (even though this doesn't include any territory east of the Jordan river), stitch it together with other parts from the descriptions of the territories allocated to the twelve tribes (even though those territories don't go anywhere near the Euphrates), etc. etc., and try to cover up any remaining geographic gaps with a vague hand-waving appeal to Genesis 15:18, and then screw in the neck-bolts, tell your assistant Igor to turn on the electricity, and scream "IT'S ALIVE!".

If this article is to have any integrity, then it should stick more or less closely to one Biblical definition, or should present clearly the conflicts between the different Biblical definitions. What it should NOT do is eclectically and quasi-arbitrarily pick and choose different bits from different Biblical definitions, and then present the result as supposedly being THE Land of Israel. AnonMoos 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[...] and if you accept Genesis 15:18 as a defining passage it goes all the way to the Euphrates, that certainly includes Jordan and parts of Iraq.

Does it?? The circuit of Canaan as defined in Numbers 34 goes a long way into Syria without including any territory in modern Jordan, while the empire of Solomon included a trading outpost at Tiphsah on the upper Euphrates in northern Syia without remotely approaching near the territory of modern Iraq. 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaah ok I see where you are coming from. The way I see it, well not me alone, this is basically the way it was taught to me, is that the borders are indeed stitched together from all the vague references. Numbers 34, deals explicitly with the division of land amongst the 9 1/2 tribes and ends off with only a very vague definition of the land on the east of the Jordan. You understand Numbers 34 to be the main defining verse, while I and others see Genesis 15 as the main one. The area allocated to the tribes is indeed a smaller area than what one gets from Genesis 15 and the other verses. And as the article points out the land finally settled does not actually match the land allocated in Numbers. Ok all this needs to be clarified in the article. The Talmud has some terminology relating to this, borders of the patriarchs and borders for those coming out of Egypt. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You are also ignoring the fact that irredentists base their irredentism on the Biblical passages, they dont make up maps based on nothing. Thats why their maps are relevant to the article regardless of their political beliefs. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice -- the irredentist maps could possibly go on this page if they were presented alongside a relevant political discussion which would place them in the proper context, and provided that they were not presented in such a manner as would confuse their interpretations with the mainstream scholarly consensus. Unfortunately, the manner in which you referenced the irredentist maps in the article accomplished neither of these two goals. I don't know that I'm excessively impressed by the way that you insist on applying alleged strict rigorous scholarship with reference to the identification of the "River/Brook of Egypt", and yet then turn around and devote space to arguments between ultra-rightist rabbis about how much territory the "Land of Israel" includes around the Shatt-al-Arab area (a debate that to my mind closely resembles the debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin).

Next I expect you to start repeating the Arab propaganda about how the two blue stripes on the Israeli flag represent the Euphrates and the Nile, and how there's a map of the Israeli Egypt-to-Iraq conquest plan on the wall of the Israeli Knesset! AnonMoos 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the Arab propaganda matches what the irredentists say because both are based on looking at the verses in the Bible! I'm picking up a vibe that you are very sensitive about what is said in the article because of how the statements relate to modern extremist politics. Unfortunately its only the extremists who ever seem to discuss the issue and draw maps, if you can find maps that are purely scholarly it would be most welcome. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have enough of a bee in my bonnet about this to revert, someone who cares, please step in. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamic/Arabic Name

Since the land of Israel is a religio-historic name, I think that if we are to include Arabic names, they should be from the Hadith and Koran. A simple google search of Koran and Land of Israel gives me this quote (of course I am not expert on this and it took me five seconds):

"And thereafter Allah said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" [Qur'an 17:104]

And it has come to pass.. the descendants of Jacob have mingled with other races the world over, and many have now returned to the Holy Land. And they are "gathered together" in a "mingled crowd", comprising, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Caucasians, Africans, Indians, Aryans and, mostly, Jewish and Muslim Semites. Indeed, it has come to pass.

As far as I can tell, it uses Holy Land and Promised Land but no Filastin. Comments?

Guy Montag 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine is not a term for this concept; it is a secular term for the region. Stating that Filastin is the Arabic translation of Eretz Israel is misleading. —Aiden 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is "Land of Israel" ok to be in the intro of Palestine but not vice versa?--Andrew c 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, Eretz Yisrael is a historical and Biblical name for the region based on Torah, while Palestine is a secular name given by the Romans. "Filastin" is not an accurate Arabic translation of this Biblical concept. —Aiden 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1 land of israel is a religio-historical name

2.based on the above discussion, filastin/palestine is not a name originating in religious texts

3.based on above discussion (and the british mandate of palestine, balfour declaration ["view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"], it is commonly used secular name.

4.#2 would mean that if this were an article on religious views about the region, the mentioning of palestine would not be appropriate

5.a large portion of this article does appear to be about what religious texts (Torah and Bible) say, how various people interpret them, etc, and as Aiden says, palestine isn't referenced in the qur'an (i'm just trusting aiden on this, i don't read arabic)

6.but it isn't a article solely about religious scholarship specifically, the "land of israel in modern history" section, which focuses on how the term was used by groups establishing the state of israel.

7.fundamentally, this article is about the idea of "The Land of Israel:" its basis, its history, its usage in reference to the region on the east of the mediterranean sea.

8.there are a lot of contesting/related "ideas" about that region . While this article is not about those ideas,in the interests of presenting pertinent information, it seems there should be reference/link to the fact that other names for the area are and have been used. I propose editing the second paragraph of the article from:

The term should not be confused officially with the State of Israel, which is a smaller modern political state within its Biblical and historical limits. Since the Six Day War in 1967 however, the term and concept have been politicized and used to justify the policies of right wing Israeli political parties like the Likud.[3] [4] These groups have had more influence in Israeli governments since the 1977 elections.

to:

The term should not be confused with the State of Israel, which is a smaller modern political state within its limits. Other terms that have been used to refer to all or part of this area include Arabistan, Canaan, Greater Israel, Greater Syria, the Holy Land, Iudaea Province, "Israel HaShlema", Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Levant, Palestine, Retenu (Ancient Egyptian), Southern Syria, and Syria Palestina.

Since the Six Day War in 1967 the term and concept have been politicized and used to justify the policies of right wing Israeli political parties like the Likud.[3] [4] These groups have had more influence in Israeli governments since the 1977 elections.

I lifted the part i added basically right from the palestine page. it seems this doesn't endorse the usage of other terms over israel, it just states that other names exist for the region know as Land of Israel. I don't know much about the second section about Likud, so i left it how it was, although the second sentence seems irrelevant to the topic.

Any objections? I'll probably forget to come back and actually do the edit, so if anyone else sees this and a lack of objections, they should probably do it. 129.186.184.172 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)nicholas

going through the history

This edit, at least to me who doesn't know that much about the topic, seems to explain the concept in much clearer terms. I like how the geographic location is explained, and it seems much less vague and overly concise as the current intro. Why were these revisions deleted? Is there any way some of the helpful information can be restored, or is it inaccurate for some reason? (Kuratowski's Ghost (talk · contribs) did the revert citing rv to last version with factually accurate and neutral intro)--Andrew c 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly its not known as "Palestine" in English its known as the "Land of Israel", duh. Palestine in modern usage refers to the PA autonomous regions. It was not known as Canaan, as one will see when reading further Canaan referred to a particular area within the Land of Israel lying strictly west of the Jordan. Reading further the modern states listed in the intro also did not accurately reflect the entire region defined in the Bible. It also missed the most important aspect the religious nature of the concept. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning...?

Nowhere does the article state what the name Yisrael or Israel means. Would someone who knows kindly put it in.Angrynight 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. See Land of Israel#Definitions of the term and its earliest roots. IZAK 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am kid in 5th grade wondering...........

i am a kid in 5th grade wondering when Joesph had a dream they were all bowing down to him, Jacob said. "You expect me and my wife and you're brothers to bow down to you?" who was his new wife? It can't be Leah of course, since she was with Esao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.131.179.66 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Leah was with Esau? I must have missed that episode :D Kuratowski's Ghost 14:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got all mixed up. Jacob had two wives - Leah and Rachel, and two concubines - Bilhah and Zilpah. There is a Midrash which says that Leah was supposed to marry Esau, who was an "rasha" (evil person), so she cried her eyes out, and that's the reason her eyes were dim. Of course, she married Jacob, although only through her father's cunning. Eliyyahu 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

State of Israel is a modern secular country ??

Oh, please - there is the rabbinocracy which decides who is Jewish or not and what is kosher (and allowed to be sold) and Jewish holidays and Jew-only towns and live animal sacrifices on the Temple Mount. (and the great mystery of who appoints the rabbinocracy) Fourtildas 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? And what are you doing here? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to agree ( sort of ) with him, but the modern state of Israel is NOT a secular country, there is a strong religious influence on the governmental policies. But at the same time it is not a Complete Theocracy. Maybe "Modern Secular country" should be changed to a "Modern Jewish Country" and explain how religion has influence on the gov, but not total control yisraeldov 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Land of Israel in Jewish law (Halakha) and Heradi position on living in E'Y

This article seems to imply that all Heradi Poskim hold there is no Mitzva to live in Eretz Yisrael ? Was the Ramban not Heradi? What about the Gra? The BS'T ? R'Simcha HaKohen Kook Shlita? Many Heradi Poskim hold it is a mitzva to Live in E'Y and lead by example. yisraeldov 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible is not objective or accurate historical source...

For this photo, you showed overview of lands inhabited by Isralites, based on the Bible. You must be kidding if you are going to argue that the bible is accurate and objective source to use for mainstream science of history? I wonder how much lies have been spilled as a result of lies perpetrated by the Bible and Qur'an? How many lives have been lost due to complete lies and imaginary friends, such as Jesus, Allah, and other characters from Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious fantasy books. Don't you agree that the Bible cannot be source for mainstream scientific research of history? Bosniak 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Berossus, Herodotus, Tacitus, Saxo Grammaticus, the Encylopedia Britannica or CNN ... Kuratowski's Ghost 02:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

to Bosniak: I wonder how many lives have been lost due to the lies in the rest of the history books and propaganda media with the conniving imaginations and arrogant agendas of their authors and funders. I propose that we instead divide the pages up into the various views held by the "experts" and let the readers peruse among the various views.--Questseven (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this idea that the Bible is not an entirely accurate source. I think it's absurd to compare especially Enyclopedia Britannica's accuracy to the Bible. Like the Bible, I too could question CNN's accuracy, but I think the point should be that the article shouldn't so heavily rest on the Bible alone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.168.156 (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

a small pov point

In the first paragraph "what is considered to be the historic and divinely ordained/given territory of the Jewish People." seems technically pov. Could it be slightly reworded to "what they consider to be the historic and divinely ordained/given territory of the Jewish People."? Michael2314 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ok I'll give it a try. Michael2314 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New map

I added a map of the Land of Israel, as defined in Numbers and Ezekiel. At first, I looked for a similar map but, to my surprise, could not find one that clearly displayed the names of the cities and mountains as spelled in the Bible. This information is 2,000 year old, yet no one drew this map before. Two days later, it was done! Why have I never seen this map before? Is there a big conspiracy or a religious edict I am not aware of? Emmanuelm 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your map is not right by the order of Halacha l'maaser. The true map is by the order of Bereishit, as guided by Rav Avraham Shapira Ztl and HaRav HaGaon Mordechai Eliyahu, relating to the works of Tevozot HaAretz and Rav M. Eliyahu's commentary on the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh. Even Chafetz Chaim Zt'L would disgree with this map- Rakach

Wow, Rakach, your knowledge is truly impressive. Could you please produce the "correct" map for all to see? As I said in the map page, it is based on several sources, mainly the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online. I would love to read the discussion of the learned men you mentioned and correct my map accordingly. In the meantime, stop deleting it. Emmanuelm 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Halachically l'maaser, the map is the goyishe view, not the Jewish view. In the meantime, its being deleted.

Hey, anonymous Halachi, Wikipedia is not Kosher; rabbis do not make the rules here. I thought I made myself clear in the above comment: do not delete this map unless you have another one to show! Sheeesh. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So who made the rule that the map you have concocted from your chosen Bible-believing sources should stay unless someone produces another map? If you look at real peer-reviewed academic sources, you will find that there is a lot of uncertainty about the location or even the existence of locations mentioned in the Bible. Too much uncertainty to draw a map - it would have so many alternate lines and dots on it as to be unreadable. So please tell us the WP Policy that says your creation (original research?) should not be trashed.

There are people who make maps of magical "ley lines" - according to your thinking their maps should appear in WP until someone produces an alternate map of magical "ley lines". Of course, any map of magical "ley lines" is a POC like your map and should be trashed.

WP Policy says you have to provide peer-reviewed sources if available,your creation must be deleted or moved to the talk page until you provide them. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed sources - just Google and you will find many, but few will agree with your concocted map.

Better yet, why not submit your creation to a peer reviewed journal - since a brilliant guy like you has spent two whole days on it it will surely be accepted for publication and then be incorporated into textbooks so college students will receive the benefits of your excellent superior brilliant genius. Fourtildas (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, are you aware that place names have been changed to coincide with Jewish mythology? Fourtildas (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Please cite a secondary source or delete your map. Fourtildas (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The map is rather bizarre. It includes territories the Israelites never inhabited (Lebanon, mostly), but excludes territories they did rule - Bashan and Gilead. john k (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, John. For example, in the following verses of Numbers, the tribes of Gad and Reuben were given land clearly outside of this border.

But I disagree that it the map is "bizarre". I would use the word "hypothetical". I did not trace a map of the Israel that was, I traced the map that the Bible (God) dictated, following step by step the Numbers and Ezekiel text. That's how it came out; I do not pretend to understand. You are surprised because you have in mind the map of the historical Israel, the Israel that truly was, which looks like Image:1759 map Holy Land and 12 Tribes.jpg. Theory vs. history, that's all. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That map is pretty theoretical, too - there is no evidence that the Israelites ever controlled Tyre or Sidon. john k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is based on primary source (bible) and original research interpretations of it. No "reliable, published secondary sources" as required by WP Policy. Delete the article. Fourtildas (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Land of Canaan vs Land of Israel -- needs clarification

I think there should be a paragraph in the introduction discussing the difference (or absence thereof) between the Land of Israel and Canaan. This discussion is also absent in the Canaan page; I left a similar request in the talk page. Emmanuelm 16:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a joking reference to the "Land of the Zionist Entity", which I promptly reverted. Perhaps that's all we need, a compromise in the form of the name "Zionist Entity" ;-) 204.52.215.13 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does Ezekiel mention Ezion-Geber?

Or Eilat-Taba? or the Gulf of Aqaba?

The passage about the South border says Ezekiel 47:19 And the south side southward, from Tamar even to the waters of strife in Kadesh, the river to the great sea. And this is the south side southward. (KJV)

Therefore, the border goes from Tamar-Engeddi on the shore of the Dead sea, to Kadesh Barnea, then follows the brook of Egypt to the Sea. That's what I mapped. Where did you guys find the other stuff? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text to follow Ezekiel 47:19. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested for this page

I requested semi-protection for this page today. This will block IP edits. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Land of Israel and State of Israel

This article is about religious beliefs, sourced to the Bible, etc., except for the section "Land of Israel and State of Israel".

The latter section is blatant soapboxing on behalf of the Zionist political movement, which bases its territorial claims on the Biblical "promised land" notion.

The lengthy quote from a political document ( Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel ) is not neutral or unbiased.

The arcane digression about inscriptions on 20th century coins clearly does not belong in an article about religious beliefs (if that is the topic - I wish WP would require that the topic of an article be stated clearly, it might discourage people from sticking in irrelevant cruft).

The absurd statement "in 20th century political usage, the term 'Land of Israel' usually denotes ..." needs a citation - I have never heard a 20th century political usage of this term (except by religious believers, if you can call that political).

I will soon move this section to this talk page unless someone can fix it. Or explain what the topic of the article is, if not religious beliefs. Fourtildas (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fourtildas, all of us think that the purpose of this article is plainly obvious, but you proved us wrong, so I will explain it for you: there are thousands (millions?) of Jews willing to die today to defend this abstract belief, thus making it both political and actual. How actual? A search for "land of Israel" in Google News returned 225 media articles in the last month; pick your citations from the list. I think the part about the state of Israel (the "irrelevant cruft") should stay. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the google hits are quotes from religious zionists. The purpose of this article is to promote their religious/political dogmas and ancestral land claims. Fourtildas (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gevulot Haaretz vs Greater Israel

Ghost, don't just delete, edit the text to improve the article. I'll re-introduce the 10 Agorot controversy elsewhere in the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Promised land

Eretz Israel can mean a number of things: The current Israel, the Israel of 1970 (Including Gaza and Judea and Samaria), the Israelite kingdom, and also the biblical 'promised land'.

I believe this article lacks some basic distinction between the differnt meannings and that this should be addressed to.

Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already has a section about contemporary uses of the term. As for Promised Land and the Israelite kingdom, they have their own page. So do the Holy Land and the Land of Canaan. I recently added a paragraph to clarify these closely-related term; you may want to add to it. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguation needs to be dealt with in the intro. If the article only discusses the "promised land", then it should be titled as such rather than with a term which has multiple meannings. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat: be bold, edit the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking I may have made an error, I missed your note that 'Promised Land' already exists and moved the article... I'm thinking the best way to handle the structural problem of the article is just merge the two. thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. after the material is merged, we can recreate a "Land of Israel (ambiguation)" page to refer to the three possibilities. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I think the disambiguation should be under Israel (disambiguation). Most of the items are already there except Canaan, Promised Land and Holy Land. You may want to fix this. You may also add to the Land of Israel vs. Land of Canaan paragraph, which I am still attempting to save from deletion by Mr Ghost, who is so knowledgeable he feels no need to discuss his changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to take a step back from this issue for now, and discuss it fully at a future date when I have more time on my hands to delve into related sources.

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Land of Israel vs. Land of Canaan

Ghost, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is the WP:NPOV policy, which states : When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page. I sourced the opinion that the Land of Israel is a renaming of the Land of Canaan to mark its sanctification. Interestingly, I wrote an identical paragraph in the Canaan article and not one objected. The proper Wikipedia protocol for dispute resolution is not to delete my opinion but to write down yours, with references, alongside mine. Add, don't delete. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghost, Numbers defines the Land of Israel as West of the Jordan, as demonstrated in my map. What do you do with this? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it defines Eretz Kna'an as west of the Jordan. It also explains that two and half tribes settled east of the Jordan in the region called Gilead. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers 34:10-12 (NIV): For your eastern boundary, run a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. 11 The boundary will go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Kinnereth. [e] 12 Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and end at the Salt Sea.

Ezekiel 47:18 (NIV) On the east side the boundary will run between Hauran and Damascus, along the Jordan between Gilead and the land of Israel, to the eastern sea and as far as Tamar. This will be the east boundary.

Ghost, I am sincerely interested in knowing how rabbis understand these two very precise and similar definitions of the Land of Israel (not Canaan, you are mistaken) and how they understand why, in the next paragraphs (Numbers 34:13-15), this land in given to only nine and a half tribes, the remainder being given land outside of it. Please enrich the article, don't censor it. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ezekiel's borders of the Land of Israel exclude Gilead but Ezekiel's borders are supposed to apply to end times when all tribes will receive parallel strips of land west of the Jordan - such borders have never existed in history. The passage in Numbers clearly uses the expression Eretz Kna'an for the borders it defines west of the Jordan given to 9 1/2 tribes. The expression Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) is not used in Numbers, it came into being at a later period to refer to all the land of promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My mind just blew. I am completely outgunned. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Milkhemet Mitzvah?

The article does not mention Jewish holy war, Milkhemet Mitzvah. Isn't it limited to the Land of Israel? This concept is not clarified in both articles. I know nothing about this, but would like to. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I'd request an explanation on why this article, introduced with [i], was moved to remove it's reference source. [1]

In Jewish belief, The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, Eretz Yisrael,) is the region of land which, according to the Hebrew Bible, was given by God to the Jewish people.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New map of Greater Israel

After much procrastination, I finally produced a map of Greater Israel as defined in Genesis 15. It is very vague, to reflect the vagueness of this passage. If you can find a source that locates the tribes left unlocated, let me know and I will fix it. Oh, and for those who will, undoubtedly, think this map all wrong, please produce the "real" map or shut up. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your map is almost the definition of original research. Sorry about all that hard Photoshop work, but it must be removed. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOR: Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy. If you feel you must go on with this threat, I will meet you at the images for deletion page. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a threat, just a friendly reminder of Wikipedia policies. Unverified research cannot be accepted and the map must go.

Image:Davids-kingdom.jpg is original research, deleted

To your relief, the map with the original research wasn't the one by you (I was misled by your link to a page with two maps), but the one lifted from the creationist site "Bible-history.com", purporting to show the extent of King David's Kingdom. I have removed the links to it from all articles. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid your deletions, for the same reason. I suggest you first discuss your concerns in the talk page of the image before posting it on the images for deletion page. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that even though I should have, I haven't deleted the image yet, only the links to it. The reason is not original research, as I stated because I got the impression you had drawn it yourself, but its provenance. See WP:RS and WP:V. "Bible-history.com" is a Bible-literalist creationist site and as such not particularly concerned with historical accuracy. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That itself sounds very POV MeteorMaker. Presumably one can be Bible-literalist creationist and still be concerned with historical accuracy. So let's just stick to the accuracy of this particular map. How about we restore it, and discuss it first. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's POV, but I personally wouldn't say a site with a mission statement such as this [2] qualifies as a reliable source:

"BIBLE HISTORY ONLINE BELIEVES ...

That the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired of God and are without error as originally written, and that they are the authoritative Word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the Christian life." [...]

"Our goal is to aid students and teachers of the Scriptures with Biblical and historical information for the purpose of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is our desire that He would be glorified and that He would equip the readers with an insight into discerning truth from error seeing that Biblical and historical studies delve into an area that has been researched by the scholarly community, whom many are unbelievers and seem to be antagonistic toward the evidence brought forth from the historical accuracy of the Biblical account, and attempt to persuade the unlearned that the Bible cannot be substantiated by history. On the contrary, historical evidence has brought many in scholarly circles to an awareness that the wealth of documentation found in both the Old and New Testaments, unparalled in history, along with the insights of the recent scenes discovered from the past, give a stirring hope to the soul that the Bible is indeed a God-Breathed Book".

MeteorMaker (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with StA on all points. Let us not be hasty in trashing this map. Since Biblical texts didn't come illustrated with graphics, there is no authoritative map. It seems to me that by the strict standard MM is attempting to apply, every attempt at depicting what is described in the scriptures would have to be disqualified as OR. The only question to consider should be whether this particular map fairly represents what is stated in the Biblical text(s), with reasonable accuracy. Provenance (mission statements notwithstanding) should not come into the picture. It would be useful to have the map back in the two articles to facilitate discussion purely based on accuracy. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no authoritative map, and for a very good reason. We simply don't know the extent of David's kingdom. There isn't even any extrabiblical evidence that he ever existed. Wikipedia should not make any attempts to create such a map or lend credence to one dreamt up by somebody with a self-admitted agenda. Scoffing at science because it doesn't share the view that the Bible is without error, and circular reasoning ("The Bible is correct about David's kingdom because everything it says is confirmed in the Bible") aren't exactly the hallmarks of a reliable source either. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And the guidelines for reliable sources here on Wikipedia are really vague, as I guess they need to be. The belief statement posted above hardly constitutes religious extremism - there would be millions of people who would accept that statement about the Bible. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what they say about flies and feces. Doesn't mean we need an article that promotes recreational coprophagy. Facts are facts and religious beliefs are religious beliefs. Wikipedia cannot begin to blur the line between the two just because millions of people happen to have taken unprovable things on faith. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But are you disputing the facts of the map in question? Sorry, I just read your above comment. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The caption need not claim that "this was the extent of David's kingdom". It need only say "this is the approximate extent of David's kingdom per the Biblical account" — provided it is indeed reasonably faithful (no pun intended) to the latter. I leave it to the experts to determine whether that is so. The fact to be presented is that the map depicts the Biblical boundaries fairly (if it does). This makes no judgment of whether or not the Biblical account itself is factual or not, scientifically or otherwise. If, on the other hand, this map doesn't accord well with the text, then it would be time to look for a better map. Is the map accurate (according to the Biblical text, not according to extrabiblical evidence), or isn't it? Hertz1888 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the reason pointed out above by StAnselm, "x is true according to the Bible" is likely to be read as "x is true, period" by millions of people, some of which may be using Wikipedia. That in itself makes endorsing Bible-derived information problematic. I have no problem with presenting Biblical material that has been corroborated by other historical sources or archeological finds. However, www.Bible-history.com's map doesn't even jibe with the Bible. It merrily incorporates large swaths of Turkey for instance, which is speculation I doubt any serious scholar would state as bald fact. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert on the subject. We have in Wikimedia another map of the same kingdom, also linked in the article. A Google images search for Kingdom of Israel returns many other maps. They all look similar to me, give or take the historical inaccuracy. Meteor, which one is the "correct" map? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I've left the links to that other map intact, because it's far less speculative and isn't entirely devoid of verifiability. Re the result of your Google search, I don't see one map that remotely corroborates Bible-history.com's. You probably agree that Wikipedia should maintain a higher academic standard than sites like Rapturechrist.com, Christian Churches of God and Les Amis d'Israël anyway. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will now proceed to delete the links to the map and mark the image for deletion. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I didn't think we'd reached a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessary to remove material that clearly violates WP rules. But by all means, if you can find academic support for that map, feel free to present it. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Meteor, please be constructive. Tell us which map will satisfy you. If none is good enough for you, take a pen and draw it yourself. If you need tecnical help, I will gladly help you. The wiki "ummah" will judge your work. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Inventing maps oneself seems to be the epitome of original research, so I politely decline your offer. :) MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat: From WP:NOR: Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy. Please look beyond this narrow argument. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can probably see where that interpretation of WP:NOR would lead. Anybody could write any silly statement, take a screenshot of it, and upload it to WP and nobody would be able to correct it because "pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy". I doubt even you would be able to resist the temptation to delete a map that gives the precise location of Santa Claus's workshop as the North Pole. Invented maps clearly fall under WP:NOR. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be no problem to use such a map in an article talking about Santa Claus if that was an established fact about the Santa Claus story. Just like you have maps of MiddleEarth. Anyway, the Bible is not fiction or fantasy like you claim, it's your POV. take it elsewhere. THE MAP IS NOT INVENTED BY USERS. IT'S INVENTED/DESCRIBED/DETAILED BY THE BIBLE and THEREFORE FITS THIS ARTICLE EXACTLY. 79.182.116.232 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't remember claiming that the Bible is fiction or fantasy and I apologize if I hurt your religious feelings. However, that map is not in the Bible, it's somebody's extremely loose interpretation of a few vague passages, which he has taken greater liberties with than anybody else who has tried to reconstruct the boundaries of David's kingdom. That somebody has posted it on a site that doesn't quite qualify as a reliable source, and the map is not verifiable, which is the reason it has to be deleted unless somebody can find at least one serious scholar that has backed it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not religious, but you are anti religious, and it's the sole point of trying to erase factual data, i.e. the biblical description of the united monarchy. It's actually not loose at all. The conquests are detailed and described quite accurately from Levo-Hamath to the River of Egypt. The estimated borders of the monarchy appear like told you before in many maps and are an established WP:RS fact. We could use other maps [3], which were also used before, but not instead of, but in addition, as this one is actually better. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If so, could you please show me at least one map from a reputable source that corroborates the one lifted from "Bible-history.com"? The map you linked to, on the gov.il site, looks nothing like it - it does not extend deep into Turkish territory for one thing.

Re your assertion that "the conquests are detailed and described quite accurately", could you provide a source for that claim, or is it something you have taken on faith? When you say the Bible-history.com map is "better", what exactly do you base that judgement on? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See below. The bible says that the Kingdon at David's time extended "מנהר הפרת בצפון ועד לעציון גבר שבדרום", that is the the River Prat (Eupherates) to Etzion Gever in the south. The map is therefore pretty accurate, and it says estimated. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty accurate" in your opinion = totally contradicts the source in reality. See below. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? The bible says "beyond Tipsah". It is a site on the western bank of the Euphrates. That's what the map shows. Amoruso (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How silly to claim it is OR. This is a map from Bible History Online. Legitimate. This is a very nice map drawing the boundaries according to the Bible. The ridicilous claim that it's likely to be read as fact by people seems like missionary atheism. The guy Meteromaker is obviously claiming that the Bible is false, but it's not a place for that missionary work. He can do it in other sites. The readers can decide, and it's not even a question of tha there - it's simply a description of David's kingdom. Yes, David's kingdom in terms of its boundaries (there is little doubt that he existed after the disovery of the tel dan stele) is mostly derived from the bible. It was after all a long time ago. it doesn't matter. 79.182.116.232 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read this section in its entirety and try to come up with a valid counter-argument to the arguments I presented. I don't think you got one thing right of what I said. Also, you may find this reading enlightening. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the rv fighting and the condescending behavior. You have no arguments to remove the picture. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...besides violation of WP:RS and WP:V? I'd appreciate if you made a serious attempt to refute my arguments instead of just ignoring them. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The one who's ignoring the facts is you. Btw, if you make a good argument to change this picture to the Israeli one, then good. You have to make an argument while the many maps from so many sources are wrong / alternatively suggest to change to one of them. You haven't done that. Fact is the borders are estimated according to the passages describing the extent of the kingdom, like I explained several times. You have no arguments, so you might as well cease now. Goodbye. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What maps, except the disputed one, have I said are wrong? The fact that you haven't been able to find a single one that corroborates it is telling. Again, when you say the disputed map is "better", what exactly do you base that judgement on? Do you have an interpretation of the Bible that other mapmakers don't? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? The bible says "beyond Tipsah". It is a site on the western bank of the Euphrates. That's what the map shows. If you want another map, say so. Amoruso (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Bible say "beyond Tipsah"? It's not in my Bible. Also, the exact location of Tipsah is unknown. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

First, everyone calm down. Here are my thoughts:

• If this image is really from Bible-history.com, then isn't it a copyrighted image that can't be included on Wikipedia?
• I agree with Meteor that the map is walking the line of OR, though I guess all maps for this subject matter would be somewhat based on WP:SYNthesis of Biblical materials.
• Why does this article need as many maps as it does? Why is Image:Greater Israel map.jpg sufficient in itself?

This is just a starting point. Let's see what everyone else has to say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the creator of the image has granted us the permission. Since it is from Bible-history, it presents no real OR issues at all. Worrying about copyright and OR at the same time is practically self-contradictory. Bible-history is allowed to do all the research and synthesis they want. I urge people to read the policies, confusing as they may be, and see how they are used by other editors before saying it breaks this, it breaks that. Emmanuelm's, Hertz1888's, StAnselm's and most of the anon's comments are in line with policy. Meteormaker is saying many things, some of them right, but some of them quite inconsistent with policy. E.g. the answer to a worry that "x is true according to the Bible" is likely to be read as "x is true, period" is SO WHAT. Meteormaker is mixing fact and belief. What we do is not present beliefs, but facts about beliefs, which is how the map should be presented.

To repeat others' (including Meteormaker at times) points: The question is, do the boundaries expressed in the map represent any sort of mainstream / non-insane view of what the bible says is true? Is it reasonable as expressing some kind of upper bound of the extent of the kingdom as described in the bible? A caption might say this is a maximalist biblical literalist interpretation of the kingdom's boundaries. This is quite different from trying to represent academic views as to what the actual extent of biblical Israel was. If this is satisfied, RS OR, etc is irrelevant. What may be relevant is neutrality, esp undue weight. We don't want to give excessive weight to fringe views, but this just amounts to asking the questions above. But let's not get engage in futile debates using inapplicable rules. John Z (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you find that granting of permission? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Click on the image. Amoruso got it from Rusty Russell at bible-history.John Z (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. Permission is not the issue, neither is OR (that stems from an initial misunderstanding who had drawn the map). As observed by John Z, the map clearly represents a fringe view (to the point of having no support whatsoever in established science nor from other fringe sites - at least no corroboration has surfaced), but the main issue is RS. Bible-history.com's mission statement explicitly dismisses researchers that don't share the site's position that the Bible is inerrant and infallible as "antagonistic unbelievers", whose false teachings the site says it doesn't want students to become "persuaded" by, and to this end provides and produces material to "aid students and teachers for the purpose of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ". I think it would be difficult to find a less NPOV or reliable source. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are simply not true. As demonstrated, the map draws from biblical and Jewish law sources and make a very accurate estimation. It's what the comment says. Because it is a picture, it makes no difference what the views of Bible History are or whether you agree to them. With all due respect, NPOV or reliable have nothing to do with this. You are grasping at straws. See below. John Z is indeed correct. Since these boundaries are the mainstream view and interpretation of the bible, perhaps a bit drawing from the north west tip, but still very reasonable, the map is therefore perfect. I have no problem with adding "A caption might say this is a maximalist biblical literalist interpretation of the kingdom's boundaries.". Amoruso (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Further note to the respectable John Z and HelloAnnyong, just to remind that Bible History itself references their source for the map, and it is indeed a very reasonable drawing of the sources: "The erection of the new capital at Jerusalem introduces us to a new era in David's life and in the history of the monarchy. He became a king on the scale of the great Oriental sovereigns of Egypt and Persia, with a regular administration and organization of court and camp; and he also founded an imperial dominion which for the first time realize the prophetic description of the bounds of the chosen people. Ge 15:18-21 During the succeeding ten years the nations bordering on his kingdom caused David more or less trouble, but during this time he reduced to a state of permanent subjection the Philistines on the west, 2Sa 8:1 the Moabites on the east, 2Sa 8:2 by the exploits of Benaiah, 2Sa 23:20 the Syrians on the northeast as far as the Euphrates, 2Sa 8:3 the Edomites, 2Sa 8:14 on the south; and finally the Ammonites, who had broken their ancient alliance, and made one grand resistance to the advance of his empire." - this is from "© 2003 Smith's Bible Dictionary (David) by Search Works" You will notice the map's borders are indeed on the Euphrates. The difference contested by Meteormaker is frivolous. He wants it to be further down. As he pointed out himself though, he doesn't know where Tipsah is exactly, so what does he want? http://www.bible-history.com/map-davids-kingdom/map-davids-kingdom_david_smith_s.html Amoruso (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, Amoruso. :) Again, the map does not jibe at all with the only presented source so far, the Bible. It clearly says the northern boundary of the dominions was Tiphsah, and - contrary to your claim - not one mile "beyond" it. If you have an additional source to support your view with, feel free to present it.

In fact, by showing the unprecedented liberties Bible-history.com's mapmaker has taken with the sources, you help exposing it as an unreliable source. Again, no material has been presented that remotely supports his map. The passage you quote, which incidentally doesn't support the mapmakers conjecture at all that large tracts of Turkey were part of David's kingdom, is taken from - Bible-history.com. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant passages for meteormaker

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a05.htm "For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah (see below) even to Gaza, over all the kings on this side the River; and he had peace on all sides round about him" http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b14.htm "He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was of Gath-hepher." http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a09.htm And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a22.htm Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber

Entrance of Hamath/Levo Hamath signifies the promised land's northern border of Israel according to halacha: It is mentioned for example here - "So they went up, and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, at the entrance to Hamath." http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0413.htm hence the full extension of the promised as detailed here: "So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entrance Hamath unto the Brook of Egypt, before the LORD our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days." http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a08.htm, that is the meaning of "He RESTORED the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel".

It's not for you or me to challenge Jewish law, halacha, wikipedia just quotes it, and uses the established estimated maps of these places in the north (hamat and as you can see also "http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/t/38" TIPSHA Thapsacus, on the western bank of the Euphrates, the river being at that point fordable; a boundary of Solomon’s dominions (1 Kgs. 4: 24); and in the south - Ezion-geber, Eloth, Red Sea....

Not too complicated.

Case closed. Don't RV again. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as ironic that you yourself provide the sources that prove the disputed map utterly wrong. I suggest you look up the exact geographical location of Hamath (which "signifies the promised land's northern border of Israel"), then compare it to the map.

You said it: "It's not for you or me to challenge Jewish law, halacha, wikipedia." Nor is it for "Bible.history.com". Hence the deletion. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Hamat, but Tiphsah. Taken both points, the map is astonishingly accurate. Amoruso (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your own source [4] says "The place of this name mentioned in 2 Kgs. 15: 16 is probably within the kingdom of Israel; its site is unknown". Try again. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tipsha is this region on the border between turkey and syria: Carchemish. That purple area near the sea shows the estimated northern conquests/battles at that point, overlapping syria in the south and a little of north from the turkish side. So you see, Hamath and then Tipsha. Draw the lines. Amoruso (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, unknown, that's why estimated. But there is actually a wiki article on the place Thapsacus identifying it with Charchemish, sorry... so it's not known but estimated to be there? The same source you say "try again" says it's on the river, on its west... the bible says "beyond this place".... need I go further? Amoruso (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza" (1 Kings 5:4). Well, first of all, that passage doesn't refer to David, it's about his father Solomon. Second, "dominion" seems to indicate regions not in the kingdom proper. Third, the identificaton of Tiphsah with Carchemish is merely conjecture. Fourth, even if you were right, Carchemish is far southeast of the border on the disputed map, which makes it incorrect even with the extreme stretch of your interpretation. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David's conquest, and Salomon his son, is still David's conquest, because Salomon is not the one who did the fighting. This is the empire he received. You should know this basic fact. It's why Salomon built the temple because he didn't have blood on his hands. Anyway, the source you quoted yourself says "iphsah I.e., Thapsacus, on the western bank of the Euphrates, the river being at that point fordable". Western bank of the river. Right on the mark... pretty basic stuff. [5] and anyway, Jewish Law supports the view that David's kingdom stretched and even surpassed the promised land's borders. This is by itself enough, as the concept is not reformist and Halacha counts here as Common Law. Amoruso (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the paternality confusion. :) You have not addressed the other points I made: Why dominions should count as parts of the kingdom proper, who has identified Tiphsah positively with Carcemish, why huge tracts of land northwest of the point the Bible gives as the northernmost point of the dominions have been incorporated by Bible-history.com's frivolous mapmaker. It bears repeating: His map is unique and nobody has been able to find support for it in mainstream or fringe science. It's not even supported by the Bible. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The possible reference of Tipshah to Carchemish is all in the Thapsacus article. If you bothered to read it, you wouldn't ask the question again :) Sorry, but I think we're being repetitiv e here. I have nothing more to add, simply I'll summarize by saying that I've effectively proved that the map is an accurate estimation of the border of David's kingdom, that other maps are very similar and they all draw from the bible and the Jewish law aka Halacha, pertaining to the fact that David Kingdom's strecthed all the way and even beyond the borders of the Promised Land. Biblical scholars and other professors, such as Israel Eldad frequently referred to this. It's how religious Jews view the situation. It doesn't have to be true.. btw. Wikipedia is not here to be "truth". This might all be false, but it's still correct for Wikipedia. You have provided no shred of a valid wikipedia to remove the picture. G'day. Amoruso (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, even if that were a proven fact and not just one theory of many, the map would be inaccurate. You keep repeating that other maps are "very similar" when in fact they disagree completely with the disputed map. For instance, no other map claims that David's kingdom encompassed a good part of southern Turkey, complete with the Mediterranean coast. That is purely the invention of Bible-history.com's mapmaker and not supported in any of the material that has been presented, nor in the Bible. I don't know why you keep insisting the opposite when your claims are so easily checked and disproven. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, completely frivolous. The map extends to the western banks of Euphrates. It's a long river. If you don't know where Tipsah is yourself, you have no argument. Amoruso (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And again: Regardless of which hypothesis you support re the location of ancient Tiphsah on the western bank of Euphrates, the mapmaker has casually and frivolously included a huge tract of Turkey to the northwest of it, about a third of the total area. No other mapmaker has done that, or included areas the Bible names as dominions in the area of the kingdom proper. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bible-history.com map: RFC

Comments on the dispute detailed in the above two sections welcome. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think this map is one of several interpretations of the Bible and should be shown, along with others, in this and other articles. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, Meteor, so far you have posted more than 60 comments in 5 days in various pages about this image. Stop obsessing about it, I am worried you are making yourself sick. You are also disrupting Wikipedia; from WP:POINT: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't make this a personal issue, please. The point is, neither you nor Amoruso (the map's original uploader) nor 79.181.17.163 have been able to show that the map has one shred of credibility. The site it's taken from is apparently a one-man effort, with little content besides a large repository of links to often anti-science and partisan sites. It makes no secret of its agenda. It misrepresents the historical sources with merry abandon (case in point: the disputed map, which has no support in the Bible or elsewhere). It's the very antithesis of a reliable source. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Request for Comment tag seems to have been overlooked by the bots, so I just renewed it added it to the list manually. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)MeteorMaker (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of comments in support of "Bible-history.com" and the disputed map from it, I postulate we have consensus to remove the "David's Kingdom" map for good. To the already perfectly valid reasons WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, I would like to add WP:FRINGE:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. [...]

In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

MeteorMaker (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker , I don't think you understand how the process works. You asked for a 3rd opinion, and got one, from John Z, that said you are wrong. Not content with this, you opened an RfC, and got another comment, from Emmanuelm, that said the map is ok to use. In the face of the consensus to keep the map, you can't just declare your desired conclusion to be the result. Please drop this issue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John Z did not say anything to that effect, though he did do a fine job of demolishing the OR claim - that neither I nor anybody else has been behind since the initial 10-minute confusion over who drew the map. I believe he got the impression I somehow advocated "suppressing" material from the Bible, but that isn't the case either - the issue is simply, is the map verifiable and not fringe science, is the site it was borrowed from a reliable source, and would including it constitute giving undue weight to a hypothesis that nobody has been able to find one shred of academic support for. And the RfC yielded nil responses from people who hadn't been involved in the discussion already. Besides an attempt to drag the debate down to a personal level, Emmanuelm contributed nothing new to the discussion with that post. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From RFC: If a reasonable dispute about the boundaries on the map were raised, there may be more of an argument here. A map giving the boundaries of David's kingdom after his death, according to the areas given in the Bible, is relevant to several Biblical and Israel topics whether one believes David was a historical figure or not. My opinion is the map should not be removed. Brando130 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the map indeed were according to the areas given in the Bible, that argument would be valid. That doesn't appear to be the case though (see long discussion in preceding section). Also, no corroboration for Bible-history.com's somewhat unorthodox hypothesis has been produced yet. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And not necessarily related to the RFC itself: MeteorMaker, You can go through here one by one and discredit everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours, but that doesn't override their opinion or create consensus. And RFC's may take a little while to generate responses. You posting the RFC on 8:17, 16 April 2008 and declaring that you "postulate we have consensus to remove the "David's Kingdom" map for good" at 08:07, 17 April 2008 is a laugh. Good day. Brando130 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, compared to the rapid influx of posts the day before, a day with no reponses at all seemed a little dull, but I agree it may have been a little premature to declare victory. However, I believe the discussion would benefit from fewer opinions and more serious efforts to produce evidence. Fact-wise, we still don't have anything else than Bible-history.com's mapmaker's original conjecture and a few people's opinion that he must be right. No solid evidence has been presented in support of his idea that David's kingdom encompassed large swaths of Turkey, including the Mediterranean coast, and that dominions, contrary to the account in the Bible, were part of the kingdom proper . MeteorMaker (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MM that the thing to do now is to present evidence. I think the questions to be asked are, in order - (1) Is bible-history an RS itself? - look at the site and the people associated with it in the usual way to check this. If so, the map should probably go in. But there's a good chance the answer to this is no. If we can't agree, go to RS/N (2) Does its specific borders correspond with any biblical scholarship from other RS's? If so, it doesn't matter whether it is an RS itself or not. We just care about what the map "says". This needs more expertise to answer. (3) Does its claim to be supported by the bible in any way hold water. I.e. are there passages that correspond to the borders? This is getting closer to OR but still probably isn't. I think we need people who have contributed here before to help. (4) Do we want to put it in with the disclaimer that this is an (extreme) maximalist biblical literalist interpretation that "includes areas the Bible names as dominions" in addition to "the kingdom proper" - i.e. caption it as kingdom+ dominions? (5) Do we want to use the liberty we may have with images to modify it a bit if we all agree that MM is right that it goes beyond the bible or anyone else in some areas? I've contacted a couple of knowledgeable editors who've contributed to the page, hope they can give some aid. John Z (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John Z. My answers to the questions based on evidence presented above will be: (1) Probably so, for a biblical site. (2) Yes, of course. (3) Yes, passages posted by the website support the map. Also shown before. (4) Probably not, there is already a disclaimer. (5) Could be also a solution, but not necessary IMO. Amoruso (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And the main problem with the evidence presented, as I've pointed out, is that it's non-existent. We still don't have anything else from the supporters of the map than their opinion that it must be accurate.

Unless we can find at least one reliable source that supports the map, it must be deemed fringe science and the site it's from, consequently, unreliable. As I've shown above, there is not exactly a shortage of other reasons to reject it as an RS: It's a one-man website, outspokenly anti-science and fundamentalist Christian, it explicitly states its mission to counteract the teachings of "antagonistic" and "unbeliever" historians that don't share the site's belief that the Bible is without error. Against that background, it's doubly ironic that the map so totally contradicts the biblical account. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the evidence already exists and was shown to you time and again. Amoruso (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The request for evidence was dodged time and time again. Just saying something exists doesn't make it so. I encourage you to produce a Bible cite that states an Israel-sized part of southeast Turkey + the areas the Bible refers to as dominions were parts of David's kingdom. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion- I don't see a problem with including this map. Israel is mentioned in the bible; this is showing it's approximate boundaries as named, for historical purposes. I need to point out a problem with the {{fact}} and the WP:RS/WP:V concerns- it is sourced; the source is the Bible. The map is "boundaries according to the Bible", ergo, the only way to verify it is to simply make sure the map follows the bible chapters. The chapters/verses are in the map key, and can be verified through an online bible verse site. For example, Numbers 34:1-12, for the red line, and Ezekiel 47:13-20 for the blue line. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if it followed the Bible- no problem. The problem is, it doesn't. Again: When the Bible says "He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah" (2 Kings 14:25) , the mapmaker frivolously extends the kingdom's territory more than 300 km to the north. When the Bible says "For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza" (1 Kings 5:4), the mapmaker merrily ignores the fact that this area was stated to be one or more dominions and incorporates it in the kingdom proper - plus a large part of Turkey to the northwest of even the northernmost possible location of Tiphsah known to conventional science. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I noticed there is still some confusion which map we are discussing. This one is the disputed one, not the one with the red and blue line. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit 2: As of 12 May 2008, this image shows a modified (and uncontroversial) version of the disputed map. Details, see below.) MeteorMaker (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[[6]]

Whoops; I mixed them up. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's YOUR WP:OR: "the mapmaker merrily ignores the fact that this area was stated to be one or more dominions and incorporates it in the kingdom proper". The mapmaker has the liberty of taking the biblical phrase like all people who read the bible do, except you, that is includes Tipsah, which is on the west of the Euphrates river. Where is Tipsah? We don't know, except that it is on the west of the Euphrates, therefore the map is accurate. End of story... Amoruso (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A hobbyist mapmaker can take any liberties with the sources he likes, but the moment he departs from accepted science and invents new continents or new parts of a historical kingdom on a whim, his work becomes fringe science and has no place on Wikipedia. And for the third time, Amoruso: Regardless of which hypothesis you support re the location of ancient Tiphsah on the western bank of Euphrates, the mapmaker has casually and frivolously included a huge tract of Turkey to the northwest of it, about a third of the total area. No other mapmaker has done that, or included areas the Bible names as dominions in the area of the kingdom proper. And again, the discussion would benefit if you refrained from telling us your opinion over and over and instead tried to find academic support for your map. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing more to say. Since Thapsacus (Hebrew: Tiphsah [תִּפְסַח]), was along the western bank of the Euphrates, the map is an excellent estimation. Why are you going in circles and repeating yourself? Nobody agreed with you. The estimation seems very accurate especially since many associate Tiphsah with Carchemish which is partly in Turkey. Btw, that small area in Turkey you can paint away with paintbrush if you don't like it. It's estimation from biblical passage, you're making such a huge deal for some odd reason known only to yourself. Amoruso (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I have to repeat myself is evident in your above post and many others. Again: Regardless of which hypothesis you choose to believe where the ancient Tiphsah was, the mapmaker has casually and frivolously included a huge tract of Turkey to the northwest of it. No other mapmaker has done that, or included areas the Bible names as dominions in the area of the kingdom proper. That your map is "an excellent estimation" is merely your personal opinion and you have been repeatedly requested to provide academic support for it - so far without result. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What you said makes no sense. Your request for citation also makes no sense. Stop playing the fool. Tipshah is somewhere on the western bank - an estimation will be anywhere along that bank. Anywhere. That part of turkey is still on the western bank of the river. And you can paint brush it if you feel it's a bit too much into turkey. I have to say it's really a waste of time discussing this with you, no offense, since I don't know if you geniunely don't understand or simply trying to do something vicious. By WP:AGF I'd say that you're just not getting it, but it's getting stranger, what with the insensible fact tag (?!)... Amoruso (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax, take a pause, read this, come back after a few hours. :) Posting in anger does not help discussion.

Now, we are trying to establish the amount of support your map has in the sources. We have found that our only historical source, the Bible, does not support it: It clearly states that the kingdom's northern border was Hamath (modern Hamah in western Syria (2 Kings 14:25). North of this, the Bible speaks of dominions (1 Kings 5:4). The northernmost point of these dominions is given as "Tipsah", which has not been positively identified but probably is somewhere on the Euphrates (a number of candidates ranging from Carcemish in the north to Deir ez-Zor in the east have been proposed.) Your map not only includes all land between Hamah and Tipsah, but also, unsourced and highly speculative, a large part of southeast Turkey far beyond Tipsah, including the Mediterranean coast.

So much for the claims. However, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry, just tired of repeating myself. We have established none of what you said. The Bible says the kingdom reached to Tipshah, and the map shows it.. it doesn't say how west of it it could have gone, so the map is still accurate. Again, if that small part you don't like you can paint brush it. Too frivolous to touch. It's an estimation for biblical phrases and a very reasonable one. That's the bottom line. It is your WP:OR to say that they got the bibilical phrases wrong by misreading it. You presented no facts to say that according to the bible, it's not true to say that it reached TIPHSAH somewhere on the western bank and all the way to the west from that angle to the sea. Actually, it's very reasonable to thing that Tipshah wan't some isolated fort, nobody said it was, but it was the eastern boundary. This is all reasonable and an estimation. That's the last thing I'm going to say on the subject.... you still don't have one person to agree with you after RFC etc, so i think it's over. Amoruso (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

John Z agrees entirely with me that the map's proponents need to show how well it corresponds with established science and that the source, Bible-history.com, should be evaluated for reliability. Others who have replied have operated on the faulty assumption that the map is an accurate representation of the biblical account, but have so far failed to refute the point that it depicts a kingdom more than twice the size of what it actually says in the Bible.

For instance, Amoruso, where in the Bible does it say the kingdom reached to Tipsah, as you claim? You now seem to have retracted your earlier claim that "the bible says 'beyond Tipsah'" and agree that there is in fact no support in the sources for the claim that it encompassed large swaths of Turkey. If I understand you correctly, you now claim that the lack of such support is a license to dream up a fantasy map and claim it's "accurate"? MeteorMaker (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nobody agreed with you, but you keep going and going. You hardly even agree with yourself. Here you posted a map which is exactly the map from another link, to support your claim. Very strange. [7] (you can add that it includes an allied kingdom maybe). How can I argue with you when you keep contradicting yourself? Try to get some support for your contradicting claims, because right now you're alone, and you keep making damages to articles... also, I'll say it one last time, because you keep ignoring what I say. This map is from Bible History Online, which is WP:RS for pictures. It's based on the biblical phrases they posted. If you think they got that some small part of Turkey wrong (although it can be interpreted through Tipsah to the west), then by all means you can add tag to clarify or edit the picture. You can also add that this part was probably an allied kingdom like you posted. Amoruso (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, don't post in anger, you will just regret it later, and please try to resist the temptation to go personal. The facts, which is what we should be discussing:

• You have posted a map in Wikipedia Commons.
• That map is from a one-man Christian fundamentalist site and a stated agenda to counteract "unbeliever" historians' teachings.
• The map, contrary to your claim, has no support in the Bible, as I have shown. If you want to try to refute this, a relevant Bible quote would be helpful, and yet another rehashing of your opinion will not.
• The map has no support neither from established nor fringe science, at least none that has been presented. You are still free to try to find academic support for it.
• The map, contrary to your claim, has no support in the Google search you refer to. None of the maps show an area larger than half of the area your map claims for the kingdom.
• The map you tried to link to in your post above (this one) shows David's kingdom in magenta, plus conquered kingdoms in yellow, for a total area of less than half of your claim. The other colors denote allied and vassal kingdoms, which aren't part of David's kingdom any more than Israel is part of the United States (or vice versa). Additionally, it doesn't show any part of Turkey as being even an ally. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry, maybe you are? :) Strange you repeat that. Anyway, I finalized my ideas, but you keep making contradicting facts, and false accusations, so I'll just respond to this one last time one time....

• You have posted a map in Wikipedia Commons: True.
• That map is from Bible History Online: Your accuations over fundamentalism are False. Your WP:OR. And Irrelevant.
• The map has the full support from the bible like I've shown time and again.
• The map is extremely similar to all other maps on the subject. It's even exactly the same to one of the maps you posted.
• This maps you posted (this one) shows what you dispute as an allied kingdom. It's very similar thing.
• Again, if you disagree with a small part of the map, just state it under the picture or alternatively you can edit the picture and post it again. Since it's in commons it's possible to do that. I can get permission for that too. Take initiative and color that northern part if you like. These are the only two options. Please read this carefully because I won't repeat it :) . Amoruso (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bible-history.com makes no secret of its fundamentalism, particularly its belief in the Bible's infallibility, so I don't understand how you can dispute that, or claim that it's a reliable source. As about your claim that the map is supported by the Bible, I hoped I had made it clear to you that just stating your well-repeated opinion still one more time doesn't cut it. Please tell us where in the Bible you think it says David's kingdom extended north of Hamath. Also, if you think the map is "exactly the same" as any other map, please post a link to that map, and I will redraw your map to conform exactly to it, like you so generously grant me an opportunity to do. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So belief in Biblical inerrancy is now a "fringe theory"? Ridiculous, and if you would like to differ I suggest an education in these matters that goes beyond infidels.org and googling "bible contradictions". Pretty much every Christian outside the mainline denominations (and many within them) believe in exactly the same thing, and even many those that do not hold to inerrancy still see the Bible as a set of texts that deserve to be taken seriously.

(This is Lewis Collard from the Commons by the way, I hate it when WP bullshit gets brought over to the Commons. This is exactly the kind of crap I was trying to get away from when I left here.) 91.125.101.92 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lewis, welcome back to the kind of crap you were trying to get away from. I find it strange how so many wikipedians (and ex-wikipedians) so completely miss the point: The map contradicts the account in the Bible. Regardless if you're a believer or not, the Bible and the map are at odds with each other. The fringe (ie, not supported by any sources) theory is that David's kingdom encompassed so much land north of what the Bible gives as the northernmost point, Hamath. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One week later: It's difficult to interpret the total absence of factual support for Amoruso's map as anything else than a strong argument to remove it on WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE grounds. If anybody still wishes to keep it, please present a cite that supports it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks later: Still no takers. If there existed factual evidence for Amoruso's map, one would think somebody would have found it by now.. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As Amoruso suggests above and here, I have now modified the map to make it conform with established science. It is now a synthesis of four different online maps that Amoruso has presented as equivalents to the disputed map: [8] [9] [10] [11] plus one (A) where I have, without having had access to a reliable source, included the Tipsah = Carcemish hypothesis favored by Amoruso and others. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Land of Israel = Promised land? -- Revisited

Nile to the Euphrates is not promised to just jews(Descendants of Judah) but promised to Abraham Descendants including Arabs and Ten Lost Tribes and many others.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Submitter, you wrote only the truth, but not the whole truth. Genesis does indeed promise the Land to all the descendants of Abraham, and Ishmael is one. But in Numbers (repeated in Ezekiel), the land is i) much better delimited, and b) its inheritors are more precisely defined: the twelve tribes of Israel, descendants of Abraham via Isaac & Jacob. No Ishmael, no one else. As for all contracts, it is the latest, most precise version that applies. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuel, Nile to Euphrates is very different than what is mentioned in Numbers or Ezekiel, Also What is Mentioned in Numbers and Ezekiel not belong to just Jews (Descendants of Judah) ,But belongs to all 12 tribs including Ten Lost Tribes. So 1/12 or 2/12 of what is mentioned in Numbers(Almost Current Israel) can belong by YHWH to Jews! This is the whole Truth!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Submitter, I just caught something in your May 30 comment: Jews are not defined as the descendants of Judah. The Tribe of Judah is just one of the twelve tribes. Israelites are descendants of all twelve plus the Levites and Kohanim. Who is a Jew? Anyone who accepts Judaism, regardless of his descent.

To whom was the Land of Israel promised? Good question. This article should provide a simple answer but past edit wars have removed all clarity out of it. Re-read the Biblical passages mentioned in the article and the answer should be obvious. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuel, Look:

• Genesis 15:18 Promised Nile to Euphrates to Abraham's Seed
• Numbers 34:2 Allocates Land of Canaan to Children of Israel
• Ezekiel 47:13 Allocated Same Land as Canaan to Twelve Tribes of Israel

There is no mention of any religion! Nile to Euphrates promised to Abraham Descendetns and Canaan allocated to Israel Descendents. It's very clear. So one should prove to be a descendent of Abraham or Israel to claim about the land. The religion is not important. DNA test will help a lot in recent days! ;)

If you define a Jew as a descendant of Judah they will have 1/12 of the Cannan. If you define a Jew as a religion they will have absolutly nothing from the promised lands and please never forget Ten Lost Tribes, the stick of Ephraim, that will be back and join to Judah in last days according to Ezekiel 37:16-17 ! --Submitter to Truth (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For the second time, I do not define a Jew as the descendant of Judah, you do. And it is wrong. Now, if you want to change the lead paragraph of the article, go ahead. I'll just sit here and watch. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not define Jew here, But what is exactly explained in Hebrow Bible is not Jew But Abraham and Israel Descendants.Why we change it?--Submitter to Truth (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the whole truth, the land from the Nile to the Euphrates is promised to Abraham. Abraham's inheritance passed to Isaac the son of his first wife, it did not pass to Ishmael who was sent into exile. G-d reaffirms the promise to Isaac. From Isaac the inheritance passed to Jacob, Esau having sold him his birthright. G-d reaffirms the promise to Jacob. From Jacob it passes to all his sons and thence to the entire nation of Israel. The passage in Numbers is a detailed description of a small part of the land which 9 1/2 of the tribes were told to drive out the Canaanites and settle. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kuratowski,Nile to Euphrates is not promised to Abraham! Please avoid traditional beliefs! Hebrow Bible is very clear:

Gen 15:18 That day God made a covenant with Abram, saying: To thy seed will I give this land, from the river to Egypt even to the great river Euphrates. (DRB)

Nile to Euphrates is promised to Abraham's seed! not to Abraham himself!

I think that is enough,but just for additional info pay attention that Hebrow Bible clearly known Ishmael as Abraham's seed:

Gen 21:13 But I will make the son also of the bondwoman a great nation, because he is thy seed. (DRB)

So please hold the traditions in our mind and leave the exact documented sentences in the Wiki!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, traditional understanding is what needs to be stated in the article, not your personal reinterpretation which would at best be "original research". Traditional understanding is that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled through Isaac not Ishmael or any of his other sons. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible, to my understanding, qualifies as a reliable source in Bible-related articles. If something is clearly stated in the Bible, it's not OR to say so in a relevant article. Your objection that the Bible quote goes against "traditional understanding", however, seems to lack a source. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually as I pointed out earlier if you look at all the relevant information in the Bible, the promise is reaffirmed to Isaac and then Jacob. The promise to Abraham doesn't say to all his seed, Ishmael is clearly excluded from the inheritance (Ge. 21:10) and there is a whole section on Esau selling his birthright. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found a translation that says God's promise in Gen 15:18 is only good for a subset of Abraham's seed, so I assume that must be a fringe view. And as Submitter has pointed out, inheritance doesn't come into play at all, since the promise is to Abraham's descendants (presumably for unlimited generations), not to Abraham himself. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the entire narrative which says that Ishmael was excluded from the inheritance etc etc. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As Submitter has pointed out and I have repeated, the inheritance narrative is irrelevant because the Bible clearly says God gave the land to Abraham's descendants, not to him personally. You can't inherit what you already own. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And as I have stated the traditional and mainstream understanding is that it is relevant and moreover seversal verses later it talks about the land being given to "thee and thy seed" so although Abraham himself is not included in the wording of 15:18, he is included in the later verse. The article is supposed to be about the concept of the Land of Israel found in Judaism, trust me on this one, Jewish tradition does not consider it to belong to the descendants of Ishmael or Esau, you can't come along on the 21st century and come up with your own interpretation and try push it on wikipedia as being part of the traditional understanding. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Thee and thy seed" only includes Abraham in the larger set, it clearly doesn't exclude anybody. The Bible contains numerous contradictions but this is obviously not one. If this Land of Israel article, like you say, only deals with the narrower concept of the Land of Israel found in Judaism, it should state so early on, and make clear that "the Land of Israel" has different meanings in different traditions, and preferrably give them equal space. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That verse doesn't exclude anyone but later verses tell how Ishmael was exiled after mocking at Isaac's weaning and excluded from the inheretance and how Esau sold his birthright to Jacob. These are points that the narrative is trying to emphasize, it tells the story the way it does because it is trying to make a point that originally all Abrahams descendants had a share but first Ishmael (father of the Ishmaelites) and then Esau (father of the Edomites) end up being excluded because of their actions. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the part where it says that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau had their God-given right to the Land of Israel revoked through their fathers' actions. Again, according to the Bible, it was clearly given to them directly — by God personally no less — in Gen 15:18 and nothing they had to inherit. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you obviously are missing it, but that is precisely the point that the Bible is trying to make and the way it has been understood for thousands of years. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, could you give me a Bible cite?MeteorMaker (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream Jewish understanding is summarized for example in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah which also gives the appropriate citations from Genesis on which the understanding is based. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not being a fluent Hebrew speaker, I would prefer a direct Bible quote in support of your claim that God broke his Gen 15:18 promise to Ishmael's and Esau's descendants. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was never promised to Ishmael and Esau's descendants, it was promised to Abrahams descendants without specifying all descendants. There isn't just one or two verses, read the entire narrative. No one actually gets any land until 400 years later and even then they only initially get part of the land and only in the time of David is the promised completely fulfilled. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All translations of Gen 15:18 I have seen say it was promised to all Abraham's descendants without exclusion. If you have access to an alternative version of the Bible that specifies an exclusion, this would be a good opportunity to present it. Additionally, there's nothing in the Bible that I am aware of that says any descendants actually did settle outside the area between the River of Egypt and the Euphrates, which ostensibly would have been against God's explicit wish. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Great discussion, And I missed it ;)

The article indicates that:

The Land of Israel ... according to the Hebrew Bible, was given by God to xxx

and we are discussing ,what xxx should be. Correct me if I'm incorrect.

I think according to verses qouted here it is very clear that according to Hebrow Bible, the land was promised to Abraham's Descendants and later, part of it, Canaan, alocated to Children of Israel.

If anybody think that according to Mishnah, the promise of land was excluded from Ishmael and his 6 brothers from Keturah and from Esau, can add an statement(documented). Pay attention that Ishmael and his 6 brothers and their sons are named Ishmaelites not just children of Ishmael! Also pay attention that according to Bible God Covenant was made to Isaac and then to Jacub and Jacub also transfered it to Ephraim and so, But that is not mean that the promise of Land also transfered with the covenant.

If you think that the Land also transfered , then the land should transfered to Ephraim and his sons according to Genesis 48:15,16!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ishmaelites are the descendants of Ishmael not of his brothers. And lets not start repeating the old nonsense that modern Arabs are descended from Ishmael when the Ishmaelites disappeared from history thousands of years before the emergence of the modern Arab nation. But anyway, the article is about the concept of the Land of Israel found in Judaism and Judaism doesn't base its ideas on the opinion of you two guys. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The key verses on which Judaism bases it understanding that Ishmael and Esau's descendants are excluded are Genesis 21:12 "Through Isaac will offspring [seed] be considered yours" and Genesis 28:4 "and give to you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your offspring [seed], the land of your sojourn which God gave to Abraham, as your inheritance". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that Judaism could have missed the very next verse in Genesis 21: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed." I'm more inclined to believe that your understanding of traditional understanding may be somewhat wrong. Genesis 28:4 is Isaac speaking btw, not God. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Kuratowski and Meteor, About Ishmaelities and why they are Arabs I simply Qoute the verse 21:3 from The Book of Jubilees which, it's hebrow version recently found in Dead sea scrolls and older than Islam time and Arabs rise in history:

And Ishmael and his sons, and the sons of Keturah and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering in of Babylon in 13 all the land which is towards the East facing the desert. And these mingled with each other, and their name was called Arabs, and Ishmaelites.

I think that is clear enough and no need for additional comment.

About main issue, Gen 21:12 have a word that cannot be ignored "Considered" or "called"

Gen 21:12 And God said to him: Let it not seem grievous to thee for the boy, and for thy bondwoman: in all that Sara hath said to thee, hearken to her voice: for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Gen 21:13 But I will make the son also of the bondwoman a great nation, because he is thy seed. (DRB)

It simply supports what I and Meteor claim here, that Abraham's Seed Called to be from Isaac but Ishmael also is his seed.

About Gen 28:4 as Meteor said, It's Isaac calls and also no where excluded Ishmael and his 6 brothers and Esau from promise. Abraham or Isaac may inherite what they had personally to anyone. But a promise to their seed is not something to be inheritted. In addition that I said before that the promise was not for Abraham Persnally and it promised directly to His seed. No my friend Excluding Ishmael and Esau from promise is your original research from Hebrow Bible.

I think ,if you want to add that, there is some people in jewish comunity or statements in Mishnah that believe so and so,there is no problem to add it with enough document, but it's very clear that Hebrow Bible promised the land to Abraham descendents and then allocates part of it to Children of Israel.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to replace the mainstream understanding with your own personal reinterpretation. It says the land is promised to Abraham's seed. In then later says that it is the descendants of Isaac who will be considered Abrahams seed. Ishmael is still regarded as Abrahams seed but Ishmael's descendants are no longer called the seed of Abraham, only Isaac's its pretty clear that it says that. Then Esau gets excluded later as well. Thats the whole point that Genesis is trying to make and why it tells the story of Ishmael being dismissed and Esau selling his birthright, and that is the way mainstream Judaism understands it. Your reinterpretation is "original research" i.e. you made it up. I don't know whether you are actually being serious or are trying to be funny by trying to make out that the Hebrew Bible says that the Land of Israel is promised to Arabs which we all know is not the normative view. The normative view is that the promise to Abraham is fulfilled through Isaac and then through Jacob (thats why the entire area promised to Abraham is called the "Land of Israel", Israel = Jacob) with the descendants of Ishmael and Esau being excluded, and that the promise is finally fulfilled in its entirety during the reign of David and Solomon who are regarded as ruling over the entire area promised to Abraham referred to as the Kingdom of Israel. You can't come along in the 21st century with a radically new interpretation based on reading bits of Genesis out of context while ignoring the narrative as a whole and claim that this is what the Hebrew Bible says. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see God revoke his promise in Genesis 21: "And also of the son of the bondwoman [ie Ishmael] will I make a nation, because he is thy [ie Abraham's] seed"? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Metermaker: If the two lines you keep referring to from the Bible were part of a reading comprehension test, an obvious question would go something like: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation" implies: (a) this is the same nation as those promised to Abraham's seed through Sarai, (b) is a different nation, not clearly defined, (c) is Mars. The only possible answer would be (b). That the bible finds it necessary to make a special point with regard to Ishmael implies that her children have a different, but very possibly equally valuable birthright. If it was the same nation, the Bible would say so. Sposer (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gen 15:18 "That day God made a covenant with Abram, saying: To thy seed will I give this land, from the river to Egypt even to the great river Euphrates." Gen 21:13: "And also of the son of the bondwoman [ie Ishmael] will I make a nation, because he is thy seed". What is the Lord's intention here? (a) All Abraham's seed, including Ishmael, is given the land (b)All Abraham's seed, except Ishmael, is given the land (c)Abraham's seed is given the land, Ishmael is given the planet Mars, and Wikipedia editors' language is to be confounded, that they may not understand one another's speech. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To understand that the Hebrow Bible is promissed the Nile to Euphrate to Abraham's seed and not excluded Ishmael and Esau's seed from the promise just need a comprehension test to verify. But if someone think that the mainstream jewish is think different(according to other books or any Rabi's interpretation), then they should not claim that Hebrow Bible included that! This is what exactly called Original Research in Wikipedia!

This is while our nowadays genetic science proves that most current Jews are not even Israelites and you know this carefully and in addition There is a lot of Israelites in Muslim Kurds (28.4%), Central Turks (27.9%), Georgians (26.7%), Iraqis (25.2%), Lebanese (25%), Saudi Arabians (18.9%), Ashkenazi Jews (23.2%), Sephardi Jews (28.6%), Iranians (23.3%), Tajiks (18.4%), and Pakistanis (14.7%) are Israelite and more .I mean they are descendants of Jacob not even descendant of Abraham or Ishmael!!!(Please refer to Haplogroup_J (Y-DNA)#J2 about this.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this can shed some light as to why the Land of Israel was not given to Ishmael's decendants, although they were promised another nation. See [12]. The article discusses how Abraham's name was just initially Abram - exalted father. When his name changes to Abraham, which it has ben Genesis 21, that name is interpreted as "father of a multitude of nations". Abraham is father of the decendants of Israel (Isaac), one nation -- the Land of Israel, and the nation represented by Ishmael's descendants. So, Ishmael is never disowned, he just owns something different. G-d does not take anything away from Ishmael and Hagar. Isaac even later, after Sarah's death, brings Hagar back to Abraham and they remarry.

This isn't about genetics. Most interpretations are that the Land of Israel was given to what later became the Jewish People -- followers of Judaism. There is no doubt that many Arabs are more genetically "Jewish" than European Jews are.

As far as OR goes, that does not allow me to put the above logic into the article, but reputable references to a similar thought process would be completely permissable. I am not changing anything here anyway, but I thought that I could illuminate a bit on the subject.Sposer (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. Ishmael -> nation A, Isaac -> nation B, other sons -> nation C, D and so on. That much is unchallenged (and explicitly written out in Gen 21). However, the land between the River of Egypt and the Euphrates is promised to all these nations (presumably to be shared) in Gen 15:18, not just the line that resulted in the Israelites. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow these lines from Gen 15:

13. And He said to Abram, "You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years. 14. And also the nation that they will serve will I judge, and afterwards they will go forth with great possessions. 15. But you will come to your forefathers in peace; you will be buried in a good old age. 16. And the fourth generation will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites will not be complete until then." 17. Now it came to pass that the sun had set, and it was dark, and behold, a smoking furnace and a fire brand, which passed between these parts. 18. On that day, the Lord formed a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river.

So, here G-d says his seed will be enslaved for 400 years. Five sentences later, his seed is given the land. Ishmael's descendants were not enslaved. Those that were of the children of Israel (Isaac) were enslaved. Ishmael's nation does not include the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. There is no reasonable interpretation that suggests that Ishmael's descendants were part of that convenant. Sposer (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

...and Gen 17 where G-d says his covenant is with Isaac:

15. And God said to Abraham, "Your wife Sarai-you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name. 16. And I will bless her, and I will give you a son from her, and I will bless her, and she will become [a mother of] nations; kings of nations will be from her. " 17. And Abraham fell on his face and rejoiced, and he said to himself, "Will[a child]be born to one who is a hundred years old, and will Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth?" 18. And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael will live before You!" 19. And God said, "Indeed, your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. 20. And regarding Ishmael, I have heard you; behold I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and I will multiply him exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year." 22. And He finished speaking with him, and God went up from above Abraham.

Sposer (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

...and in Gen. 21:13, Ishmael is explicitly included in the group "Abraham's seed", which renders your speculation moot. Who is right, God or you? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his seed. But the covenant is explicitly stated as with Isaac. You are the one speculating. Look at 19&20 above. I am not an expert, but I cannot fathom an explanation that states otherwise. And, I don't think there is a reputable expert anywhere who does. The point is silly anyway. Modern Israel is but a fraction of what G-d gave to the Jews, and Ishmael's seed controls the rest of the Middle East anyway. I certainly do not think Israel has any right, nor the Jewish people, to take the land that G-d, so very clearly stated as being between the Nile and the Euphrates, were given to them, convenant or not. Sposer (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If by "your seed" God meant "selected subsets of your seed", it's equally correct to read "the land" as "selected parts of the land", though neither interpretation has explicit support in the Bible. Maybe we have to leave it at that. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some searching on the web and found a site that ultimately supports the covenant being shared with Ishmael. However, it clearly states that the English translation in line 21 above clearly and completely removes Ishmael from the equation and if you follow the English translation, Ishmael and his descendants have no claim whatsoever to the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. So, it supports my interpretation and logic completely. However, as I thought might be possible, there could be something in the Hebrew that suggests otherwise. The Hebrew word that starts line 21 is not really a word, but the letter vav. That can mean "but", but it more commonly means "and". If you use "and" in the text instead of "but", then both Ishmael and Isaacs's descendants can be interpreted as sharing in the covenant. So, to be completely fair here, the answer is that it isn't clear. The English translation offers no support for Ishmael in any way, shape or form. The Hebrew verbiage suggests (probably strongly so) that his progeny have an equal claim with Isaac's over the land between the Nile and Euphrates. The only reason why I do not say 100% is that I do not speak Hebrew, and certainly not on the Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic of the Torah (which is what you need to know to properly interpret and translate the Torah), and I am depending on the scholarship of a web site that has a POV, but if I believe their translation, then Ishmael's descendants have a claim. We will have to depend on people who study ancient religions to give a proper translation of that parsha. Sposer (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you direct me to the relevant passage, I can offer my opinion of the Hebrew text, being a Hebrew speaker. okedem (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It is Genesis, Chapter 17 Versus 21. If the proper interpretation is "but" and not "and", then G-d does revoke any covenant with regard to the land to Ishmael. If it is "and", then the land (Canaan) is given to Isaac's descendants, and the remainder to all of Abraham's seed. Desire to push their own POV and OR leads Metermaker and Submitter to ignore even the analysis of those supporting the covenant to Ishmael (which again, I am not arguing, since I suspect "and" is the correct translation). Sposer (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In that passage, it is clear (at least to me), that Ishmael is not party to the covenant. God says Sarah will bear Abraham a son, and Abraham does not believe it, as he and Sarah are old. He says - see, there's Ishamel. God reaffirms his previous words - Sarah will bear a son, and you shall call him Itzhak, and I shall make my covenant with him for eternity etc. In verse 20 God says - as for Ishmael, I hear your plea, and I have blessed him and make a great people of him. In verse 21 again God reaffirms that he makes his covenant with Itzhak who Sarah will bear. The "and"/"but" issue is not really relevant here. Vav means "and", but the specific meaning comes from the context. Whichever meaning you choose for this ("and" or a strange from of "but"), the meaning of verse 21 doesn't change.

In this case the meaning is clear, as God makes it clear the covenant is with Itzhak alone. Maybe there are other verses with less obvious meanings, but this passage is clear. okedem (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To see why the sentence is fine with "and", consider the following sentences:

"To Michael I leave the beach-house; and to Peter I leave the business"

"To Michael I leave the beach-house; but to Peter I leave the business"

I think it's clear that both sentences mean exactly the same - only Michael gets the beach-house; only Peter gets the business. okedem (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for translating vav correctly Okedem and that shows that you are honest, But I'm not agree with your interpretation, as told below, not every covenant in Bible are the same. there are many different covenants in the Bible. Please refer to Covenant (biblical) and what I mentioned below.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Submitter, as I have said, I make no claim of interpretation of any other covenants in other passages, just this one. okedem (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, There is no verse that promissed the Land to Jewishes.Please pay attention. Also please don't confuse Biblical Covenants with each other! There is a lot of this type of Covenant (biblical). The covenant here is between Abraham and his seed with God and the sign of this covenant is circumcision as below:

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant which you shall observe between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised.

Gen 17:26 The selfsame day was Abraham circumcised and Ismael his son.

And everyone may know that Arabs, even before Islam, was doing the circumcision! so please don't confuse the other covenants and the circumcision Covenant that is a sign for Abraham seed!!!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The bible is very clear on the subject...

Gen. 28,10:

• And Jacob went out from Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran.

• And he lighted upon the place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.

• And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

• And, behold, the LORD stood beside him, and said: 'I am the LORD, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed.

• And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. And in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

• And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will bring thee back into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.' Promise of God from Abraham to Issac to Jacob. Jacob's other name was Israel. Amoruso (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you don't mean that The land whereon thou liest means From Nile to Euphrate at most it may mean Beer-sheba!!!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer Sheba is the place he fell asleep. God is passing the promise he gave to his fathers to give him the Land of Israel, Canaan. Caanan was promised to the Jewish people. Amoruso (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I mean Haran and please avoid Original Research and please pay attetion that not every land means Disney Land! And not every land means Nile to Euphrate!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And Canaan Also never promissed to jewish people. Nile to Euphrates was promissed to Abraham's seed and Canaan Alocated to Children of Israel! Please pay attention to word meanings and avoid OR--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This must be the revisionist bible. There is no argument from anybody that Canaan was given to Jacob's seed. The Children of Israel, Israel=Jacob. The earlier work I noted also specifically noted the covenant with Isaac. The only way to invalidate this is to accept the Koran as invalidating the Torah. If you accept the Torah, you can argue about Niles to Euphrates, which I think I agree with, but not about the Land of Canaan.Sposer (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Submitter to Truth, until you write a revisionist book about your awkward and nonsensical interpretation of the Hebrew bible (Hebrew as in, God's convenant with the Hebrew people later known as the Jewish people), it is in fact your WP:OR. I really don't think you understand what WP:OR is. Amoruso (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No,Sposer and Amoruso. That is from the same bible that you have in your hand and Koran also confirms! Please read may words again! You use Jewish and the Children of Isarel so that, you asume that there is no difference between them. But I use the words in it's exact correct meaning! Where in bible any land was promissed to Jewishes?! Please pay attention to word exact meaning and Amoruso please pay attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Comment on content, not on the contributor!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) I did not attack you or MeteorMaker, but I attacked your OR and POV pushing. (2) The items I quoted above give the land of Canaan to the Children of Israel. Jacob's name was Israel. (3) If you believe the Koran, then you rightly, by definition, do not care about and ignore the Torah. If you believe the Torah, the Koran is likewise irrelevant. There is no argument here. It is irrefutable, unless you ignore the words. (4) Think about it for a minute. Do you honestly think the Jews (and later the Christians, who by their interpretation through Jesus would also be descendants of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob), who have kept the Hebrew Bible and carried to modern times, would not have changed it to ensure that it read in such a way as to ensure the land was given to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Esau gave up his inheritance through trickery, but he has no inheritance from Isaac), as confirmed by G-d in the Torah? To even think that the Jews would allow it makes no sense. The only arguments would come from later on splits, whereby, for example, the Samaritans may claim that they are true descendants. But, there is absolutely no claim on the Land of Canaan for Ishmael's seed in any way shape or form, nor is there for Esau's descendants. It is not even open for interpretation.

As far as Jewish versus Hebrew, the Jews are the Hebrews. That is the common definition. Current interpretations include converts to Judaism as well in those belonging to the Covenant (i.e., it is not just an ethnic designation). There is a lot of confusion over the various tribes, and Judah versus Israel, but here we are talking about Isaac's seed through Jacob. Biblical religion was passed paternally. Abraham was the first Jew. Isaac was a Jew. Jacob was a Jew. His seed, as long as they kept their religion and their side of the "deal" with the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was Jewish. My last comment on this. Sposer (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No My friend, that is your definition, please give me a Jew word come in Genesis or in Torah?! The word Jew was not exist befor the Kingdom of Judah! And that is hundereds of years after Abraham and many years after Moses age! Calling Abraham a jew is really funny!!! But you interpret the Torah words to words that produced after their age and that is not true! Also you still try to comment on me not on the content and that is what in wikipedia called Personal attack! Wikipedia:No personal attacks What I believe is not important here , What is rational is important, But just for your info, It is possible that some people believe to Torah, Old and New Testement , Koran , Mormon book and many other lost or out of Canon books all together! And I never ignore Torah, and Koran also command everyone to believe in it:

Qur'an 5:44 Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light...

Qur'an 2:4 And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee

By the way still I'm sure that Torah like any other holy books has been cahnged later, But still think that we can use it and find the real truth behind the history! Also I recieve no reply on the sign of Abraham's seed, Circumcision yet! ;)--Submitter to Truth (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The covenant is a red herring here - it has nothing to do with God's original promise to Abraham's seed and does not amend or change it in any way. As a matter of fact, it is stated as fait accompli in Gen 15:18: "To your seed I have given this land" (emphasis mine). This promise is not revoked later. It is also worth noting that in Gen. 21:13, God explicitly includes Ishmael in the group, just to avoid misunderstandings 4 millennia later. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

21:13 has nothing to do with the promise. The promise was given to the seed yes, but not all the seed. It was given to Issac and later to Jacob. The promise is given from generation to generation to only one brother. This is the whole point of the bible. There are always brothers competing for this promise. I really don't think wikipedia is a place for people's WP:SOAPBOXes. There's no question here that the land was given to Abraham then to Issac only, then to Jacob and that the land has been thus promised to the Jewish people. It's pretty basic stuff. Amoruso (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This section is rather long, so you're forgiven for not reading it from the beginning. To recap: There is nothing in the Bible that says the promise was revoked for any part of the seed. There is nothing in the Bible that says the promise is given from generation to generation to only one brother. There is nothing in the Bible that says the land was given to Isaac only. Your conclusion that the land thus has been promised to the Jewish people is even contradicted by the Bible, since many non-Jewish tribes (eg the Edomites, descended from Esau) built nations there without God intervening. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I explained, and other have explained to you, there is EVERYTHING in the bible that show that the promise is passed from Generation to generation to one brother. This is a fact. You may not like it, but it is a fact. I've read the entire section and was quite astonished at the levels of revisionism here from you. Your fantastic idea is of course not supported in the Hebrew bible. Your last comment seems detached from reality. Of course the land of Israel was under occupation by different nations, but God's promise is only made to eventually Jacobs and the 12 tribes of Israel. That's the story of the bible, whether we like it accept it or dislike it. Amoruso (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's less a matter of liking or not than of being able to prove what one says. Kindly link to Bible cites that offer at least a modicum of support for your hypothesis. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the passage above (see Okedem) disproves your fringe theory. The later quote to Jacobs continues the generation to generation thing I tried to explain to you in layman terms. Amoruso (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I advise you to pay attention better so things don't have to be repeated ad nauseam. Okedem is talking about the covenant. The covenant is a separate matter. God (who, unlike us, doesn't have to support his claims with sources) states that he has already given the land to Abraham's descendants (Gen 15:18), one of which is Ishmael (Gen 21:13). God's words. The covenant doesn't take anything back, so it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Inheritance rules don't come into play, since the promise is to the descendants as a group, not to a particular person. Also note that at that point in time, only Ishmael has yet been born. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The covenant is not a separate matter. The Hebrew Bible, aka the Old Covenant, is about this promise. This promise to Abraham Issac and Jacobs. This is the Hebrew Bible. Maybe you're talking about a different document? Amoruso (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: This promise to Abraham's descendants. If you insist it's taken back or modified by God, kindly show me where in the Bible you think you see that. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Promise is to Abraham's descendants followed through Issac and Jacobs. You have shown no source to contradict this basic fact. Until you do, you'll find that a WP:FRINGE theory not supported by the text and WP:OR invented by Meteormaker and Submitter to Truth are not sources for wikipedia. We are all waiting for you to have support for this source. Although I think the biblical passages are explicit, I have Rashi and Kassutto to name but a few on my side. Until you come up with something.. well, good luck with that :) . Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems we can safely conclude that you have no sources to back up your claims with. Else, you would have presented them by now. God explicitly and unambiguously says his promise is good for Ishmael(Gen 15:18), (Gen 21:13); Amoruso says no, God is confused and must have meant something else. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are exactly right MeteorMaker. we have not seen any refrence in Hebrow bible to show that what amuroso is call basic fact is valid without any OR. And they should show some doucument to add anything different.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I thought, you have no sources to back your claims. Well, it was an interesting WP:OR but not relevant for an encyclopedia then. Amoruso (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you care to read it, there are two sources right in the post you replied to, but one can only lead a horse to water. You have presented nothing except your opinion. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid everyone but you and Submitter can see that you're wrong. You provided not a single source. The fact is you have no sources to back your claims. Well, it was an interesting WP:OR but not relevant for an encyclopedia then. As for my sources, it's the bible. And Rashi commentary. Where is yours? You have none. Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_5_-_The_Promised_Land [13] A whole chapter in Genesis goes into length explaining that Yishmael does not continue the promise but makes his own line. This is where (see Okedem above) comes into place and explains this division between Yishmael and Issac. This doesn't mean that Yishmael is not important. Gensis explains what will become of Yishmael and that he will fight with others etc, when he's born. But he doesn't get the promised land. The promised land is passed to Issac. And later, to Jacobs like shown. So I have the Bible, I have Rashi. What do you have ? Your OR doesn't count in encyclopedia. Glad we're clear. Amoruso (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have given clear and precise sources (several times for good measure), you indulge in vague name-dropping and posting of links to sites in Hebrew when prompted to show sources for your claims. If you could indicate exactly which Bible chapter(s) you think say Ishmael is no longer considered Abraham's seed, we could (theoretically) have a meaningful discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So to summarize I have Rashi, you have no sources. Amoruso (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No My Friend, We have Hebrow Bible that promissed the land to Abraham's Seed and never excluded Yishmael and FYI many bible commentators as well have same position that we defined here just like Albert Barnes under Gen 21:9-21 he said:

Abraham is comforted in this separation with a renewal of the promise concerning Ishmael Gen_17:20

and again said:

And their(Hagar & Ismael) departure did not imply their exclusion from the privileges of communion with God, as they might still be under the covenant with Abraham, since Ishmael had been circumcised, and, at all events, were under the broader covenant of Noah.

I hope this, to be enough. If you need more please let me know.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Christians and the Muslims have this belief about the bible. I haven't read this christian person's commentary, although if he claims that Ishmael is part of the promise, then it's not supported by the text obviously. Jewish commentary on their bible is very clear though. Amoruso (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My friend ,I have checked Johann Friedrich Karl Keil and John Gill other that Albert Barnes and they all comment same under Gen 21:13 So there is a strong staff of commentators that have same opinion that we claimed here. Also I have checked Rashi under Gen 21:13 and 15:18 he is not excluded Ishmael from the promiss please give the exact address so that I can check!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See link above. Of course he's excluded. He gives it up on his own. Amoruso (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In verse 13 of Gen. 15, G-d defines Abraham's seed as those that will be enslaved in Egypt. These were the Hebrews, not Ishmael's descendants. G-d then gives the land to Abramham's seed, defined in verse 13 in verse 18. So, Submit and Meter say that there is nothing that takes away verse 18, but of course, there is nothing that repudiates verse 13 either. As for Christians, the commentaries I read all say that the land was given to the Jews, but via Jesus. None of them say to Ishmael. Here is a good link with commentary for all to read --

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/rashi/default_cdo/aid/9169/jewish/Lech-Lecha.htm.

Note especially: 19. Indeed. אִבָל is an expression of a confirmation of a statement, and likewise (below 42:21):“Indeed (אַבָל) , we are guilty;” (II Kings 4: 14):“Indeed (אַבָל), she has no son.” - [from Targumim] and you shall name him Isaac. Heb. יִצְחָק, because of the rejoicing (צְחוֹק) (Mid. Chaseroth v’Yetheroth. And some say: because of the ten (י) trials, and Sarah’s ninety (צ) years, and the eighth (ח) day on which he was circumcised, and Abraham’s hundred (ק) years. (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 32). (Other editions: “And My covenant.” Why is this written? Is it not already written (verse 9): “And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed, etc.?” But because He said (verse 7): “And I will establish, etc.,” one might think that the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah are included in the establishment [of the covenant]. Therefore, Scripture states: “And I will establish My covenant with him,” and not with others. Now, why does it say [again in verse 21]: “But My covenant I will establish with Isaac?” This teaches us that he was holy from the womb. Another explanation [for the repetition of verse 19]: Said Rabbi Abba: Scripture here derives an a fortiori conclusion regarding the son of the mistress from [what is written regarding] the son of the handmaid. It is written here: “Behold I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and I will multiply him. This refers to Ishmael. How much more so,“But My covenant I will establish with Isaac!” (Gen. Rabbah 47:5). My covenant. The covenant of circumcision shall be given over [only] to the seed of Isaac. See Sanh. 59."

So, this is not original research at all, but as Wiki prefers, a secondary source of great importance and impact of the great Rabbi Rashi.

And Submitter, please spell it correctly, "Hebrew", not "Hebrow".Sposer (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sposer. Here's another good link "http://daat.ac.il/daat///tanach/tora/bhirat-2.htm" It explains how Yishmael was excluded. אברהם נענה לזעקתה של שרה, ומוסר את הגר בידה. שרה מענה אותה, והגר בורחת. כאן אנו מוצאים את הפרישה מהמשפחה, אלא שלא ישמעאל הוא הפורש, אלא אמו, הגר. בזלזולה בשרה, הביאה עצמה למצב קשה של 'עינוי', ולבסוף ברחה מבית אברהם. המלאך המצווה עליה לחזור, מוכיח שהבריחה לא היתה לרצון ה'. הגר היתה צריכה להישאר בבית אברהם, כדי שבנה יהפוך ליורשו. בכך שהגר ברחה היא חרצה את גורל בנה, להינתק ממשפחת אברהם.

המלאך המתגלה אל הגר במדבר מורה לה לחזור, אך הוא כבר רומז לה שישמעאל בנה לא יהיה יורשו של אברהם. רבים מצאו בביטוי "ידו בכל ויד כל בו" (ט"ז, יב) רמז לכך שבני ישמעאל יהיו נוודים, ללא ארץ קבועה; בכך ביארו גם את העובדה שאין אנו מוצאים במקרא 'ארץ ישמעאל', בדומה לארצות שאר השבטים והאומות7. ועוד ביארו8, שהביטוי "ועל פני כל אחיו ישכן" משמעו שישכון למזרחם של אחיו, כמשמעות הביטוי 'על פני' במקומות רבים: "על הר הזיתים אשר על פני ירושלם מקדם" (זכריה י"ד, ד), "במדבר אשר על פני מואב ממזרח השמש" (במדבר כ"א, יא). כבר בהריונה של הגר נדחה ישמעאל מארץ ישראל, וכאמור, יש המפרשים שנדחה בפירוש למזרח, למקומם של לוט ועשו9The biblical phrases point that he will either be a nomad "Yado Bakol Veyad Col Bo" ("And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.'") or that he will be eastern to Eretz Yisrael where Lot and Esav are (check out your commentaries for this). The commentary says that 'As soon as Hagar goes into the desert she was disconnected from Abraham's house.' Amoruso (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this --

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/rashi/default_cdo/aid/9170/jewish/Vayeira.htm

Chapter 21, Gen: Chapter 21 5. And Abraham was a hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born to him. 6. And Sarah said, "God has made joy for me; whoever hears will rejoice over me." 7. And she said, "Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children, for I have borne a son to his old age!" 8. And the child grew and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. 9. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, making merry. 10. And Sarah said to Abraham,"Drive out this handmaid and her son, for the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac." 11. But the matter greatly displeased Abraham, concerning his son. 12. And God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed. 13. But also the son of the handmaid I will make into a nation, because he is your seed."

And Rashi's commentary:

6. will rejoice over me. Heb. יִצְחַק will rejoice for me (Targum Onkelos). And the Midrashic interpretation (Gen. Rabbah 53:8) is: Many barren women were remembered with her; many sick people were healed on that very day; many prayers were answered with hers, and there was much joy in the world. 7. Who would have said to Abraham. An expression of praise and esteem, as in (Isa. 41:4): “Who has wrought and done?” ; (ibid. 40:26):“Who has created these?” See what He is and Who He is (and how great He is), He Who keeps His promise! The Holy One, blessed be He, promises and does. — [based on Targum Onkelos] said. Heb. מִלֵל. Scripture uses an unusual word and does not say דִבֶּר because its numerical value [of מִלֵל] is 100, i.e., at the end of one hundred [years] of Abraham. — [from Gen. Rabbah 53:3] Sarah would nurse children. Why is “children” in the plural? On the day of the feast, the princesses brought their children with them, and she nursed them, for they were saying,“Sarah did not give birth, but brought in a foundling from the street.” - [from B.M. 87a] See above 17:16. 8. and was weaned. At the end of twenty-four months. — [from Gen. Rabbah 53:10, Keth. 60a] a great feast. for all the prominent people of the generation were there: Shem, Eber, and Abimelech. — [from Tan. Buber, Vayishlach 23] Cf. Gen. Rabbah 53:10. 9. making merry. Heb. מְצַחֵק. An expression of idolatry, as it is said (Exod. 32:6):“and they rose up to make merry” (לְצַחֵק) . Another explanation: An expression of illicit sexual relations, as it is said (below 39:17):“to mock (לְצַחֶק) me.” Another explanation: An expression of murder, as it is said (II Sam. 2:14):“Let the boys get up now and sport (וַיִשַׂחֲקוּ) before us, etc.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 53:11] 10. with my son, etc.. From Sarah’s reply, “For the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son,” you learn that he would quarrel with Isaac regarding the inheritance and say,“ I am the firstborn and should take two portions,” and they would go out to the field, and he would take his bow and shoot arrows at him, as it is said (Prov. 26:18f.): “Like one who wearies himself shooting firebrands, etc. and says: Am I not joking?” - [from above source] with my son, with Isaac. (Gen. Rabbah 53:11) Just because he is my son, even if he were not as deserving as Isaac, or [if he were] as deserving as Isaac, even if he were not my son, this one [Ishmael] does not deserve to inherit with him. How much more so [does he not deserve to inherit] with my son, with Isaac, who has both qualities!- 11. concerning his son. Because he heard that he had fallen to wicked ways (Tan. Shemoth 1). According to its simple meaning, however, [it means] because she told him to send him away. 12. hearken to her voice. (to the voice of the holy spirit within her.) We learn from here that Abraham was inferior to Sarah in prophecy. — [from Exod. Rabbah 1:1, Tan. Shemoth 1]

There is nothing regarding verse 13 here in the commentary, but the nation referred to is clearly not part of the covenant as pointed at by Rashi.Sposer (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sposer thanks for copy and past. But you show nothing to claim that Rashi excluded Ishmael from promiss yet. To exclude Ishmael from covenant is different! As I told before there is a lot of covenant in Bible and I'm not claiming that Ishmael was included in all! But please just let me know Under which verse Rashi commentator excluded Ishmael from Promiss? then if you were right you may have one commentator agree with you and I have three commentator confirm that Ishmael never excluded--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From above "9): “And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed, etc.?” But because He said (verse 7): “And I will establish, etc.,” one might think that the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah are included in the establishment [of the covenant]. Therefore, Scripture states: “And I will establish My covenant with him,” and not with others." - Him refers to Isaac. Also above other quotes from Amoruso and me saying that Ishmael does not deserve to inherit.

For Christian views see:

http://www.bible.org/qa.php?qa_id=496 http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/category/ot/file/99780.qna http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/me2.htm http://www.washingtonubf.org/BibleMaterials/Genesis2004/Genesis12_msg.html http://nigeriaworld.com/feature/publication/aneke/031706.html

Each of these state that Ishmael is not part of the covenant. Several state that through not believe in Jesus, the Jews have lost that right too. But regardless of Jewish or Christian commentaries, all say that the convenant (the land) was given to Isaac and Jacob through Abraham and that the circumcision did not confer this upon Ishmael. Sposer (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the covenant does not take back the original promise to Abraham's seed and is thus irrelevant. I have read the four texts you linked to and none of them has addressed the actual issue: That God promises the land to Abraham's descendants, explicitly including Ishmael. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It explicity states, before the land is given to his seed, that his seed were those that would be enslaved in Egypt. The commentaries all said explicity that Ishmael is not party to this inheritance. The whole point of Gen 15-21 is to explain why neither Esau's nor Ishmael's descendants are party to any of the covenants in this section. Ishmael's descendants are promised a great nation. The Arabs are a great (group of) nations. That promise has been met. Now, stop imposing your OR and POV on the article please. Sposer (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As a summary, you can not provide anywhere even in Rashi comments yet claiming that Ishmael was Excluded from the promise (Not every covenants are same for sure and we have a lot of covenants in the Bible). And we provided Gen 21:13 and Gen 15:18 from Bible that indicates that Nile to Euphrates was promissed to Abraham's Seed and Ishmael is belong to Abraham's Seed and Provided Albert Barnes , Johann Friedrich Karl Keil and John Gill that Comment under Gen 21:9-21 that Ishmael is not excluded from the promise.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you got it 100% completely and perfectly wrong. Every single one of the documents states: (1) Ishmael isn't party to any covenants, (2) Abraham's seed, in context of the Bible convenants and the land is only via the descendants of Isaac. Rashi states that the repetition in later parts of Gen is the same exact covenant and it is repeated to make it clear that Ishmael is party to nothing. The only promise given to Ishmael is that he would be a great nation. The commentaries specifically state that Ishmael is worthy of nothng else due to his nature ("a wild ass of a man" or something like that). You and meteormaker are twisting, or ignoring or something that I cannot figure out what I wrote. But, what I wrote is irrelevant. What is important is that every mainstream commentary everywhere states the same exact thing.Sposer (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My friend,You cannot even show a simple thing confirming your claims yet! Rashi excluded Ishmael from a covenant! And commented nothing under Gen 21:13 that's it!!! That is not mean that Ishmael was excluded from promise!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to do this word-by-word. I have already gone through the part you ignore where G-d states that Abraham's seed will be enslaved, and follows immediately (five verses later) with the covenant. Right there, Ishamel is expressly excluded. Let's follow line by line then. I am removing the ":" to make this easier and take up less space.

Genesis 15:13

And He said to Abram, "You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years.

Rashi's Commentary reflects information on whom the seed is too, Isaac's descendants only:

that your seed will be strangers. From the time that Isaac was born until the Israelites left Egypt was four hundred years. How so? Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob was born, and Jacob, when he went down to Egypt, said,“The days of the years of my sojournings are one hundred and thirty years,” which total 190. They were in Egypt 210 years, like the numerical value of רְדוּ (See Rashi, below 42:2.) ר = 200 ד = 4 ו = 6 = 210 Thus, the total is 400 years. Now, if you should say that they were 400 years in Egypt, [this is not so] because Kehath was one of those who descended to Egypt. If you compute the years of Kehath (133) and those of Amram (his son, 137), and the 80 years of Moses, his age when they left Egypt, you will find only 350 [years]. And you must still subtract from them all the years that Kehath lived after the birth of Amram and that Amram lived after the birth of Moses. [from Seder Olam ch. 3] in a land that is not theirs. It does not say, “in the land of Egypt,” but, “[in a land] that is not theirs,” and from the time Isaac was born (below 21:34): “and Abraham sojourned, etc.” (Below 20:1): “And [Isaac] sojourned in Gerar.” (Ps. 105:23): “And Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.” (Below 47:4):“To sojourn in the land we have come.” - [from Mid. Abchir]

Genesis 15:14

And also the nation that they will serve will I judge, and afterwards they will go forth with great possessions.

Rashi's Commentary says the nation is Israel, i.e., Jacob's descendants. He points out the nations that will be punished are those that enslaved Jacob's descendants:

And also the nation. [The word] וְגַם, [and also], is to include the four kingdoms (Babylon, Persia and Media, Greece, and Edom), for they too will perish because they enslaved Israel. [from Gen. Rabbah 44:19] will I judge. with ten plagues. [from Gen. Rabbah 44:20] with great possessions. with much money, as it is said (Exod. 12:36): “and they emptied out Egypt.”

Genesis 15:18, The Covenant

. On that day, the Lord formed a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river.

And Rashi's Commentary does not reflect on whom the seed is, since that is made clear above:

To your seed I have given. The word of the Holy One, blessed be He, is like an accomplished fact. the great river, the Euphrates river. Since it is associated with the Land of Israel, He calls it great, even though it is the last of the four rivers going forth from Eden, as it is said (above 2:14): “and the fourth river that is the Euphrates.” A common proverb states: “A king’s servant is a king; associate with a ruler, and people will bow down to you.” - [from Sifrei Devarim 6]

Genesis 17:2, Again the Covenant

And I will place My covenant between Me and between you, and I will multiply you very greatly."

And Rashi's commentary stating this is about the land and love for Abraham for obeying G-d

And I will place My covenant. A covenant of love and the covenant of the land, to give it to you as a heritage through [your fulfillment of] this commandment. — [from Gen. Rabbah 46:9]

Gen 17:6, The Nations from Abraham

And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings will emerge from you.

And Rashi pointing out that the nations are not about Ishmael:

and I will make you into nations. [This refers to] Israel and Edom, for he already had Ishmael, and He would therefore not be informing him about him.

Gen 17:7-8, The Covenant as his G-d and the Land of Canaan

And I will establish My covenant between Me and between you and between your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be to you for a God and to your seed after you. 8. And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a God."

And Rashi's comment as to what this covenant is:

7. And I will establish My covenant. And what is that covenant? To be to you for a God. 8. for an everlasting possession. And there I will be to you for a God (Gen. Rabbah 46:9), but if one dwells outside the Holy Land, it is as though he has no God (Keth. 110b).

Gen 17:19-21, excluding Ishmael

And God said, "Indeed, your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. 20. And regarding Ishmael, I have heard you; behold I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and I will multiply him exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year."

And Rashi's Commentary: Indeed. אִבָל is an expression of a confirmation of a statement, and likewise (below 42:21):“Indeed (אַבָל) , we are guilty;” (II Kings 4: 14):“Indeed (אַבָל), she has no son.” - [from Targumim] and you shall name him Isaac. Heb. יִצְחָק, because of the rejoicing (צְחוֹק) (Mid. Chaseroth v’Yetheroth. And some say: because of the ten (י) trials, and Sarah’s ninety (צ) years, and the eighth (ח) day on which he was circumcised, and Abraham’s hundred (ק) years. (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 32). (Other editions: “And My covenant.” Why is this written? Is it not already written (verse 9): “And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed, etc.?” But because He said (verse 7): “And I will establish, etc.,” one might think that the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah are included in the establishment [of the covenant]. Therefore, Scripture states: “And I will establish My covenant with him,” and not with others. Now, why does it say [again in verse 21]: “But My covenant I will establish with Isaac?” This teaches us that he was holy from the womb. Another explanation [for the repetition of verse 19]: Said Rabbi Abba: Scripture here derives an a fortiori conclusion regarding the son of the mistress from [what is written regarding] the son of the handmaid. It is written here: “Behold I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and I will multiply him.” This refers to Ishmael. How much more so,“But My covenant I will establish with Isaac!” (Gen. Rabbah 47:5). My covenant. The covenant of circumcision shall be given over [only] to the seed of Isaac. See Sanh. 59. 20. twelve princes. Heb. נְשִׂיאִים. They will disappear like clouds, as (Prov. 25:14): Clouds (נְשִׂיאִים) and wind. — [from Gen. Rabbah 47:5]

Gen 21:1, Sarah is pregnant

And the Lord remembered Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken.

And Rashi's commentary relates it back to the covenant in Gen 15:

And the Lord remembered Sarah, etc.. (B.K 92a) This section was placed next to [the preceding section] to teach you that whoever begs for mercy for his friend, when he needs the same thing, he is answered first, for it is said (verse 17) “And Abraham prayed, etc.,” and immediately following it, “And the Lord remembered Sarah,” i.e., He had already remembered her before He healed Abimelech. — remembered Sarah as He had said. Concerning [the promise of] conception. — as He had spoken. Concerning [the promise of] birth. Now where is [the expression] “saying” and where is [the expression] “speaking” ? “Saying” (אִמִירה) is mentioned (above 17:19):“And God said (וַיֹאמֶר) : Indeed, your wife Sarah, etc…”“Speaking” (דִבוּר) [is mentioned] (above 15:1):“The word of (דְבַר) the Lord came to Abram,” in the Covenant Between the Parts, where it is stated (ibid. 4):“This one [Eliezer] will not inherit you, etc.” and He brought forth the heir from Sarah. and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken. to Abraham.

Gen 21:10, Sarah's disapproval of Ishmael

And Sarah said to Abraham,"Drive out this handmaid and her son, for the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac."

And Rashi's commentary:

with my son, etc.. From Sarah’s reply, “For the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son,” you learn that he would quarrel with Isaac regarding the inheritance and say,“ I am the firstborn and should take two portions,” and they would go out to the field, and he would take his bow and shoot arrows at him, as it is said (Prov. 26:18f.): “Like one who wearies himself shooting firebrands, etc. and says: Am I not joking?” - [from above source] with my son, with Isaac. (Gen. Rabbah 53:11) Just because he is my son, even if he were not as deserving as Isaac, or [if he were] as deserving as Isaac, even if he were not my son, this one [Ishmael] does not deserve to inherit with him. How much more so [does he not deserve to inherit] with my son, with Isaac, who has both qualities!-

Gen 21:12-13 - Isaac is his seed, so is Ishmael, but no place is the covenant related to Ismael, and it is explicitly not given to him elsewhere

And God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed. 13. But also the son of the handmaid I will make into a nation, because he is your seed."

Rashi find no need to comment on 13, because 13 does not discuss the land or the covenant

hearken to her voice. (to the voice of the holy spirit within her.) We learn from here that Abraham was inferior to Sarah in prophecy. — [from Exod. Rabbah 1:1, Tan. Shemoth 1]

Further this commentary regarding Gen 15 and on (http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/3161/jewish/Lech-Lecha.htm):

G-d seals the Covenant Between the Parts with Abram, in which the exile and persecution (Galut) of the people of Israel is foretold and the Holy Land is bequeathed to them as their eternal heritage

Still childless ten years after their arrival in the Land, Sarai tells Abram to marry her maidservant Hagar. Hagar conceives, becomes insolent toward her mistress, and then flees when Sarai treats her harshly; an angel convinces her to return and tells her that her son will father a populous nation. Ishmael is born in Abram's 86th year.

Thirteen years later, G-d changes Abram's name to Abraham ("father of multitudes") and Sarai's to Sarah ("princess"), and promises that a son will be born to them; from this child, whom they should call Isaac ("will laugh"), will stem the great nation with which G-d will establish His special bond. Abraham is commanded to circumcise himself and his descendents as a "sign of the covenant between Me and you."

-- So, this too says the covenant is between G-d and Abraham's descendants through Isaac, exactly as I have said many times already.

And finally, this commentary which states that the covenant of the land in Gen 15 is with the Jewish people (http://www.chabad.org/parshah/in-depth/default_cdo/aid/35872/jewish/In-Depth.htm ):

The Covenant

Abram's amazing victory, in which he and a handful of servants and friends defeated the armies which had terrorized the entire region, evoked in him not feelings of satisfaction and self-confidence, but of humility and inadequacy. Certainly, he thought to himself, the miracles which G-d had performed for him had more than rewarded all his good deeds; he felt shorn of his merits and no longer worthy of the blessings which G-d had bestowed upon him.

And of what use are all these blessings, he further mused, if he and Sarai are childless? Abram had passed his seventh decade, and Sarai was but ten years younger; what was the point of their achievements, if there would be no one to carry on their name and path?

G-d appears to Abram in a vision to reassure him: "Fear not, Abram, I am your protector; your reward will yet be great." G-d also reiterates His promise of the great nation which will issue from him. Earlier, G-d had promised Abram that his progeny shall be as numerous as the dust of the earth; now He compared them to the stars of the heavens:

He took him outside, and said: "Look now toward heaven and count the stars, if you be able to count them So shall be your offspring."

And further down, the final bit, which says it all outright:

Sarah, G-d promises, will bear a son, from whom shall spring the great nation which is to issue from them.

Abraham fell on his face and laughed. And he said in his heart: Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth?

And Abraham said to G-d: "O that Ishmael shall live before You!"

No, said, G-d, the nation with which I shall establish My special bond will be the offspring of a child that will be born to you and Sarah, whom you should name Isaac (Yitzchak, in the Hebrew, meaning "laughter"). Ishmael, too shall be blessed: "I will make him fruitful, and multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year."

So, the Hebrew Bible, according to the clear wording, and its greatest commentators all agree: The Land between the Great River of Egypt and the Euphrates was given to Isaac's descendants, via Abraham, period, end of discussion. Sposer (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Torah then describes how G-d and Abram forged a special covenant -- the "Covenant Between the Parts" -- in which the destiny of the Jewish people was foretold. The Holy Land is bequeathed to them as their eternal heritage, but first they must experience galut (exile and persecution). (sorry, preceding was part of 21:59 edit of sposer as well, put the tildes in the wrong place) Sposer (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Submitter to Truth; if Ishmael has a Biblical claim; then when was Ishmael in possession of the Land of Israel? Was Ishmael enslaved in Egypt? Why didn't Ishmael claim the Land of Israel when the Children of Israel entered it 3380 years ago? Itzse (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sposer, I don't know about the others, But I'm the one that read all your long comment, word by word, and I learned that you have absolutly nothing from Rashi to claim that Ishmael was excluded from the promise of the land that God gave from Nile to Euphrate to Abraham's Seed. I know that God mad a special covenant with Isaac and Ishmael was not included in it. But that is not mean that Ishmael was excluded from promise of land. About enslaving in Egypt also no verse state that all Abraham's seed will enslave there! Also My friend,Itzse, Children of Israel never possessed Nile to Euphrate they are just possessed Canaan and Ishmailiteis was possessed many parts of it for years.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Obviously, you have your opinion, and you are entitled to it. And, you are absolutely correct and have proven for me that there is no place where all of Abraham's seed were enslaved in Egypt is mentioned in the Bible. That is my point. Only Jacob's descendants were enslaved there, and that is to whom G-d gave the land. Thank-you, you've proved the point that is (a) Explicitly stated in the bible, and (b) Explicitly stated in the commentaries I've included. I will include no more. It is proven as much as anything can be proven from the Bible (i.e., I am not saying that I agree or disagree with anything in the Bible, but that this is what the Bible undeniably states). As far as I am concerned, I have spent way too much time trying to explain this already, when there is no need to. G-d gave the land to Jacob's descendants, period, end of discussion. I will respond no more to your POV and OR. Sposer (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the above discussion. It is both long and interesting and my intention is simply to say that I do not think the current edited status of the Wikipedia article accurately reflects the above discussion in its entirety, given that neither 'side' has conclusive 'proof' - see Sposer's last comment "as much as anything can be proven from the Bible".

To take the disccusion onto a slightly different level, having read the Wiki entry for Israel, which states that it derives from the Biblical idea of the Land of Israel, I would say this. Look to Moses's comments in the 28th Chapter to Deut., which bear a certain resonance for the recent sufferings of World Jewry... scattered among the peoples, one end of the earth to the other etc. However, I would suggest that, reading much further into the OT, the divine promises to the patriarchs have been annulled by the national apostasy; and when the Assyrian captivity removed the population of Samaria and the Babylonian captivity of the people of Judah, the prophets saw in these disasters a vindication of the divine justice on a disobedient and gain-saying people. But they taught their people that a *remnant would return*. The Jews *did* return to Judea, they *did* rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and they *did* rebuild the temple; and after fluctuating fortunes, they *did* secure a brief period of political independence and expansion under the Maccabees. I realise I am painting with a broad brush here, but the key point is the past tense of the word "did"... Thus, the prophecies of the *Return* have been fulfilled, and they cannot be fulfilled again. Within the canonical literature of the OT, there is no prophecy of a second return after the return from the Babylonian exile, because a.) After the Exile all the Jews who wished to do so had returned to the Holy Land, though a great many more preferred to remain where they were, and they formed the Diaspora, which afterwards became the backbone of the Christian Church, and b.) the last of the prophets died centuries before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojh23 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain below how I am supposed to 'sign my post'. The instructions on the Wiki page seem to presume the user has a PhD in IT. - OJH23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojh23 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ojh23, As far as I can read it, the Bible EXPLICITLY states that the covenant was with Jacobs descendants only. It is those with a POV otherwise that ignore outright statements. However, Wiki policy says that the Bible is not the best source for the Bible, so we use other commentators. Those that do not seem to have a POV, use these many explicit statements that are part of what I had been talking about before, in showing why Ishmael's descendants are not part of the Covenant. I have no arguments with whether today's Jewish people have a Biblical right to the land or not. That is way beyond my knowledge base and I have no desire to become embroiled in that sort of stuff. I am not a fan of any fundamentalist view of any religion.

My comment regarding to the degree that anything can be proved in the Bible basically reflects the thought process that, if you believe that the Bible was handed down by G-d, the Jews were the Chosen People, so it makes sense that is to whom the Land of Israel was given. If you believe in the documentary hypothesis, since the accepted versions of the Bible are essentially those edited by the Jews, one would assume they would have removed anything that would question their right to the land, so it has to be people twisting words to even suggest that the Jewish editors of the Bible would have put anything to contradict the idea that the Land was given to the Jews. Simple logic. OR, of course, but this is the talk page. Think about it. :-) Sposer (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To sign & timestamp, simply type four tildes (these: ~), or click on the squiggle symbol just above the editing window & to the right of the red circle. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and Biblical roots rewrite

I clarified this paragraph. I tried to be as concise, clear and NPOV as possible, which is essentially impossible here. Before reverting, first think of how you could improve the text. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Emmanuel for your effort. Just what I wanted to edit is the two words everlasting and Jewish in the following sentence:

... everlasting possession to the "descendants" of Jewish patriarchs ...

What is the root of this claims? Many times in the history God himself take back the land from Israelities because of their sins and that shows simply that the possession is not everlasting also calling Abraham a Jewish is very intresting and funny if we know jewish as the Moses religion while Moses comes at least 400 years after Abraham! And if we define Jewish as a descendant of Judah also it is not true so the two words seems incorrect to me.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Submitter, I do not understand you comment. The word "everlasting" appears nowhere in the current article and I did not use the word "Jewish" in my rewrite of this section. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry! You are right. I confused!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any etymolocial link between Azrael and Israel (or the roots of these words)? I saw that Azrael may be spelled Izrael. Or is this just a coincidence? --Kebman (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

The previous intro was too short (see WP:LEAD) and erroneously referred to Jews. I am sure you disagree but, for a change, don't kvetch. Instead, edit the text to show us what you want. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cut the part about it being approx. Canaan, Canaan did not include the areas of Reuben, Gad and eastern Manasseh. The borders in Genesis and Deuteronomy (as opposed to Numbers which is really talking about the land to be settled by 9.5 of the tribes) are vast, much bigger than Canaan and certainly bigger than the Roman Syria-Palestina. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Land of Israel same as Land of Canaan?

Ghost, Numbers 34 plainly states that Canaan is the promised land. I found a source (Schweid) saying they are two names for the same land; could you please find a source saying they are not? Emmanuelm (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look, another published opinion: According to the Old Testament the Land of Canaan was the land of promise, or, simply, Israel's land. (added in footnote: Although the borders of the 'Land of canaan' and 'the land of Israel' are not always the same.) Emmanuelm (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion, actually a very detailed article on the subject from The Jewish Theological Seminary, which includes a map called The Boundaries of the Land of Canaan/Israel According to Num. 34:1–12, Josh. 15:2–4, and Ezek. 47:13–48:29. . Emmanuelm (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That footnote cannot be swept aside. The point is the detailed borders of Numbers for the settlement of 9.5 tribes are of Eretz Canaan, thats what numbers says and its the borders that the Israelites were told to conquer and settle so its the borders of "Israel" in that sense. However the borders in Genesis and Deuteronomy are also referred to as borders of Eretz Yisrael and describe a vaster region of which Canaan is one small part. Even in Numbers 2.5 of the Israelite tribes have land outside Canaan making that region only a part of "Israel" even in Numbers. The term "Promised Land" can be used either for the borders of Genesis and Deuteronomy or for the region of Canaan, the usage for Canaan is more common as the expression is usually connected with Moses and the exodus from Egypt and the subsequent settlement in Canaan. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghost, thank you for presenting your personal opinion -- again. The point here is that Wikipedia is not a salon discussion. One of its pillars is WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth . I found three published, authoritative sources about this issues. I will include them in the text soon. Please find authors that support your opinion. Note: the Bible itself is a primary source; Wikipedia favours secondary sources, i.e. published commentaries. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What personal opinion? I actually don't understand for what you are requesting sources? You know quite well what the primary references are, they are all over the article. For secondary references take the Judaica article on Canaan for example, but secondary sources simply repeat what one can find in the primary sources. Numbers 34 states explicitly that it is talking about the borders of Eretz Canaan and it is a verifiable fact that Genesis and Deuteronomy describe a significantly larger area, to verify simply open your Bible and read what it says! The passages are included in footnotes to the article. It is a verifiable fact that 2.5 of the Israelites tribes live outside the borders of Canaan, open Numbers and read what it says. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article as is covers the different border definitions quite well and explains that the Numbers borders (Eretz Canaan) are the area allocated to 9.5 tribes after the exodus while the Genesis borders are correctly explained as the full area in the promise to Abaraham. Lets leave well enough alone. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A map compairing Modern state of Israel and Biblical Land of Israel needed!

I think it's very good to have a map that compairing current days state of Israel borders with Old biblical borders defining the land of Israel. The guys that draw the other maps can help do this as well.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the same but here's amap showing David's kingdom and modern Israel Amoruso (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Submitter, both my maps outline the modern State of Israel in light green. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Nice one. Amoruso (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Location of Mount Hor

There is a discussion about the location of the Northern Mount Hor in the talk page of the map Land Israel. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

History vs. Promises

With all due respect to the biblical promise, "Land of Israel" can refer to both the "promised land" and also to simply the Land that the 12 tribes ruled. i.e. the "historical homeland". The article's introduction seems to focus only on one of the two possibilities. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 07:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The expression Land of Israel is used mainly by Ezekiel, and only in reference to the land promised by God. This article makes a clear distinction between this "theoretical" land and the land actually ruled by Israelites at various times in history. Currently, when Likud talks about the Land of Israel, they talk about full annexation of the West Bank and Gaza (Greater Israel), which looks more like the Ezekiel map than the 12 tribes map. Could you please provide examples to support your point? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a reliable source supporting your interpretation of what the Likud means? Regardless, Likud's interpretations don't exactly change the "less godly" meaning of the term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a reliable source supporting your interpretation of what the Likud means? The article quotes the Likud platform. Reliable enough for you, Jaak? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Emmanuelm,

No offense intended but that source does not answer my concern. I was asking for a reliable source that explains the interpretation of what the Likud means, not one that simply has the Likud use the term 'Land of Israel'. I have no issues with the mention of Likud's usage of the term but I do want this to be presented accurately and without 'biblical promise' emphasis which doesn't exist in the original.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaak, sorry for being flippant. Here is the whole paragraph from the same Likud platform:

Settlements. The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

From this, I understand that, to Likud, the Land of Israel is the current state of Israel augmented with the Palestinian territories (West bank and Gaza). It does not include the Golan nor Lebanon. I included this whole quote in the article and clarified. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your interpretation is false. The Likud party makes no mention of biblical promise and this is the very problem with the current article - a mix-up between the historical kingdom of the 12 tribes of Israel and between the Biblical promise. May I ask, why is the historical note of the 12 tribes being ignored in the lead of the article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is confusion about the denotation of the term "Land of Israel", that should be reflected in the lead. The official political platform of Likud [14] indeed uses the term, as has been shown:

"Settlement of the land is a clear expression of 'the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel'[...]"

(Emphasis mine). Clearly it's not incorrect to state that "The Land of Israel concept is part of the political platform of the Likud". MeteorMaker (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Likud issue

Two Questions:

1. Is there a source linking the Likud's use of "Land of Israel" to the "bibilical promise" narrative of this article? Best I can see it is linked only to the "non promised" land under control of the 12 tribes of israel. i.e. includes Judea and Samaria alone.[15]
2. Can it please be explained what makes the Likud infromation relevant to the lead[16][17] of the article? Are there multiple secondary references mentioning this as a notable issue?

Appreciate the replies, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be split into Land of Israel (Biblical) and Land of Israel (political)? It is confusing that both are called the same thing. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. What do you think of a 'Land of Israel (biblical promise)' and 'Land of Israel (12 tribes)'? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense at all. If by Land of Israel (12 tribes) you mean the actual area settled by the 12 tribes well that can be covered in the Israelites article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection with an article titled Land of Israel (12 tribes) being redirected to the Israelites article, that would make good sense. I was more concerned that this article is written as though the term Land of Israel is only applicable to the biblical promise, an issue which should be clarified and fixed. What do you think about renaming the article to my suggestion and adding a redirect to the Israelites/Land of Israel (12 tribes) article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The lack of Biblical support for the Isaac-only interpretation

The article claims that "the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac", but that has not been shown to have support in the Bible, neither in the article or in the previous discussions. The best evidence presented so far is an anonymous personal speculation on a non-notable Bible site[18].

To recapitulate: In Gen 15:18, God says "To thy seed will I give this land, from the river to Egypt even to the great river Euphrates" and in Gen 21:13: "And also of the son of the bondwoman [ie Ishmael] will I make a nation, because he is thy seed".

Ishmael is thus explicitly included in the group that God promises the land to. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that he or his descendants are excluded and that the promise is good for Isaac only.

This has been discussed in the section above, but we didn't reach a conclusion or consensus. If no new evidence surfaces this time, my suggestion is that we at least qualify the claim with "According to one interpretation" or something similar. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim is also in the lead, with a link [19] to a quote by Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki. The quote does not seem to support the claim though:

He [the Canaanite] was gradually conquering the Land of Israel from the descendants of Shem, for it fell in Shem’s share when Noah apportioned the land to his sons, as it is said (below 14: 18):“And Malchizedek the king of Salem.” Therefore, (below verse 7): And the Lord said to Abram: To your seed will I give this land. I am destined to restore it to your children, who are of the descendants of Shem. [from Sifra, end of Kedoshim]

(Shem was one of Abraham's ancestors, and thus an ancestor of all his children, not just Isaac). Again, no mention of the alleged disinheritance of Abraham's son Ishmael. This needs to be resolved. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It took you three months to come back to your fabrications. Every single one of the people YOU gave me agreed with the interpretation. Furthermore, at that time, scholarship shows that the son of a slave (bondwoman) is not eligible for any inheritance. Chabad is a notable site, as there are the top scholars in the Hebrew Bible and they are quoting ancient scholars as well. You are interpreting, while I am presenting scholarship and fact.Sposer (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabrications?

The question I and SubmitterToTruth raised cannot be dismissed as a "fabrication". Your recollection of "people I gave you [that] agreed with [your] interpretation" doesn't seem entirely based in reality though.

None of the quotes you have presented address the Biblical fact that God promised the land to all of Abraham's offspring, without exclusion. Yes, the covenant is with Isaac — but the covenant is a separate matter with little bearing on the promise of the land between the Great River and the River of Egypt. We've been through that already. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)"

Sorry, it was submitter who gave the names of these bible experts and I went through them and every one of them stated that the covenant was with Isaac's descendants only. All scholarship that I could find defined Abraham's seed for the purpose of that covenant only as through Isaac but one, and that one (I do not remember which one) said that it wasn't 100% clear). The covenant is not a separate matter. That is your OR. And again, the scholarship says the earlier mention of the seed foretells the covenant with Isaac. I do not honestly remember where I saw that, and I am not going through this again. I proved it about 500 times already and it has stood as such since that time. Only you and submitter have questioned it.Sposer (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, Chabad.Org is showing Rashii's commentary, and he is considered the greatest commentator ever (Submitter did not disagree). Also, in Chapter 15 G-d defines Abram's seed as Isaac and Jacob according to the same commentary, and earlier the commentary notes that Abram has no seed, but Abraham does, but he was not known as Abraham until Sarah gave birth (she was Sarai until Isaac was born). The promise in Chap. 12 is further explained in the continuing chapters. It is the same land and the same promise and it is for the descendants of ABRAHAM (and Ishmael is a descendant of Abram) through Isaac and Jacob. This is the end of my discussion. Been through it a dozen times with you and Submitter. You can wish all you want and put your own OR on it, but a simple straightforward reading of the Bible, coupled with virtually all of the Bible scholarship says the exact same thing.Sposer (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If a simple straightforward reading of the Bible lends support to the hypothesis that God selectively revoked his promise to Abraham's seed, it should be easy to find a verse that says so. There doesn't appear to be such a verse, or it would have been presented by now.

Let's take a look at the facts. We have seen that in Gen 15:18, God promises the land from the river to Egypt to the Euphrates to Abraham's descendants. In Gen 21:13, Ishmael is explicitly included in this group. That much we agree about (I assume).

Now, Sarah interferes and has Ishmael cast out. Still, there is no account of God excluding Ishmael or his descendants from the group the area was promised to. He even settles in it (in Paran), like most of his offspring. If that was against God's will, it would probably have been mentioned in the Bible.

The promise of the land is not said to be part of the covenant, on the contrary, it is stated as fait accompli at the time the covenant is made (Gen 15:18).

The claim that Ishmael was not a descendant of Abraham because of Abraham's name change is so absurd that you have to back it up with a link. If Rashi actually said that, he's really grasping at straws. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for proving my point (or ignoring what I just wrote and highlighting the exact part of the Bible that proves the point). That is the exact area where I just showed that Ishmael is excluding, according to Rashi's commentary. On top of that, in those same sentences, G-d describes Abraham's seed as the people exiled to Egypt, which was only the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (later in the Bible, called Israel, for the land his descendants received).Sposer (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned two Bible verses, Gen 15:18 and Gen 21:13. If one of them proves your point, like you say, could you please indicate which one?

It's also worth noting that in those same sentences, "a land that is not theirs" is never identified with Egypt, or even fixated at a particular point in time (apart from the 400-year duration). FWIW, Gen 15:13-16 aren't even God speaking, they are attributed to "an horror of great darkness". MeteorMaker (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact tag I added [20] has been removed and replaced with yet another link to the same passage by Rashi. As already noted, that link does not appear to support the claim that the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob at all. I suggest the link be removed and the fact tag restored. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Added more sources. See especially this one, which outright says that the heir is through Isaac only: http://www.godrules.net/library/edersheim/ederb1c13.htm. The prior one from the same source says that G-d rejects Ishmael. Additionally, it is G-d that tells Abram that his seed will be in exile. And, though Egypt is not specifically mentioned, that is the interpretation by Rashii. I didn't look to see if that is discussed in the link I just sent. But that link specifically says that G-d stated that his seed would be exile and not some "horror or great darkness". Look at the Bible. It says "He". "He" is G-d. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And from Albert Barnes: Genesis 15:13-15 "And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age."

Know, know thou. - Know certainly. This responds to Abram's question, Whereby shall I know? (Genesis 15:8). Four hundred years are to elapse before the seed of Abram shall actually proceed to take possession of the land. This interval can only commence when the seed is born; that is, at the birth of Isaac, when Abram was a hundred years of age and therefore thirty years after the call. During this interval they are to be, "first, strangers in a land not theirs" for one hundred and ninety years; and then for the remaining two hundred and ten years in Egypt: at first, servants, with considerable privilege and position; and at last, afflicted serfs, under a hard and cruel bondage. At the end of this period Pharaoh and his nation were visited with a succession of tremendous judgments, and Israel went out free from bondage "with great wealth" Exo. 12-14. "Go to thy fathers." This implies that the fathers, though dead, still exist. To go from one place to another implies, not annihilation, but the continuance of existence. The doctrine of the soul's perpetual existence is here intimated. Abram died in peace and happiness, one hundred and fifteen years before the descent into Egypt." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Meteor, will you ever stop?

Genesis 17: 17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" 18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!" 19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. Amen. Emmanuelm (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuel, please take the time to read the discussion before you begin to make requests and post the same quote that has been posted dozens of times before. Again, the Euphrates-to-Egypt land donation was given to all Abraham's descendants before the covenant and is not said to be a part of it.

Now, I'm sure there's more than one rabbi that has interpreted it that way anyway, so there's a good probability you can find a source for the claim despite the fact that it doesn't have biblical support, just like Sposer above. I am looking through his cites and will comment later. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources I gave you do not even refer to Chapter 17. They refer to 12&15 as not including Ishmael. The Biblical support is 100% exactly that Ishmael and his descendants are not part of this covenant. It is your own interpretation and unwillingness to read what is there (i.e., it is G-d telling Abram that his seed will be in exile), but rather, in your own belief, clouding the absolutely and irrefutable and straight out statements. I reviewed all of the sources that Submitter mentioned and they, in most cases, say outright that G-d rejected Ishmael with regard to the land. You can try to interpret it anyway you want, or interpret the interpretations, but those were direct quotes, and only one was a Rabbi. The rest were Christian commentators.Sposer (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sposer: I was replying to EmmanuelM, and he indeed quoted Gen 17. If you insist there exists explicit Biblical support in Gen 12 and 15 for the all-land-to-Isaac hypothesis, you are encouraged to point out exactly where you see it (and to avoid further rehashing of the same argument, I repeat we are not discussing the covenant here, we are discussing the question who exactly the receivers are of God's land handout). I am not finished checking your links yet, though of the first six, only one (Barnes) appears to offer you bona fide support. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You choose to ignore. I already told you where the seed is defined as those in exile. Ishmael's descendants were never in exile. You choose to ignore facts. You choose to ignore almost every one of the commentaries I gave you which say that Ishmael was rejected by G-d and was not party to the land. The covenant in 17 is the promise of the land anyway, although that need not be discussed. In 15 Abram says that he has no seed to receive the land, and G-d identifies that he will, and that seed will be in exile. That is the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (i.e., not Esau either). End of discussion. I refuse to continue this. I showed the sources three months ago, and did it again. Enough!Sposer (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How offspring can be "defined" any other way than biologically is beyond me, and I've already posted a rebuttal to that objection. To recapitulate:

• The Bible doesn't in fact give a point in time for the exile. It is quite possible that it occurs at different time for different subsets of the offsprings, and may not even have happened yet for some. One of the commentators you've linked to does agree with your interpretation however.
• The "he" that tells about the exile can be interpreted as God, but that's not the straightforward reading. The nearest preceding occurrences of "he" in the text refer to Abraham for instance. Immediately before the "he" in question, Gen 15:12-13 say:

15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.

• Most importantly, the seed in verse 13 is clearly not all of Abraham's offspring — if that were the case, every single descendant would be in exile for 400 years. Clearly an interpretation that doesn't hold up.

Still perusing the cites you provided (I get the impression I'm reading them more thoroughly than you did — I base that impression on the fact that so many of them in fact don't discuss the land grant question at all). MeteorMaker (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) "He" is capitalized and is G-d. The horror would be a dream or something. (2) Exactly, "all" his seed were not in exile. That is what I am saying, and for the 100th time, you prove my point. The only seed in exile were those descended from Isaac and Jacob (Israel). And those were who were the heirs to the land. (3) All the commentaries say exactly that: Abram's seed DOES NOT INCLUDE ISHMAEL and Abram's seed is what gets the land grant. Enough already.Sposer (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) "He" is capitalized because "He" is the first word of the sentence.

(2) We agree then, that was my point too: All his seed were not in exile, but the land was given to all his seed, without exception. Thus the sets aren't congruent.

(3) I have now read all the commentaries (see below) and can inform you that only two of them say what you claim they say.

• Rashi: As I've pointed out numerous times, there is no support whatsoever for the all-land-to-Isaac hypothesis in the cite given, so it should be removed.
• Edersheim 1:10: Can't find anything there either. Could you indicate a particular passage?
• Edersheim 1:13: Here, he in fact separates the covenant and the land donation, which agrees with my interpretation:

This was [...] the first stage of the covenant[...]. At the same time, what may be called the personal promise to Abram was also enlarged, and the boundaries of the land clearly defined as stretching from the Nile in the west, to the Euphrates in the east [...]. (Emphasis mine)

• Albert Barnes: Finally some bona fide support for your hypothesis (albeit by a quite controversial scholar, apparently).

"Four hundred years are to elapse before the seed of Abram shall actually proceed to take possession of the land. This interval can only commence when the seed is born; that is, at the birth of Isaac[...]"

"In that instant the covenant was solemnly completed. Its primary form of benefit is the grant of the promised land [...]"

• John Gill: No obvious support, except he does truncate the set "Abraham's offspring" to "Isaac and his offspring", contrary to the plain reading of the Bible.
• Parshah Lech-Lecha: Only talking about the covenant and not the land issue.
• Bible.org: Agrees with you, although the text appears to have been written by somebody non-notable (and anonymous) with no more credibility than the average blogger.
• Thirdmill.org: Again, only mentions the covenant.
• Christianleadershipcenter.org: Does not list the land among the promises to Ishmael, which would constitute support for your hypothesis.

Conclusion: You've found two reasonably good cites by recognized Bible scholars (Barnes, Dr Ross@Christianleadershipcenter.org), two questionable, and five that don't state anything at all about the land issue. Keep the two good ones, delete the rest. We still haven't seen any explicit Biblical corroboration, but for WP, a noted scholar's opinion is sufficient, so I will not return to this matter unless I happen to find a cite by a scholar with an opposing view. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

With all the bible quotes it seems odd that some seemingly simple ones were missed!

1. Genesis 28:13 (G-d says to Jacob in his dream) "The land that you lie upon to you I will give and to your offspring (children)."

No where in the bible does G-d say to Jacob or any of the other prophets that his children will have to share that land with other children of Abraham. It seems clear that G-d is giving the land to the children of Jacob, also called Israel, to the exclusion of all the other children of Abraham.

2. Genesis 22:2 "And (G-d) He said (to Abraham) please take your son, your only, that you love, Isaac and go you to the land of Moriah..."

Here we can clearly see that G-d refers to Isaac as the only offspring of Abraham.

3. Genesis 21:10 "And (Sarah) she said to Abraham, send away (expel) this maid servant and her son because the son of this maid servant will not inherit with my son, with Isaac. And this was very bad in the eyes of Abraham because of his son. And G-d said to Abraham, it shouldn't be bad in your eyes (to send away) for your son and for your maid servant, everything Sarah tells you listen to her voice, because in Isaac will seed be called for you."

Again it is pretty clear and apparent that G-d did not want Ishmael to inherit with Isaac, land or any other property, and that it was only in Isaac (i.e. his offspring) that would be called the seed of Abraham.

--Zalmank (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Greater Israel

I am again removing the claim that Genesis 15 defines something known traditionally as "The Complete Land of Israel" or "Greater Israel" the two references supposedly supporting this claim in fact show that these are modern political terms typically used as a calumny. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a mention of Greater Israel in the discussion of Likud. I hope I got it right this time! Emmanuelm (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Greater Israel is a reference to the biblical promise of "from the Prath to the Hidekel". It is not a reference to the post-1967 war Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you understand the meaning of "Greater Israel" better than Olmert? Not. I reverted your deletion of that short sentence because I feel that "Greater Israel" must figure somewhere in this article.

By the way, Hiddekel is the Tigris. Wrong river. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on why you'd suggest that Greater Isreal is interpreted as anything other than the biblical promise; There's a reason the Irgun symbol looks the way it does. My Prath and Hidekel statement is indeed a minor error (Genesis 16 - River of Egypt and Parth). Still, no offense meant but, I request that you take a step back from changing the content of this article if your expertiese on these topics is based solely on a personal reading of how Olmert allegedly interprets the term. Try to give a bit more respect to input of fellow editors and work for consensus.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute: definition of "Greater Israel" -- comments please

Jaakobou and I have reached the three revert point and request your opinion. Briefly:

• Jaakobou, if I understand him correctly, argues that "greater Israel" refers to the Genesis 15 definition of the Land of Israel.
• I wrote that the expression Greater Israel is used by the political opponent of Likud to designate the current state of Israel with annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

The Likud calls this territory "Land of Israel". Hence, this issue is relevant to this article. In an attempt to convince Jaakobou, I quoted three sources, including Israel's PM Olmert, then US SoS James Baker, and NYT editorialist Ethan Bronner, all using this expression. Jaakobou reverted this text too. Without resorting to a formal RFC, I invite you to voice your opinion on the subject. I will post this in Talk:Greater Israel. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There might be some sense of confusion here deriving from differences in the Hebrew language. In hebrew there are a few terms that should be noted.

• "Haaretz Ha-Muvtachat" lit. 'the promised land' (biblical promise).
• "Israel Ha-Shlema" lit. 'the complete Israel' (refers to areas which include Gaza, Judea and Samaria but not Jordanian and 'biblical promise'/'coming of the Messiah' territory).

There is no mainstream Hebrew terminology for 'Greater Israel' but it is quite possible to find mixups between the second term and the 'Greater' term which gives off a religious 'promised land' suggestive/narrative.

Anyways, I'm open for external perspectives on this issue, but it would be best if we can get some people who are familiar with the content. May I suggest that we also open an RfC to the renaming issue as suggested in the #Likud issue section?

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am naturally interested in this discussion, but am not enabled or interested to discuss the biblical RS at the root of the Abrahamic faiths. What is said, is said, and I will leave that pov-balancing to experts.

I am concerned about what is not said and has been continually deleted; that is the current political, messianic, aggressively nationalistic and geotheological(?) usage of the term within the Israeli right wing and its supporters. It is the geographic and temporal focus of when US policy started its degradation from even-handed broker to asymmetric support. This is an issue at the root of peace in the Middle East. Not including right wing political usage of all these terms in their respective articles is an affront to Wikipedia’s NPOV.

IMHO, splitting biblical and political usage is a POV WP:FORK and wiki-prohibited, although I admit it may make some things easier to discuss. I am against the split. NPOV requires that all major povs be included. The “Land of Israel” in its current political usage must be included. This is not soap, it is reality, ref’d in part here for starters, and I will quote:

Eretz Israel does not mean "Greater Israel". Eretz is simply the Hebrew word for "Land". The term Israelis of the right wing would use is "Eretz Israel HaShlema", ie the "whole" or "complete" Land of Israel. This term is not applied by Israelis to the land grant to Abraham, from the Nile to the Euphrates. Nor is it applied to the rather smaller area said to have been occupied by King David or King Solomon. Solomon's kingdom stretched through modern Syria to the banks of the Euphrates, covering and area vastly greater than the modern State of Israel. The western boundry of these kingdom's ran barely further to the west of modern Israel, and thus did not approaching the Nile but did reach near the "Brook of Egypt".

Rather the term Eretz Israel HaShlema is used in practice to apply to to some approximation of the territory of the land occupied by the original twelve tribes, or to the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, or some fragment of the kingdome of the Macabees. Of course, the boundries of all of these entities are quite speculative, and sources are in deep disagreement on many points. It is in this Complete Land of Israel ("Eretz Israel HaShlema"), from Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, where the Palestinians would be supplanted by settlers. The 1967 Six-Day War was the critical moment. Israel's victory in that war gave it control over the West Bank and emboldened nationalists and messianists to blind themselves to the Palestinians. Soon afterwards a group of citizens joined forces to establish what they called in Hebrew "Tnuat Eretz Yisrael Hashlema," and in English " Land of Israel Movement," ommiting the "Haslema/Whole" part. The movement's founders understood "Eretz Yisrael Hashlema" to apply only to former "Western Palestine." Never did any responsible person call that movement "Greater [Land of] Israel" or call for invading the rest of Jordan or Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Iraq. The settler movement Gush Emunim, founded in 1974, replaced the legal term "State of Israel" with the biblical term "Land of Israel" (Eretz Israel), which justified the settlement of the territories in the name of a special alliance between God and the Chosen People. They consider Zionism a process of cosmic redemption. According to the Gush the advent of the messiah would be delayed if the land were returned to non-Jews. Rahavam Ze'evi, the leader of Ihud Leumi (National Union Party), has advocated the "transfer" -- a polite term, in the opinion of some detractors, for forced expulsion of all Palestinians from Greater Israel. The vast majority of the Israelis who go to live in Hebron follow the ideology of "Eretz Israel Hashlema".

I believe that this quote, as well as its source will help lay some necessary parameters for collaborative discussion. This quote is relevant to both LOI as well as 'Greater'. Nobody owns an article; all editors are bound by RSs. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes:

Props and note of source error: I'd like to thank you for raising your concerns, as well as giving a source which supports my statement regarding the difference in language. There is one error in the given source, since Gush Emunim was not the first to use the 'Eretz Israel' term. In fact, the 1948 declaration of independence makes mention of both 'Medina' (lit. state) and 'Eretz' (lit. land/country) terms.

Notable concerns: I agree that there is room to expand somewhere on the religious narrative as well as the US/Christian support for this narrative.

Suggestion: I believe that a split would benefit the project and we can certainly attach relevant POVs into relevant articles. A split would help avoid issues like the 'Likud' one where the term used by Likud is suddenly attributed a meaning which is clearly different than it's writers had in mind. Anyways, we can certainly address the US support for Israel in the 'Land of Israel' (biblical promise) article and even make note of the issue in the 'Land of Israel' (12 tribes) article. My concern is the superficial and false connection between 'Greater Israel' and 'Land of Israel' which causes many problems in the current version of the article.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad it supports your side of a language difference, but since I don’t speak/read Hebrew, my concern regards its usage in English, since this is en.wiki. Can we not agree that its first usage is religious, Jewish and Biblical? Beyond that, I will leave that to experts, as yourself, apparently.

The 1948 Declaration of Independence[21], itself, contains two terms ‘Eretz Israel’ 12 times, and the English translation, ‘Land of Israel’ (LOI) once. I could not find the term ‘Medinat’ in my read, but I will concede it is the ‘State of’. I will also agree that the term ‘Eretz’ was used regularly in the pre-state period within both the assimilationist/non-Zionist and Zionist Jewish communities.

My concerns are less with the addition of more religion, but agree that the addition of both early (pre-state) and current US/Christian (particularly Protestant and Evangelical), especially when you add Zionism to that list. This seems to be difficult for you, and comments you note in ‘suggestions’ sheds some light on that, for me.

I remain opposed to the split because it is against guidelines and would be a FORK. Although I believe I can share your apparent frustration with the ‘Likud’ addition, I neither know your unique personal pov or what ‘its writers had in mind’. If your pov is only religious, I can easily understand. The problem I see, and where we apparently tend to agree, is that the term Eretz and LOI have been hijacked or used as justification for expansionism of Medinat to Eretz by the Zionist right. The inclusion of the right wing Zionist usage is critical within the article for NPOV. My view is that we have LOI to deal with and it means a lot of different things to different people. It certainly means a whole lot to me that currently just doesn’t appear.

Can we agree that 1967 was a critical year? That, “The 1967 Six-Day War was the critical moment. Israel's victory in that war gave it control over the West Bank and emboldened nationalists and messianists to blind themselves to the Palestinians,” as the quote says? I won’t push the blinding, only that they did that themselves and it is the result. Can we agree that 1974 and Gush Emunim are important? The quote says “The settler movement Gush Emunim, founded in 1974, replaced the legal term "State of Israel" with the biblical term "Land of Israel" (Eretz Israel), which justified the settlement of the territories in the name of a special alliance between God and the Chosen People.” What withing that sentence can you agree/not agree with?

I can commiserate with your feelings of the ‘superficial and false connection between 'Greater Israel' and 'Land of Israel' which causes many problems’, but will note that a track record of less-than open discussion in Wikipedia of either phrase has lead, in part, to this situation. If we can’t discuss it, it is nearly impossible to ‘get our ducks in a row, so to speak.

Can you tell me what the term ‘Yesha’ means, I ran across it, without an explanation. Also, is ‘no choice’ a good translation for ‘ein breira.’ Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes:

1. Yesha is an acronim for Yehuda, Shomron, VeAza - lit. Judea Samaria and Gaza. Note that the disengagement from Gaza is a fairly recent event (2005).
2. I'm arfaid that you are pushing buttons here rather than focus on promoting the article. Your concerns about right wing zionists' perceptions don't need to be accompanied with inflamatory quotes and suggestive language (e.g. "expantionist"). There is a somewhat mainstream narrative about the settlers as 'blind to the Palestinians' as there is to the Arab people(s) and the Israelis. However, this article is about Eretz Israel and not about messianic/terrorist groups of either side of the discussions and it should not be written in a way that promotes conflict.

Question: I'm not sure on why separating the 'biblical' narrative from the 'historical facts' narrative would make for a POV FORK. I would appreciate an explanation to your concerns here.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The dichotomy 'biblical narrative' vs 'historical facts' narrative is by itself annoying POV weaseling. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what I've said that has struck you as "annoying POV weaseling" and I hope that an explanation would help me avoid repetition. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the needed translation; it was how I interpreted it at the time and understand your specific temporal reference. The second request was, in fact, rhetorical, but an indication of the RS-ness of my point of view.

Whatever the buttons, I assure it is not the last three. If it is an opinion, then I will call it a ‘point of view’ and note again that more than one is required for NPOV, also I am not intending to discuss current affairs or politics, which would be non-wiki. I am intending to discuss historic events, RS and V’d, about what LOI was, and what it has become; both of which are necessary to understand what it is, NPOV’ly. I believe that you agree, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth any more than I want to put my foot in mine. If you were discussing the first button, propaganda or advocacy, then I must tend to agree, noting two points. First, I am and will be advocating as well as willing to accept other valid RS’d povs that currently are not included or properly weighted in the current version. Therefore, I believe I am within wiki-compliance. Second, IMO, it is the overwhelming occurrence of only one side of the former that requires my use of the latter to approach NPOV.

The quotes are the quotes; I am not able to change the RS. If these inflame, then that is unfortunate. My intent is not to inflame; my intent is to discuss these RSs, since their included points, so far, remain excluded. I will gladly strike-out "expansionism" for ‘the change’, if you so ask, but note that my word choice is a common RS-able usage; some editors would easily fault ‘the change’ as OR. I concur with the mainstream narrative and readily admit it occurs excessively on both sides, and I will note that I come from neither and should be painted with a somewhat different brush.

We seem to disagree on the last sentence of your point 2. As editors, we have one article entitled LOI/Eretz. What LOI/Eretz is, must be included and that includes input from various povs, unfortunately, what others have made of it is also part of the NPOV story. I absolutely agree that it should not be written in a way that promotes conflict, but I am also realistic enough to know that just trying to present it as NPOV will generate friction. The reason I am here is to promote understanding. That only comes from a balanced and mutually acceptable discussion of the various povs involved. I can accept friction generated heat, but will strive to limit sparks and flame.

My concern on the split is that, at the core, there is only one geographic LOI/Eretz and it means several things to different people. To a large degree these views are contradictory and in some cases mutually exclusive to other povs in the same geography with an alternative narrative. That is the fact that we must deal with. Splitting the article yields the possibility of having all the power and light in one, and all the sound and furry in the other. That would likely require a third to adequately cover the alternative narrative. With that, I see a lack of understanding of the picture as a whole. I consider a prime objective of Wikipedia being to inform the reader (that quote is somewhere).

I have no trouble with talking biblical narrative and historical facts as part of a continuum. To some degree, the reason we have many unfortunate modern historic events is that that specific narrative has been brought into the modern age after two millennia with little recognition and less regard for what else happened in the interim.

I have answered all your questions, and had to bite my lip several times, as you likely did. I will note several of my questions remain unanswered. Your replies, however you choose to do so, would be appreciated. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I originally threw out the article split idea but on closer consideration, there's nothing to be gained by forking the article. There isn't sufficient relevant material for a hypothetical Political use of the term Land of Israel article, for one thing. It should be mentioned in the lead that the term has political connotations, and their nature should be briefly explained, and that's it. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point but I'm not sure how this can be implemented in a neutral manner. Give me a couple days to see if I can come up with a good suggestion. Let me know if you have suggestions also. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys are not constructive. For clarity, here are the sources Jaakobou deleted : Ehud Olmert Ethan Bronner, NYT James Baker Are these sources reliable? Can Jaakobou simply delete sources he does not agree with? Must I seek arbitration based on the NPOV policy? Emmanuelm (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the diffs you're mentioning but I do believe that my understanding of the issues (which included rejection of errorneous presentations) was explained but I have no objection for external perspective on the issues if you're interested in opening the #Likud issue for an RfC or some other mediation proccess (per WP:DR). To be frank, lack of participation on the discussion and reverting is a violation of WP:TE. Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS building, not on "ownership", original research and synthesis of ideas.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, the quick likely answers from me (without looking deeply) are: yes, no, and maybe (we shall see), respectively. I will note, however, there is some confusion with the specific terms, within the refs. The Peace Treaty with Jordan in 1994 pretty much ended most ‘greater’ dreams. But, even current maximalist Eretz dreams are still greater than Medinat Yisrael; most of the rest of the world has pretty much agreed with that since UNSC242 in 1967, but they are not the one who must decide for themselves. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hittites

I'm cutting the following from the article:

Another point of debate for some religious scholars is the consistent reference to the inclusion of "the Land of the Hittites" within the borders. Some view these Biblical Hittites as one of the tribes that had settled in Canaan and was conquered by Joshua, while others refer to a greater empire that encompassed most of what is now central Turkey. The archeologists who rediscovered the Anatolian empire now known as the Hittites in the 19th century initially identified them with these Biblical Hittites, and so gave them this name. However today the identification of the Biblical peoples with either the Hattusa-based empire or the Neo-Hittite kingdoms is a matter of dispute.

I can't find any scholars who consider the Genesis / Deuteronomy borders to have included central Anatolia, even when the view that the Anatolian "Hittites" = the Biblical Hittites was still popular. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The map Image:Hittite Empire.png shows that, at its peak, the Anatolian Hittite empire extended to (into?) the LoI, whatever its definition. The paragraph you deleted is a summary of the abundantly sourced Biblical Hittites, including the sources you are looking for. Please revert your deletion. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Other wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. Can you point out which reference mentioned in that article presents a view that LoI included parts of central Turkey? Its certainly not a mainstream Jewish view as mainstream Jewish sources know nothing of the Anatolian Hittites only the Hittites of Canaan but I have not seen a modern (or even a 19th / early 20th centry) Christian interpretation that takes such a view either. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes in last lede para

My preference for ‘most’ is based on adding up pink and blue stripes on this list, which I consider a quickly available RS. They add up to 21 years of Likud and 8 years of Alignment/Labor, in the 29 year span 1977 to 2006 when a new Kadima tone appears. The descriptor ‘most’ is therefore appropriate. The inclusion of the 1977 election is important and has been linked to reflect that point, but maybe the entire page link is better. I hope this is acceptable, thanks for your collaboration. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be more agreeable, but what you base that "most" upon can surely be viewed as OR, and there are just too many other unsupported assumptions and connections expressed in that one long sentence. I don't question your arithmetic, but the underlying assumptions can be called into question. Please find an RS for the whole statement or leave it out. Until then it remains based on your preferences. It should be possible and sufficient to indicate briefly that politicization takes place, without detailing how, in your opinion, it takes place, and getting into questionable explanations. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am working toward agree-ability and your comments have helped. I hope the most recent edit minimizes most OR about 'most' with that link. Additionally, I believe it fits my RS better to break it up, because I agree about the whole statement or leave it out. I plan on the RS farther down in the article, where appropriate. This may help and I hope it is acceptable, if not agreeable. Again, thanks. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A belated reply. Your revised edit looks much more objective to me. Tying attitudes so strictly to party affiliation as such was problematic, and that's gone. The Del Sarto excerpt backs up your edit, but omits (perhaps because it predates) recent history. I'm glad my feedback was helpful. I think WP thrives on collaboration, and wish all editors were as willing as you to engage in it. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with that last thought and strive for it. The timing of edits was serendipitous. Don't mean to weasel out on what I said, but I'll probably just insert the ref in the lede just to keep it there for now, but I've moved on am just keeping an eye. (I understand an expanded and updated version of the 2003 article exists. The biblio ref is: Del Sarto, Raffaella A. 2006. Contested State Identities and Regional Security in the Euro-Mediterranean Region, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), chapter 4, dealing with Israel.) Best regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the passage shorter, more NPOV, factual, and added a source. I hope everyone will agree. Please keep this sentence short in the lead (Casual, note the spelling); the subject is further discussed in a separate paragraph at the bottom of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but certain relevant facts should remain. Spelling? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he means lede vs. lead, but according to this both are correct when referring to the first sentence or two. Since the wording we've been discussing is not in the first two sentences, or even the first paragraph, it's evidently only part of the introduction. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some synthesis issues

I've noticed some sources used in a poor way to say something that the source does not say. I will be removing these sources and posting them here - if anyone does not understand the reasoning for removal ask and I will explain how it was misused/misunderstood. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

relevant diff - [22] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• <ref>See 6th and 7th portion commentaries by [http://www.chabad.org/parshah/rashi/default_cdo/aid/9169/jewish/Lech-Lecha.htm Rashi]</ref>
• <ref>[http://www.godrules.net/library/edersheim/ederb1c10.htm Edersheim Bible History - Bk. 1, Ch. 10<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
• <ref>[http://www.godrules.net/library/edersheim/ederb1c13.htm Edersheim Bible History - Bk. 1, Ch. 13<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC) + 12:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC) + 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll start with three and see if there are any concerns here before moving on to inspect the others. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a HUGE problem with removing any of these. Each of these items directly states (as I recall) that G-d gave the Land of Israel to the descendants of Abraham, BUT ONLY through Isaac and Jacob (as opposed to Ishmael or Esau). They all directly point this out. There is no synthesis. Even Meteormaker, who disagreed with me all the way, eventually gave in, because the research was direct and to the point, saying that Ishmael was not party to the Covenant of the Land or heir to Abraham.Sposer (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not "give in", I requested reliable sources that supported your claim, and you finally provided two (Barnes, Dr Ross@Christianleadershipcenter.org). As I said in that discussion [23], you should delete the rest of your cites, as they don't directly pertain to the question. Also note that the original source (the Bible) still hasn't been shown to contain support for your position, but since we have two scholars' interpretations that do, it's good enough for Wikipedia. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(A) Meteormaker, feel free to remove the sources you disagree with, even though all of them state it directly and you and Jakobu are reading between the lines in not finding support for it, and thus creating your own synthesis. (B)The Bible states it directly and according to all of the sources, but your synthesis says otherwise. (By the way, Wiki guidelines say that the Bible is not the best source for the Bible - something I find inane, but something that makes your argument that there is nothing in the Bible that supports the claim difficult to support in Wikiland.) Since you were involved with the discussion, I will trust you to remove the ones you are uncomfortable with. I 100% disagree with removing them, and if others remove the other supporting statements, I will put them back, but for now, let's try it your way.Sposer (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. The last two refs were added since the original refutal and I deleted them as well because they appear to have been written by non-scholar clerics. Two unequivocal refs are quite sufficient in my opinion. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'through Isaac, Promised Land' issue is not why the references were removed. The problem lies in using a source that discusses the biblical promise to Abraham and refers to it on the article for "Land of Israel" when there is no mention of "Land of Israel" in these sources (other than Rashi's use of it as a Jewish territorial naming convention rather than a description of the promised territory. My main problem with the article is that it takes a term used mostly to refer to the Israelite kingdom and current Israel with and/or without the disputed territories rather than to the biblical promise. Currently, I believe sources should first be fixed in regards to "Land of Israel" usage, and later there will be room to examine the Promise vs. Historical/current concern through RfC and/or consensus building.

Let me know if the removal is still unclear and I'll try to rephrase and expand my explanation.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jaakobou. I think there is going to be an issue there, because I believe at various times, there was an attempt to merge the Promised Land with Land of Israel, so if that happens, due to other Wiki concerns, there will be a disconnect. Can't get my head around all that right now, and I have been dutifully ignoring the political discussion that you've been involved with, so can you give it a little time before you start removing? Sposer (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is actually no need to merge the two articles. One is about a biblical promise, and one is about a factual archeologically evident terminology. If your concerns is about mergers, then this has very little to do with a source that is used to claim something unsupported by the source. i.e. these sources do not discuss the Land of Israel (see also WP:SYNTH). Let me know if you have any issues with this concern and we'll re-review this and possibly get external perspective on it if necesarry. Not planning on removing any more of these refs until this issue is sorted out. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lede edits of transition and modern political usage

I assume my edit may take some discussion. Though admittedly not providing sufficient sense initially[24], the total removal lacked NPOV circumspection, particularly in light of the ‘Basel Program’ now used as the ref for the first sentence.

My edit has three parts:

• Re-ordering the Biblical to Zionism transition.
• New material added to make sense and restore ‘nonsensical’ deletion.
• Rewording and additional prose at the end.

We have worked though this in the lede before; checking this may assist. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Casual, thanks for your edits. Your large chunk of text in the lead (note spelling) paragraph is misplaced. WP:LEAD states that the lead serves as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. Hence, to introduce new content, you should first edit the article body, then edit the lead to reflect the body text. Please try to insert your text in the paragraph "Usage in Israeli politics". And please also note that there is a separate article called Greater Israel to cover this entirely different topic, where part of your text belongs. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Promise applies to all Jews, including converts?

I am not a fan of flagging, but could someone find me an authoritative source for this statement in the lead paragraph? Since more than 80% of Jews are not Israelites and since an unknown number of Israelites are not Jews anymore, the political implications are huge. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put it there I don't think. I know that those aren't my words. It has been my understanding that the covenant included converts, and I will look for a cite. However, I am not sure I understand the political implications you refer to. The Law of Return, which relates to the modern State of Israel, does allow for converts (at least those Israel deems to have received proper conversion).Sposer (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This very long commentary mentions the inheritance to "the Jewish people" and elsewhere to "all Jews". . Hope that helps. I suspect discussions on the Law of Return will find more sources. This is a lengthier discussion which seems pretty clear to me. This Christian site too mentions it, though I don't know if it is RS: Sposer (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sposer, thanks for the links. The most useful was the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that sent me to Ezekiel 47:21-23, the passages that immediately follow his description of the borders of the Land of Israel: 21 "You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance," declares the Sovereign LORD. Again, Ezekiel blows my mind. I'll add this passage as a source for this statement. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Editors should refrain form adding unsourced material to this (and other) pages.Historicist (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph -- again

Everyone please refer to WP:LEAD when editing the lead paragraph. The lead is a summary of the article; it does not contain material not covered elsewhere in the page. For this reason, the lead usually does not require sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following from the lede, as the reference makes no sense. Mainstream Jewish tradition regards the promise as applying to all Jews, including descendants of convertsrefEzekiel 47:21 "You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance," declares the Sovereign LORD.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This was reverted by Sposer (There is all sorts of rabbinical thought that says converts have an equal right to the promise.) I don't understand how the reference supports the claim, so will repeat the edit.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not in the body of the article, so do not understand it at all.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Converts

Subsequent to the above, the line "and the giving of the land itself in the covenant, applies to all Jews, including converts." has been added to the jewish law section, and "Mainstream Jewish tradition regards the promise as applying to all Jews, including descendants of converts" repeated in the lede. The reference given is - Ezekiel 47:21 "You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance," declares the Sovereign LORD. -I find this primary source hard to understand in this context, since it makes no mention of conversion, and would seem to include arabs. In any case, I see no need for it to be mentioned in the lede, and shall remove it, it line with the lack of disagreement above.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Two points regarding this: (1) Arabs are excluded from the covenant of the land due to Ishmael's exclusion in Genesis. It is the people that were to be enslaved -- the Jewish people -- who were to get the land. See the discussion in the covenant (biblical) article, I think. (2) Though it is my OR, I am sure somebody can find a reference, converts, according to the Orthodox convention are call ben (son of) Abraham or bas (daughter of) Abraham. That is, they are considered Abraham's children (descendants) and are thus party to all covenants and requirements of Jews by birth. Sposer (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)