Talk:Promised Land

Active discussions

OldEdit

"According to the Bible, the Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisrael) was "promised" to the descendants of Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by God, making it the Promised Land." I don't think this is correct - the "Promised Land" was a much larger area than "Eretz Yisrael".24.64.166.191 05:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There are all sorts of disputes about what the exact boundaries of the "promised land" were/are, but whatever they were they constituted "Eretz Yisrael". Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Message to Metros232Edit

The officially recognised version of the borders of the promised land is that which was declared by theodor herzl, in effect the founder of israel as we know it today, in collaboration with the rothschilds, and which version was presented by rabbi fischmann to the United Nations. You do not get any more official or credible and informed than that. I will post the corrected version of this article once more in seven days' time unless I have received compelling information to the contrary before then. In the meantime I would request that you refrain from publishing the grossly misleading and deceptive article that appeared here previously. In future I will report you and anyone else who outrageously deletes an edit without first resolving the disputed information, and I'll thus have your IP blocked from ever accessing this resource again. Rikridgeway (talk) 17 January 2007

I am sorry to tell you that these claims are false. There is no one named "Rabbi Fischmann" and there was never a speech in the UN. This is an anti-Semitic fabrication popularly used in sites such as http://www.marxists.de. Unless you are able to back up your claims by reliable sources, such as UN archives (primary sources) please stop spamming this. Jewnited (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Message to ZsinjEdit

The officially recognised version of the borders of the promised land is that which was declared by theodor herzl, in effect the founder of israel as we know it today, in collaboration with the rothschilds, and which version was presented by rabbi fischmann to the United Nations. You do not get any more official or credible and informed than that. I will post the corrected version of this article once more in seven days' time unless I have received compelling information to the contrary before then. In the meantime I would request that you refrain from publishing the grossly misleading and deceptive article that appeared here previously. In future I will report you and anyone else who outrageously deletes an edit without first resolving the disputed information, and I'll thus have your IP blocked from ever accessing this resource again. Rikridgeway (talk) 17 January 2007

MoveEdit

This article ought to be renamed to "Promised Land" (capital L). Are there any objections?--Doron 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List all referencesEdit

There are many more instances in the Bible which recall G-d’s promise to give the Jewish people the land, these should be added. Chesdovi 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Message to ChesdoviEdit

Could you explain the point of underlining all lines which refer to the "giving" of the land in this article? BongoPedro 11:43, 17 Sept 2007

  • It is to highlight where in the passage the promise is mentioned. This is helpful it the longer passages. Chesdovi 11:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


i am so cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.21.218 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the map not show to the Euphrates?Edit

It's in the text. The map is derived from the text. So... -- 12.116.162.162 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The map is not derived from the text, it is derived from the two passages in the Bible, Numbers 34:1-12 and Ezekiel 47:13-20. Neither mention the Euphrates, so it is not on the map.
The Euphrates is mentioned in Genesis 15:18-21. I chose not to map this passage because i) the border is too vague to draw on a map, and ii) it is contradicted by Numbers and Ezekiel, both more detailed and very different. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion copied to Image talk:Map Land of Israel.jpg

You happy now? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging this article and Land of IsraelEdit

Quick survey. Do you want this article merged with Land of Israel?

yes. The two concepts are essentially identical; a paragraph called promised land ought to be enough. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After three months of waiting for a negative opinion, I greatly shortened the article. I think it should completely deleted, replaced with a disambiguation page. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuel! After so many discussion here you say that there is no negative opinion?! I'm totally negative with this merge!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The articles are identical and can be merged. Amoruso (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw this after I made change. Yes, agree. Sposer (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this stub article that isn't in Land of Israel already, it should become a redirect. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I add the sections you can find useful material here as well. Promised Land and Land of Israel have different meanings while some people understand it same. And I want to qoute different understanding of promised land here which one of them is Land of Israel. There exist many that don't think so!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The article was just changed in a way that wanders into the territory of other articles. I've reverted to an earlier version. Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Some addition to the articleEdit

Guys, I want to add the following sections to the article:

  • Promised land in the Bible
  • To whom was the promise?
  • Promise and Covenants

Hertz1888 claim that there is a consensus against this and more discussion may needed, Please guide!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically that (per the discussions at Talk:Land of Israel) the promise was through Isaac and Jacob, not through all descendents. Also, this article was shortened to direct readers to Land of Israel, possibly preparatory to a merge, but here you are lengthening it again. Those are my main concerns. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
My Friend, Who speak about Isaac and Jacob here? I want to add that sections and include different opinions under it. for sure there is different opinions about this items. And as I told before , I'm not positive to merge this article with Land of Israel and there is different meanings here. Not everyone understand same meaning from the two phrases.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Abraham descendents aren't only jews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardouk (talkcontribs) 13:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Joshua 1:4-6Edit

In Joshua 1:4-6, it is said, "Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Mediterranean Sea in the west." [1]

Twillisjr (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"...modern Jews inherit the rights of their ancestors to re-establish their national homeland..."Edit

Debresser, surely you can see that this sentence is extreme nationalistic POV which has no place in wikipedia? Please stop adding it into the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How about simply merging the two versions:
"whose discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees, through which they inherit the right to re-establish their national homeland"
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, I can live with your compromise version. But saying "per talk suggestion." when it was actually you yourself who suggested it is 1. misleading 2. a (repeated) violation of WP:BRD, that insists on obtaining consensus before you repeat your edits. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
And no, I think the sentence was neutrally worded, and not an "extreme nationalistic POV". The sentence never said that such are the facts, just that such is the claim of Zionism. Your addition of the word "suggests" is incorrect in my eyes. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, i think. For the record: 1. my edit comment was intended to point users to this discussion, not to claim consensus; and 2. I waited a couple of days first, which is normal course per usage of WP:BRD I have seen other editors use. FWIW, an editor much more experienced than me waited only 2 minutes before he violated BRD with me a few days ago. I was annoyed but apparently even that is ok for some editors...
Anyway, all the best for now. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
1. I see. 2. WP:BRD violations are common. The trick is knowing beforehand that your edit is potentially contentious and being prepared beforehand to discuss, should there be any objections. In other words, we should consider our fallibility a given. Debresser (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Christian commentatorsEdit

I've just added one word so the text says "Some Christian commentators". I have never seen this expressed so exclusively as to imply that Jews have no part in the promise, which I think the Wikipedia text suggests, even if this was not intended. My take on the word which is translated 'seed' or 'offspring' is that it is typically prophetically ambiguous; BC (but not, at the time, soon) it refers to the people of Israel and the English word should be read as a collective noun; AD it refers to Christ and the church, but up for debate (probably a sterile one!) is whether unconverted Jews are included on the basis of Abraham's faith or descent from him and whether the reference to the Land is, AD, metaphorical.

In a controversial subject such as this one, Christian commentators are hardly likely to be unanimous - and I expect the same goes for Jewish and Muslim ones, too!

RevertEdit

Debresser, please explain your revert. Your edit comment was too patronizing for me to understand. The sources are clear - Palestinians claim descent from Hebrews, just as modern Jews do. The promises were made to the Hebrews, in their various forms, not to either modern Palestinians or modern Jews. If we are to include description of the inheritors of this promise, we need to do it in a balanced and NPOV fashion. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I now see the point you were trying to make. That the Palestinians are claiming the land was promised to them. That point was completely unclear from your edit. As you say correctly in your edit summary, this point was made in November by User:Ewawer. Then came User:Cliftonian and rightfully added a tag to it,[1] with the very justified edit summary that "this is a very charged claim that needs to be referenced". Then it was removed altogether by User:Gur Aryeh Yehudah,[2] with not such a strong reason in the edit summary, but a correct edit if ever I saw one, if only for the reason given by Cliftonian. Your restore of Ewawer's claim completely ignored the fact that at least 2 editors have with good reason disagreed with that edit, and if only for that, I should be allowed to be a little patronizing with you in my edit summary when I reverted.
First of all, your edit left out a necessary logical step, namely that since Palestinians claim descent, they claim that the promise was made to them. Now as to that claim in itself: 1. I am not sure of it is actually being made 2. If it is, you'll need to source that. 3. This is so far away from mainstream interpretation brought in this article, that it warrants a section of its own. 4. In view of this point of view being so non-mainstream, there should also be some explanation, why this is so non-mainstream. 5. Even after all that, such a non-mainstream claim would be vulnerable to WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I am not trying to make that point - it sounds like a strawman. I am simply saying that the concept of the Promised Land relates solely to the ancient Hebrews / Israelites. In the article we are connecting it to modern day by saying that modern Jews claim descent from those people, and therefore descent of the promise. Not to mention that Palestinians also claim descent from the same people strikes me a NPOV. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Well, if that is not your point, then I don't think it is relevant at all. Not to mention that it would still need to be sourced, even if it were deemed relevant. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused by the double negative - is there a typo in there?
It is sourced with two good sources - see your original revert. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The first source refers to a person but not to a publication, and that is not acceptable. The second source does not say precisely what you claim, but comes close enough. The problem with that source it that it claims only that the Palestinians claim descent from Hebrews, Canaanites et al., but does not say that the academic world supports this claim. This underlines my relevancy question even more, which remains the main issue I have with your edit. Debresser (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course it is supported by scholars. For example [3]: "Based on anthropological evidence, it has been suggested that the Natufians and their descendants formed a ‘core’ population that can be traced to recent times, but was mixed with incoming groups (Arensburg 1973). According to historical records, major demographic events took place in the Israelite Period and during the Jewish Kingdom Period (1200–586 BC): the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions were followed by the deportation of locals and the settlement of foreign peoples (Bachi 1974). The Roman Judean Wars (66–135 AD) culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple and led to the annihilation or exile of a large portion of the Jewish population (Anderson 1995). By the fifth century AD, the majority of non-Jews and Jews had become Christians by conversion (Bachi 1974). The first millennium A D was marked by the immigration of Arab tribes, reaching its climax with the Moslem conquest from the Arabian Peninsula (633–640 AD). This was followed by a slow process of Islamization of the local population, both of Christians and Jews (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). Additional minor demographic changes might have been caused by subsequent invasions of the Seljuks, Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes and Ottoman Turks."
Either way, "claim" is really the key point here. Noone will be able to prove descent from the Israelites, (a) because noone has even proven they existed yet, and (b) there is no genetic matter to compare against. Palestinians identity is based on them being a Mediterranean race, which they believe gives them a stronger claim to the ancestral inheritance than for example Ashkenazi Jews.
The only relevant point here is that the promise was given to the Hebrews / Israelites, and both modern groups believe that they are the descendants of those ancient people.
Oncenawhile (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this article about a theological, religious concept? and Israelites and Promised Land are Torah, Judaism concepts, not concepts in Islam or Arab culture. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The "promise" is directly relevant "theologically" to Palestinian Christians (as all Christians), and indirectly relevant to Palestinian Muslims (as claimed descendants of those to whom the promise was made).
If this article is to be purely theological, then we should not mention any possible descendants, so modern Jews should not be mentioned either. Otherwise, I don't see how we can justify mentioning only one of the groups who claim descendance from the Israelites. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance as long as there are no sources that show that these other groups who claim descent (you mentioned specifically Palestinian Christians) also claim that the land was promised to them. That I do not see in the source you provided. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Clearly there is indirect relevance either way, but I think I get what you are trying to say. We need to make sure we are not implying any synth, and also to ensure we do not cross the line of undue.
I have put two versions below which I think get the balance right:
1) The concept of the Promised Land is the central tenet of Zionism, whose discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees through which they inherit the right to re-establish their "national homeland". Palestinians also claim partial descent from the Israelites and Maccabees, as well as all the other peoples who have lived in the region, although they do not claim sole inheritance of the promise.
2) Zionist discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees, a descent also claimed by Palestinians. The concept of the Promised Land, and inheritance of the right to re-establish a "national homeland" via descent from the Israelites, is the central tenet of Zionism
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my problem is indeed with the synthesis, which implies certain conclusions. I think the versions you suggest also have problems. One problem I see in the first version, is that it makes an unsourced claim, namely that the Palestinians do not claim the promise (sole or non-sole).
The main problem, which IMHO is present in both versions, is that this article is not about Palestinians, or any other people who would claim (partial) descent from the Israelites. This is simply not relevant to the article. Also, even just the few words "a descent also claimed by Palestinians" suggest something, that is simply not there.
I have considered a few ways to mention the descent of Palestinians in such a way that would make clear that there are no implications, but have not found such a way. Frankly, I don't think it is necessary to have this claim in this article, as I explained at length above. If you would be able to find a source for the so far unsourced statement in the first version, then perhaps it could be added as a footnote, and that could be our way out of this situation. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to mention that Zionism claims Jewish descent from the Israelites, we must also mention that they are not the only ones to claim such descent. Not doing so would be like talking about succession to a royal throne and only mentioning the active claimants without mentioning the other relevant descendants. It's not credible to argue that Palestinians are not relevant to the Promised Land, so we need to find a solution here to mention them in some form. I think I have a solution here which doesn't imply anything about "claiming the promise itself" - I will add to the article for you to comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort, but I don't see any essential difference between the version I reverted and the one you proposed, apart from the placement of the text. In a way, I think the new placement is a lot worse, because it implies that only Zionism claims descent from the Biblical patriarchs and the promise, while in effect the main claim to descent from the patriarchs is religious in nature, and (even non-religious) Zionism adopted it from there. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Religious Judaism never claimed biological or ethnic descent, only spiritual descent.
Either way, I don't feel too strongly about that point so please fix that sentence to make it acceptable to you.
Otherwise if we can't find a compromise here we'll need to remove everything about modern descent from the Israelites altogether.
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll make the edit with pleasure. On a sidenote, I beg you pardon, you say that the religious point of view is that Jews are not descendants, in the simple physical sense, from the Patriarchs (converts excluded)? Debresser (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, please do. I don't think you have made it yet, unless we are talking at cross purposes?
And yes of course that is correct re the religion. But it is a tangent so please don't get too distracted. To illustrate we need to follow two steps: (1) Show me the most recent major religious tract pre-Zionism which which claims biological descent of the world's then contemporary Jews; and (2) show me how modern religious Judaism makes the connection from there to the present day. Concepts such as matrilineality don't work because they allow for conversions, nor do concepts such as the "children of Israel" because they are generally interpreted spiritually not biologically. Modern identity is a complex subject, but it's hard to underestimate the influence of 19th century romantic nationalism and nationalist historiography on all of us.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The revert was done already. Conversions do not change the core argument of descent. It's like marrying into the family. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, since you say you've done the revert already, then we have a misunderstanding.
I wrote "I don't feel too strongly about that point so please fix that sentence to make it acceptable to you", because you made a point about Zionism vs. religion. Instead of amending just that part of the sentence, you removed my entire proposed edit here.
Please could you make a more thoughtful attempt at finding a middle ground.
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, please stop being so condescending. You insist on adding something which is not relevant and insinuates all kinds of things without any factual basis. There is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia that justifies such an edit. I have already written above that I tried hard to find another way of phrasing or representing that information that would not have these problems, and that I have not been able to find one. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, no condescension was meant. I made a good faith attempt to find a solution and you have still not properly commented on my revised proposal. Here is the text again:
If you object to this statement, please explain on what basis. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
" I am sorry, Oncenawhile, but you seem not to have WP:HEARed me. Unless you have any new arguent, this discussion is over. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but not for want of trying. I have reread all your comments above numerous times, and I can confirm that none of them appear to apply to the content of this proposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to try it again. My problem with the edit is that mentioning that some Palestinians (as all Arabs, to the best of my knowledge) claim descent from Abraham insinuates at least that they may also have a claim to the promise. Which, to the best of my knowledge, is incorrect, as mentioned above. Also, by the way, the promise was made to Abraham and specific offspring of his, from whom Palestinians do not claim to descent, again to the best of my knowledge. I thought I had stated this first point several times in great detail. Yet, your edit restores that claim of descent, and, therefore, enters a problematic zone, from which I see no escape. Add to this that this article simply is not about Palestinians at all, and their claim of descent is not really relevant here, especially since they do not involve a claim to the promise. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
"Conversions do not change the core argument of descent. It's like marrying into the family."
So what do you think about the highly controversial issues regarding Ethiopian Jews, Lemba people, Yemenite Jews, Abayudaya, Igbo Jews, Bene Ephraim, Bnei Menashe? Because clearly some are judged more "ethnically Israelite" than others. I keep seeing these attempts to push the theory that all Jews are of a unique race, and I keep seeing individual comments from nearly everyone (including Jews and Israeli themselves) that it's a load of bollocks. Why is this even being pushed? It's racist pseudoscience. That the country of interest considers it to be true doesn't make it true.
Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for venting your opinions here. You might want to use a personal blog for that the next time. As far as those "controversial issues" go, I have no idea what you are referring to precisely. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Descent of the promiseEdit

Until Ewawer's edit a few months ago, we had a sentence in the article discussing Jewish and Palestinian claims for descent from the Israelites. Even Debresser was happy with a form of it (see here).

The subject of Ewawer's deletion was discussed in the thread above, which now appears to have lost its focus. To try to find consensus here, I have proposed a shorter and cleaner version of the same:

Any comments would be appreciated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue of descent from Abraham for the purpose of the concept of the promised land will open up a lot of dispute, I predict. True, Arabs claim descent from Abraham through Ishmael, but the biblical wording may be taken to mean descendants of all three patriarchs, not just Abraham. Furthermore, Ishmael is regarded as cast off, and the divine promise is not repeated to him. Interpret this as one may. This article however should not be used as a forum for theological discussion, but merely present the straight biblical points. Enthusiast (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I have explained my point of view repeatedly and in great detail above. I think this section is a little superfluous to the section above it, and I do not appreciate opening a section when the issue is actively being discussed on this same talkpage above.
Please see above that the claim of descent in the context of this article implies a claim of the promise, which is factually incorrect. Also, this article simply is not about Palestinians. Again, please see the section above several times for the explanation of why this information should not be in this article. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
We are going to be here forever if instead of setting out your arguments clearly, you instead just repeat your claim that you have provided a brilliant and unchallengeable answer in some mythical comment above that you are unable to point to specifically. No amount of bolding or underlining will make up for an inability to state your arguments clearly.
Anyway, I am inclined to agree with the comment from Ewawer above, that it would be less pain for all of us if this article just focus on the biblical points. Which means we'll need to remove the sentences about modern Zionism. OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Excuse you? You open a new and superfluous section, and then you expect me to repeat myself? This is not a matter of inability from my side, but of unwillingness in view of your unreasonable step in opening this section, while we were discussing this very same subject above. Don't want to look there, don't, but this section is nothing more than a continuation of the section above it.
I don't think limiting this article to any time period makes sense. The term "Promised Land" is in active use, and that should be reflected in this article as well. Limiting the article to "Biblical points", whatever those are and however they are defined, is not logical. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. To try to conclude this, I now understand your point of your to be: (1) "a claim of descent in the context of this article implies a claim of the promise, which is factually incorrect"; and (2) we should include modern claims of the promise.
What you seem to be suggesting is that it is a literary impossibility to state that the Palestinians claim descent from the Israelites without implying that the Palestinians claim descent of the promise. Have I understood you correctly? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that at this stage of the discussion that more or less sums it up, yes. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ref name=QlieboEdit

I removed this reference, because it was referenced to "Ali Qleibo, Palestinian anthropologist". That is not verifiable. If the reference would have been to a book or a website, that is one thing, but not to a person. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is here.
There is nothing about the quote that is remotely questionable - do you dispute anything in there?
Oncenawhile (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I do not question it. If the URL is added, it is a verifiable source, that can be used in the article. Obviously, a source that only says "Thus said Zarathustra" is not verifiable and doesn't fly on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Only that now that I read the quote and the source itself, I came to the conclusion that what is says if far from what it is supposed to source. Funny, I first improved the reference, then had to delete it. The second reference, however, is clear enough. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought the same as you when I read it the first time. But then I noticed that he writes "Rather through time the Palestinians, who are descendants of the ancient civilizations of the Near East"
Which is quite clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
But that is not in the quote. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
And it is not specified which "ancient civilizations of the Near East". So this is too vague.
Also, this statement is obviously a sidenote in the quoted article, not the main point he discusses, and big claims need impeccable sources, not a sidenote. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big claim at all, particularly as the sentence is written "Palestinians claim" rather than "Palestinians are". That claim is widely published:

  • Hasan Afif El-Hasan (1 January 2010). Israel Or Palestine? Is the Two-state Solution Already Dead?: A Political and Military History of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Algora Publishing. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-87586-794-6. The Palestinians are the descendents of all the groups that inhabited the land since the ancient Canaanites and beyond.
  • Alfred G. Gerteiny (2007). The Terrorist Conjunction: The United States, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and Al-Qā'ida. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-0-275-99643-7. Undeniably, the Palestinians are the descendents of ancestors dating back to ancient Palestine—with admixture of Sumerian, Phoenician, Canaanite, Hebrew, Philistine, Assyrian, Persian, Hellen, Roman, Egyptian, Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, European and others.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

May be not such a bog claim, but this isn't the source to use to back it up. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Undeniably is a laugh. There are all sorts of conflicting denials on this topic. And there is no such thing as "ancient Palestine." You can speak about persons who lived in the British Palestinian Mandate if you wish. You can speak about the Canaanites, but you are not going to prove that the present group of Muslim dwellers in the Land of Israel are descendants of Canaanites, continually having inhabited the region. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC))

Contested deletionEdit

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that this page could in any way cause hatred or anti semitism. It is a perfectly reasonable summary of a religious idea.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is not a perfectly reasonable summary; it is a blatant violation of NPOV on a theological & political topic which is highly controversial. It could be valuable as a survey of opinions or a history of the views, but there will be no consensus on the factual matter addressed. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC))

Gross Violation of NPOVEdit

This article has gross violation of the NPOV policy. For example, there is a should statement inserted with no citation alleging that Promised Land SHOULD not be confused with "Land of Israel." Obviously, many claims in this article can have citations from scholars on opposite sides, making conflicting claims. For example, the denial that the land is promised exclusively to the physical seed of Abraham, is vehemently opposed in scholarly literature -- depending on which scholar one cites. It is easy to show that the Abrahamic promise is limited to a subset within the physical descendants (Isaac, not Esau, etc.), but not so easy to show an expansion beyond the physical descendants. The reference to unknown Jewish commentaries allegedly following Rashi, should be deleted as it has no citation, and Jewish opinions on most of such matters are highly various and conflicted. This article is about a hot controversial theological and political chestnut, greatly in dispute. "Commentators have noted several problems" should be changed to alleged several problems to preserve NPOV. IMHO it should confine itself to classifying and presenting various opinions. No consensus is possible on this subject. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC))

Hi @EnochBethany:, bringing additional scholarly sources to this article would be very good. Are you able to link here the sources you had in mind? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I can do that; but will we have a consensus to present the conflicting views? Often it seems on Wikipedia what is in an article does not depend upon what is true, but on the editors who can outvote the truth to suit a personal agenda. On this topic there will be on one side those who are Moslem & anti-Christian, who will deny that the Land belongs to Israel by divine promise, likely claiming that it belongs to the descendants of Ishmael, not Isaac based on the Quran & Islamic scholarship. (It may also be observed that ownership of the whole world will be claimed by Islam also.) There will be those who claim that the promise to Israel was spiritualized & transferred to the church. I doubt that many RCC scholars will affirm that the promise of land to Israel in the Bible is valid after the crucifixion. Those who follow a dispensational interpretation, will affirm the original & continued validity of the promises to the physical descendants of Jacob, likely confining the promise to the elect within that group. Start with Merrill F. Unger: Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament. I think that actually most Christian commentaries will affirm that the land of Israel was promised to the nation of Israel historically, but many will then deny that the promise is valid after the crucifixion of Christ, valid except possibly in some spiritualized sense.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Promised Land. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Promised Land" page.