Protestant view of Israel.

[Metamorphoo]

Met,

Israel, dirt, is long gone. It is tantamount to any land conquered. It once was and no longer is. We can’t go back and give all the land back to people that lost their land. History is history. What was was. The land called Isreal of yesterday is not the Israel that is spoken of in the NT. It was dirt/people and now it is people on earth and the only dirt the people of Israel occupy is the entire world/dirt.

When Christ was born on dirt, the entirety of dirt was sanctified or do you believe that the sanctity of His touchdown was limited, thus limiting God?

The point is that God made a promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:8: “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants … .” What does “everlasting” mean to you?

It seems that your view is that the New Covenant nullifies the land promise that God made to Abraham. I see nothing in the pages of the NT that would defend that perspective. The only covenant which the NT specifically states has been superseded by the New Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant. And the Mosaic Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant.

It was God alone–not Abraham–who walked through the bloody carcasses when He cut covenant with Abraham as recorded in Genesis 15. The only promises made in this covenant were made by God.

What matters is God’s Word, not history from man’s perspective. Either God keeps His Promises, or He does not. Did Abraham ever possess that territory during his lifetime? No. Does that mean that the land was not Abraham’s? No! God said that it was Abraham’s land, even if it was under the control of the peoples of Canaan during his lifetime.

And so it is with the Hebrew people today. The land, according to God’s promise, is still theirs, even if for much of history that territory has been (and still is) controlled by other nations.

God told the Israelites just before they entered the Promised Land that if they didn’t obey Him, He would drive them out of the land for their disobedience. Even when they couldn’t live in the land that He gave to them, it was still theirs. The Lord also promised that He would bring them back to the land if they repented (see Deut. 28-30). (Note: He would bring this about; the Hebrew people can’t make this happen simply because they want it.)

 

[CopticChristian]

The point is that God made a promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:8: “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants … .” What does “everlasting” mean to you?

It seems that your view is that the New Covenant nullifies the land promise that God made to Abraham. I see nothing in the pages of the NT that would defend that perspective. The only covenant which the NT specifically states has been superseded by the New Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant. And the Mosaic Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant.

It was God alone–not Abraham–who walked through the bloody carcasses when He cut covenant with Abraham as recorded in Genesis 15. The only promises made in this covenant were made by God.

What matters is God’s Word, not history from man’s perspective. Either God keeps His Promises, or He does not. Did Abraham ever possess that territory during his lifetime? No. Does that mean that the land was not Abraham’s? No! God said that it was Abraham’s land, even if it was under the control of the peoples of Canaan during his lifetime.

And so it is with the Hebrew people today. The land, according to God’s promise, is still theirs, even if for much of history that territory has been (and still is) controlled by other nations.

God told the Israelites just before they entered the Promised Land that if they didn’t obey Him, He would drive them out of the land for their disobedience. Even when they couldn’t live in the land that He gave to them, it was still theirs. The Lord also promised that He would bring them back to the land if they repented (see Deut. 28-30). (Note: He would bring this about; the Hebrew people can’t make this happen simply because they want it.)

Mo,

It means you are a literalist and take the translation at face value and the word means “long duration” that you want to believe means forever…a possession of long duration that they subsequently relinquished. They had it for a loooooooooooooong time.

Sorry now its goooooooooooone.

עוֺלָם439 **noun masculine long duration, **antiquity, futurity; — ׳ע Genesis 9:12 405t.; עֹלָם Genesis 3:22 19t.; עֵילוֺם2Chronicles 33:7, read probably עוֺלָם (for other explanations see note in KitHpt); suffix עֹלָמוֺ Ecclesiastes 12:5; plural עוֺלָמִים Isaiah 26:4 7t., עֹלָמִים Psalm 145:13 2t.; construct עוֺלְמֵי Isaiah 45:17; —

and concerning Deuterotomy they were disobedient and even Joshua repeated the same old request…and they promised to obey and never did…so they failed…

 

[stewstew03]

The point is that God made a promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:8: “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants … .” What does “everlasting” mean to you?

It seems that your view is that the New Covenant nullifies the land promise that God made to Abraham. I see nothing in the pages of the NT that would defend that perspective. The only covenant which the NT specifically states has been superseded by the New Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant. And the Mosaic Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant.

It was God alone–not Abraham–who walked through the bloody carcasses when He cut covenant with Abraham as recorded in Genesis 15. The only promises made in this covenant were made by God.

What matters is God’s Word, not history from man’s perspective. Either God keeps His Promises, or He does not. Did Abraham ever possess that territory during his lifetime? No. Does that mean that the land was not Abraham’s? No! God said that it was Abraham’s land, even if it was under the control of the peoples of Canaan during his lifetime.

And so it is with the Hebrew people today. The land, according to God’s promise, is still theirs, even if for much of history that territory has been (and still is) controlled by other nations.

God told the Israelites just before they entered the Promised Land that if they didn’t obey Him, He would drive them out of the land for their disobedience. Even when they couldn’t live in the land that He gave to them, it was still theirs. The Lord also promised that He would bring them back to the land if they repented (see Deut. 28-30). (Note: He would bring this about; the Hebrew people can’t make this happen simply because they want it.)

With all due respect it seems that this is simply your interpretation, which has no authority whatsoever…

 

[Metamorphoo]

Mo,

It means you are a literalist and take the translation at face value and the word means “long duration” that you want to believe means forever…a possession of long duration that they subsequently relinquished. They had it for a loooooooooooooong time.

Sorry now its goooooooooooone.

and concerning Deuterotomy they were disobedient and even Joshua repeated the same old request…and they promised to obey and never did…so they failed…

Then we have to simply agree to disagree. You assume that past failure means they can never have it in the future. I do not accept your view that God is finished with the Jewish people.

There has always been a faithful Jewish remnant throughout history, and God will not break His promises to them. Every Jewish believer in Jesus can count on the Lord to keep the promises He made to their forefathers.

 

[CopticChristian]

Then we have to simply agree to disagree. You assume that past failure means they can never have it in the future. I do not accept your view that God is finished with the Jewish people.

There has always been a faithful Jewish remnant throughout history, and God will not break His promises to them. Every Jewish believer in Jesus can count on the Lord to keep the promises He made to their forefathers.

Meta,

You brought up Deuterotomy and if you realize that Moses and Joshua echoed the same message…and then Paul…

11“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12“It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13“Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14“But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

says it again…

8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

While many Protestants take this for a confess with your lips and get saved it is a descriptive reminder to the Judaizing Christians of their past disobedience and continual disobedience and Paul as you recall is preaching the “obedience of Faith”…and makes the point that they did not get it then and are not getting it now, just like you don’t get it and he says later…

4But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

there are those thad adhere and are loyal and there is a remnant that was dispersed that will now gain salvation through the Church…and points out…

11I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

Because the Jews failed, lost everything, salvation came to the Gentiles and now they can get in on the action as can you…are you ready?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Mo,

It means you are a literalist and take the translation at face value and the word means “long duration” that you want to believe means forever…a possession of long duration that they subsequently relinquished. They had it for a loooooooooooooong time.

Sorry now its goooooooooooone.

and concerning Deuterotomy they were disobedient and even Joshua repeated the same old request…and they promised to obey and never did…so they failed…

Coptic–

Here is the Hebrew word (olam) in question in use in other places, bolded:

Genesis 21:33–"…the name of the LORD, the eternal God."

Isaiah 26:4–"…the LORD, the LORD, is the rock eternal."

Isaiah 40:28–“The LORD is the everlasting God,…”

Jeremiah 10:10–"…He is the living God, the eternal King."

The translation of “olam” s nowhere near so cut and dried as you seem to imply…unless you believe God is God for a “long duration” only? If you have an exhaustive concordance, you can easily look up English words such as “forever,” “eternal,” “everlasting,” “perpetual” and “lasting”. The word most often being translated by these English words is “olam”, the same word in the Abrahamic promise about the land in Genesis.

I admit, “olam” is something of a mystery word. However, to say it simply means “long duration” doesn’t do it justice by a long shot.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic–

Here is the Hebrew word (olam) in question in use in other places, bolded:

Genesis 21:33–"…the name of the LORD, the eternal God."

Isaiah 26:4–"…the LORD, the LORD, is the rock eternal."

Isaiah 40:28–“The LORD is the everlasting God,…”

Jeremiah 10:10–"…He is the living God, the eternal King."

The translation of “olam” s nowhere near so cut and dried as you seem to imply…unless you believe God is God for a “long duration” only? If you have an exhaustive concordance, you can easily look up English words such as “forever,” “eternal,” “everlasting,” “perpetual” and “lasting”. The word most often being translated by these English words is “olam”, the same word in the Abrahamic promise about the land in Genesis.

I admit, “olam” is something of a mystery word. However, to say it simply means “long duration” doesn’t do it justice by a long shot.

Abide,

While you post use in other places, I provided the word as it was used in context from a Protestant Bible site…I did not make this up. It still does not mean everlasting in the context of everlasting for the land as this is lliterally not true as seen by other than one word, one passage and that includes your list.

The view and the interpretation represent an opinion that is as fallible as the person interpreting it and applying meaning. Want to give me an infallible without doubt interpretation?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Mo,

It means you are a literalist and take the translation at face value and the word means “long duration” that you want to believe means forever…a possession of long duration that they subsequently relinquished. They had it for a loooooooooooooong time.

Sorry now its goooooooooooone.

and concerning Deuterotomy they were disobedient and even Joshua repeated the same old request…and they promised to obey and never did…so they failed…

Coptic—

I know you firmly believe your own view regarding God’s doings with Israel, and some time ago I realized neither of us is going to change our views. I brought up the meaning of “olam” for accuracy’s sake. But, what if you’re mistaken----look at your disrespectful attitude in your writing here. It seems pretty childish to me, as well as disrespectful.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

While you post use in other places, I provided the word as it was used in context from a Protestant Bible site…I did not make this up. It still does not mean everlasting in the context of everlasting for the land as this is lliterally not true as seen by other than one word, one passage and that includes your list.

The view and the interpretation represent an opinion that is as fallible as the person interpreting it and applying meaning. Want to give me an infallible without doubt interpretation?

Coptic, how do you know “olam” doesn’t mean everlasting in the context of the land?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

I know you firmly believe your own view regarding God’s doings with Israel, and some time ago I realized neither of us is going to change our views. I brought up the meaning of “olam” for accuracy’s sake. But, what if you’re mistaken----look at your disrespectful attitude in your writing here. It seems pretty childish to me, as well as disrespectful.

Abide,

Do you prefer…long, long, long, long, long, long

and

gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone

It is easier to type looooooooooooooooooooooooooong
and goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooone

try it. All you have to do is hold down the oooooooooooooooooooooo and you can do that as opposed to typing
long, long and gone, gone…this way I have to interpose commas and use many more fingers.

why do you believe that economy of fingers is disrespectful and childish. I see it as saving time and energy unlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllless you believe other wise.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

While you post use in other places, I provided the word as it was used in context from a Protestant Bible site…I did not make this up. It still does not mean everlasting in the context of everlasting for the land as this is lliterally not true as seen by other than one word, one passage and that includes your list.

The view and the interpretation represent an opinion that is as fallible as the person interpreting it and applying meaning. Want to give me an infallible without doubt interpretation?

Coptic–

I did a quick search for Genesis 17:7-8—as just one example of the promise of the land—going through a number of translations. Here’s what I found in a few minutes:

1899 Douay-Rheims—“olam” translated as “perpetual” (covenant) in Gen. 17:7-8

KJV, NASB, RSV, RSV-Catholic Edition—“olam” as “everlasting” (covenant)…“The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you (verse 7 expands upon this with ‘for the generations to come’), and I will be their God.”

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

Do you prefer…long, long, long, long, long, long

and

gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone

It is easier to type looooooooooooooooooooooooooong
and goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooone

try it. All you have to do is hold down the oooooooooooooooooooooo and you can do that as opposed to typing
long, long and gone, gone…this way I have to interpose commas and use many more fingers.

why do you believe that economy of fingers is disrespectful and childish. I see it as saving time and energy unlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllless you believe other wise.

“Long” and “gone” by themselves are just fine.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic–

I did a quick search for Genesis 17:7-8—as just one example of the promise of the land—going through a number of translations. Here’s what I found in a few minutes:

1899 Douay-Rheims—“olam” translated as “perpetual” (covenant) in Gen. 17:7-8

KJV, NASB, RSV, RSV-Catholic Edition—“olam” as “everlasting” (covenant)…“The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you (verse 7 expands upon this with ‘for the generations to come’), and I will be their God.”

Abide,

You are looking at translations…look at this site and the varied meanings…

biblesuite.com/hebrew/5769.htm

Now this is a book written, how long ago?

In a language neither of us speak, taking a word, and I know "olam’ is near and dear to you…but if you want to place your entire theology and beliefs on a word that is not of your native tongue, written in a language neither of understand based on a Hebrew OT.

You want to take this to mean that the land of Israel is as Hagee says married to God…

Your translations means you found a translation.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

You are looking at translations…look at this site and the varied meanings…

biblesuite.com/hebrew/5769.htm

Now this is a book written, how long ago?

In a language neither of us speak, taking a word, and I know "olam’ is near and dear to you…but if you want to place your entire theology and beliefs on a word that is not of your native tongue, written in a language neither of understand based on a Hebrew OT.

You want to take this to mean that the land of Israel is as Hagee says married to God…

Your translations means you found a translation.

Coptic–

Neither of us are experts in Biblical Hebrew. That’s why I provided a quick check of how various English versions of the Bible (both Catholic and Protestant) translated “olam” in the Abrahamic covenant concerning the land. While you and I are not experts, the scholars and teams of scholars who did the translations are experts. Sometimes those scholars translated “olam” in different ways in other places—it can be modified by other words. But when it came to God’s words to Abraham, the scholars with experience in Hebrew chose to use “everlasting” or “perpetual” as the most appropriate English translation of the Hebrew.

On the website you provided, it gives the short definition of “olam” as “forever”. When you look at the alphabetical listing below that of how it’s translated in the NASB, the numbers in parentheses show how often they translated it with a certain English word. “Forever” and “everlasting” are by far the most common translations. It’s also defined as “long duration” because it doesn’t always mean forever, but eternal, everlasting, perpetual, and forever remain its most common English translations.

I don’t “place (my) entire theology and beliefs on a word.” That’s your misunderstanding of what I’m saying. Neither do I think “God is married to the land of Israel”. Nowhere have I said that. Again, that’s your misunderstanding and assumption at work.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic–

Neither of us are experts in Biblical Hebrew. That’s why I provided a quick check of how various English versions of the Bible (both Catholic and Protestant) translated “olam” in the Abrahamic covenant concerning the land. While you and I are not experts, the scholars and teams of scholars who did the translations are experts. Sometimes those scholars translated “olam” in different ways in other places—it can be modified by other words. But when it came to God’s words to Abraham, the scholars with experience in Hebrew chose to use “everlasting” or “perpetual” as the most appropriate English translation of the Hebrew.

On the website you provided, it gives the short definition of “olam” as “forever”. When you look at the alphabetical listing below that of how it’s translated in the NASB, the numbers in parentheses show how often they translated it with a certain English word. “Forever” and “everlasting” are by far the most common translations. It’s also defined as “long duration” because it doesn’t always mean forever, but eternal, everlasting, perpetual, and forever remain its most common English translations.

I don’t “place (my) entire theology and beliefs on a word.” That’s your misunderstanding of what I’m saying. Neither do I think “God is married to the land of Israel”. Nowhere have I said that. Again, that’s your misunderstanding and assumption at work.

Abide,

Just dirt in the eye and muddy thinking concerning people.

 

[luthier93]

Lu,

Your thoughts are interesting. You may want to speak to Paul about grace not saving.

My friend. Paul says “for by grace, you have been saved through faith.” It is obvious from simple grammar rules that Paul is saying one is saved through faith. Grace is the thing that saves, but rather that which allows a person to be saved through FAITH.

 

[luthier93]

Lu,

Thank you for taking the time to dialogue with me…I shall be gracious…you say…

Tell me how you came to believe that I suggested that this is not to be trusted?

When one says “that is your opinion,” it is obvious to all he does not agree. If he does not agree, he does not trust it to be accurate. That is why your statements suggest what I said was not to be trusted.

Welcome, you are out. I called you? If I did then you responded to my calling…facts are facts…if an Athiest, Lutheran, Anglican posted the same information about Israel…then it is not the messenger you have a problem with, it is the message. As a Catholic, I know and understand Dispensational thought and what I believe Israel to be. Where is the hypocricy?

Hypocrisy. It does seem funny that you would say I was wrong to discuss something which I had limited knowledge about, while by the same token, you were doing the same. If, therefore, you think you have great knowledge about the protestant view (which I would argue you don’t, from your comments), perhaps you should also assume that others know about your religious beliefs or have a right to discuss them.

Not to mention, by no means, then do not mention. If you choose to mention then you should mention where it is you find what it is you find mentionable and percieved of as ridicule.

Elaborate for me by telling me where it is the ones in the passage got their Faith.

Faith is not a passive thing. Faith is an action. Therefore, nobody “gets” faith from anywhere. Rather, they are induced to use it by some means. In the case of believers following the coming of Jesus, our faith is allowed blossom through the GRACE of God. So the two go hand in hand, but grace does not save.

 

[teeboy]

It is hard to see why, from a Scriptural point of view. The promise of land has already been fulfilled and is therefore not any more in effect (Joshua 21:45, Kings 1, 8:56, Nehemiah 9:7-8).

Yes, the Mosaic covenant has been revoked (Corinthians 3, for example), and all the promises of Abraham’s covenant have been fulfilled, except for its salvific promises which became the new covenant (Galatians 3-4, Romans 4). The Jews are therefore not the chosen people and the Church has never taught such a thing. Gentiles and Jews who accept the new covenant and become members of the Church are the chosen people. St. Peter calls them “a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people. Who in times past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy: but now have obtained mercy.”

Yes. The Israel land covenant is fullfilled. There are no more sin offerings. There is no more justice for Jacob’s descendants via suffering at the hands of other nations. Jesus is the Messianic king. The descendants of Israel are likened to a widow. The bride of God is the church.

AlthouAlthoug

 

[teeboy]

The land covenant was a two way street. The descendants of Israel fell into sin which seperated them from God; the same is true of us in the church. When they were seperated, they lost the land, which was part of the agreement.

When the Church sins, the Church is seperated from God and we no longer possess God in our bodies.

 

[luthier93]

Yes. The Israel land covenant is fullfilled. There are no more sin offerings. There is no more justice for Jacob’s descendants via suffering at the hands of other nations. Jesus is the Messianic king. The descendants of Israel are likened to a widow. The bride of God is the church.

AlthouAlthoug

Rather, the church has been “grafted in” to the branch of God. Israel is the bride of Christ, not the church. The church, by believing in the Messiah and therefore the God of Israel, becomes part of that “bride”- but does not replace Israel as a people as the bride. Now, just because a person is an Israelite does not mean they are of the house of God. Rather, those whom God calls “he also redeems,” by which I mean that those Israelites who God calls to belief through faith remain his bride-along with the gentile believers.