Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - Laying the probability idea to rest

Home » Forum » General Discussions » Laying the probability idea to rest

Hello, guest

Name: jsm • Title: Laying the probability idea to rest • Date posted: 03/11/07 5:18

Q: A lot of people have been telling me that if I appose this theory then supply facts to support my theory of why this could not have been what they state. My efforts to find the peer-reviewed submitted work was futile, a lot of the forums go to supply me with different statistical information, and a lot of other nonsense that doesn't supply me with the information I would need to supply a scientific theory.

With that stated, I can however supply the forum with the reasons I believe the probabilities approach would not work. As I had stated in one of the topics, probabilities are way to loose and flexible in the scientific community to be supplied as factual. There are way to many variables in this experiment to use them. In using probabilities to prove whether something happened or it didn't, you would have to know all the variables involved. As its just about impossible to know how many variables are involved.

If you have an interval [a , a + h] with a short length (h) it's roughly proportional to h

λ = [(rate of events) (proportionality ratio)]

lim P = an event in [a , a + h]
h--]0 = λ.

If you have a short interval [t , t + h]... The probability that two events happening in that interval is much smaller than the
probability of one event. Common sense.

lim P = two or more events in [a , a + h]
h--]0 = 0 P = an event in [a , a + h]

Now we want to create a couple related probability distributions with the axioms. For the probability that no event takes place in the interval we'll use P 0 (t).

P 0(t + h) = P 0 (t)P 0(h)

When there are no events in [0 , t + h] then there is no event in [0 , t] and [t , t + h]. Being that their non overlapping regions, they are independent regions.

P 0 (t) = lim h --]0 [(P 0 (t + h) − P 0 (t)) / h]
= lim h--]0 [9P 0 (t) P 0 (h) − P 0 (t)0 / h]
= P 0 (t) lim h--]0 {[P 0 (h) − 1] / h}

Probability [p o (t)] that no event occurs in [t , t + h] = 1 - p

So that gives us [(−λ) P 0 (t)]

So now that I wrote that out so I don't get jumped on for not supplying my evidence to why their methods are flawed... I'd like to say that even though probabilities are very useful, they are also very limited. When dealing with multi-variable equations you can only estimate or assume. That is why I posted the limit to the probability. lim h--]0 but it never actually becomes 0. Knowing this, the only way around not using limits would be to prove that every other variable was not part of the equations. In other words, prove that every other Jesus in that time, Mary in that time, Joseph in that time, etc etc etc could not have been part of interval [a , a + h] or multi-variable interval [t , t + h]. This would be the only way to defend their theory within the realm of the 3 laws of probability.

So I wrote this to show people that support the idea of using probabilities that it cannot be done, it is not scientifically sound to do so, their better approach would be to stick to biological and chemical experimentation, because I know it would be just about impossible to show that every Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc... during that time was not part of this interval. So the burden of proof doesn't lie on the skeptics to prove it didn't happen, but the researchers to prove that it did using something more concrete then this.

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 5:29

A: What are the ' Multi variables' in regard with the tomb evidence?

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 5:30

A: Red,

Variable 1 = Jesus
Variable 2 = Mary
Variable 3 = Joseph
Etc...

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 5:32

A: For something to be an actually theory in the science community it has to be able to be falsified. Using probabilities doesn't get you around that idea, because probabilities can neither be proven nor falsified. So all I'm saying is that they need more evidence then that. Something more concrete so it can either be proven or falsified.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 5:36

A: Like in the coin example I explained. If you flip a coin 2 times, the probability of getting heads is 1:2. But prove to me that its going to happen every time, or not going to happen every time. Thats all I'm saying, it can neither be proven nor falsified, why do you think they choose to use probabilities. Thats why I say their to loose and way to many assumptions.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/11/07 5:37

A: JSM, I don't read mathmatics on this level (its been years since High School Trig., would this include the factors I posted earlier today about re-developing the probability formula to include data that the formula hasn't taken into account?

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 5:37

A: It cant be done all together, you have to determine the variable's ratio to population singularly first dont you?

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 5:40

A: I cant see how this fom of trigwill do the job.....

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 5:46

A: Averaging is missing too. You have that coin on your mind. You are right about not bieng able to KNOW what's flipped next, but it will average over events.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 5:46

A: Red,

Yes you would, for each variable you would have to ratio it to the population at the time. Which is kind of what they did, but they made the mistake of clumping all the variables into one. So they were shooting themselves in the foot because lim h--] 0 never becomes 0 like they need, it only gets very very close if they want as in .0000001, but to prove it, it would have to be 0 exactly. Thats why I'm saying mathematically, probabilities can never be proven. But they cannot clump all the variables into one interval, each one needs its own interval with respect to [t , t+h]

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 5:47

A: That's a form of averaging..

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 5:48

A: Red,

True the more you flip the greater you will know, thats the law of large numbers under the laws of probability. But with this experiment we cannot keep retrying, we only have one time interval.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 5:50

A: Red,

"That's a form of averaging.."

Sort of, in a way

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 5:58

A: Hee hee. No jsm. It's called the law of averages. Man, Im not use to this stuff, Im going back to philosophising..........

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 6:01

A: KRS,

Its actually calculus, but your kinda right, there is a lot more data that needs to be taken into account, for a more accurate answer, but all in all, they cannot use probabilities, I read a science article that the probability that life came from non life and evolved into modern day humans with all the intricacies of life is like a google to the google power, but this could never be proven using probability formula's, but what they can go by is two laws that they are breaking in the process, the law of biogenesis (life produces life) and a certain law of probability that states that anything above 10^50 (or somewhere around there) cannot happen.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 6:02

A: Red,

Just to let you know I got this online

The Law of Large Numbers says that in repeated, independent trials with the same probability p of success in each trial, the chance that the percentage of successes differs from the probability p by more than a fixed positive amount, e ] 0, converges to zero as the number of trials n goes to infinity, for every positive e.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 6:15

A: Red,

One more thing, the sum of all the probabilities from one interval (event) must add up to 1 to be true. Why do you think they went from being multi-variable to single. I can see them now... "Well lets clump all these probabilities into one to get around that law, Its not multiple probabilities, its just one."

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 6:19

A: I can see that, but the numbers these guys are dealing with comes no where near infinity.

That's similar to e= mc2..... M increases with V but only begins to become measurable at around 95% of C. so it doesnt really have a noticable effect at speeds we deal with.

Name: Red • Date: 03/11/07 6:25

A: Yes, because the names were AVeraged to ONE family unit. It had to be done that way to determine other family units that had the same names.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 16:35

A: Red,

"I can see that, but the numbers these guys are dealing with comes no where near infinity."

You take the limit to infinity to solidify the law of large numbers. Its theoretical.

All I'm saying is, their not wrong, but their not right either, that wouldn't hold up under a peer review because it has to be falsifiable.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/11/07 16:38

A: Red,

"Yes, because the names were Averaged to ONE family unit. It had to be done that way to determine other family units that had the same names."

You cannot use averages either, if my average in bowling is 200, doesn't mean that I can't bowl a 220. Like I said, the SUM of all the probabilities has to add up to 1. Thats is the ONLY way to prove their theory using probabilities. Which their probabilities do not add up to 1, so thats why I'm saying they cannot use that theory.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/12/07 2:09

A: thanks for the info on that. I'm pretty much done here for a bit. At this point I'm merely "throwing my pearls before swine," and I finished the last edit on the first version of the packet I was building last night.

In Him,
KRS

Name: KRS • Date: 03/12/07 2:39

A: PS, I did remember the law of biogenesis from High School biology (though it was probably a simplified form). I went to a public high school, and I always found it rather funny that the textbook was associating spontaneous generation with modern creationists. Just a thought.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 1:06

A: KRS,

Evolutionists try to either change or get around every law. The same way this world was never millions of years old, until evolution needed it to be.

Name: Red • Date: 03/14/07 1:48

A: Wrong, when they dicoverd the constant of light, it allowed astronomers to measure distance, and the time it took to cover that distance. It told astronomers that those lights in the sky are very far away,(farther than originaly thought), and that light spent 10's of thousands, and in some cases millions of years traveling from point A to B.

Carbon dating changed almost everything. Alot of people dont like carbon dating. They want to believe that the earth has been here for 6000 years . They think the Bible Explains everything. It does not.

Radioactive carbon takes a certain amount of time to return to it's original state. (breakdown) Carbon 14 takes something like 12,000 years to break back down. The RATE at which it does this is like a clock. Archeology began using this method and it's only been in relative recent history that it became apparant that things are ALOT older than once thought.

Im not gonna rule out the human race coming from another star system somewhere and starting over. BUT, we did not "poof" into existance 6000 years ago. Nothing biological "poofs". A baby takes 9 months to form, and approximatly 70 years to die. Things take time.

You guys are not in the same form you were when you were 9 yrs old. Your bones are diffrent sizes, your chemistry is diffrent, your Brain is larger (hopefully), Your personality has even changed somewhat. Anyway, this IS a form of evolution in itself. From smooth baby to wrinkled old man you evolve and die.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 7:46

A: Red,

"It told astronomers that those lights in the sky are very far away,(farther than originally thought), and that light spent 10's of thousands, and in some cases millions of years traveling from point A to B."

If there was no light in the beginning then all the sudden the planets decided they wanted to have light. Sure, it would take a long time for light to get here, but whether you believe God created the universe with the light around here, or whether you believe in the big bang where the universe exploded into existence, either way the light would already be here. Its not like the stars pulled a light switch one day.

"A lot of people don't like carbon dating"

Mainly because its not accurate at all, it only works if the earth is in equilibrium. Which it is not, not even close.

"Carbon 14 takes something like 12,000 years to break back down. The RATE at which it does this is like a clock"

You don't have to explain radioactive decay to me. Carbon 12 and carbon 14 are at the same levels when an organism is alive, but when it dies the carbon 14 starts to decay, (thats your clock) while the carbon 12 stays the same (your starting point) because it is stable. 6 & 6. The only problem is like I stated before, this only works if the carbon levels were the same throughout the whole entire time the earth was here. Which it was not. We're only something like 60% near equilibrium. Now what could really stir up the equilibrium in the atmosphere. A global flood?

And Carbon 14 has a max decay of 60,000, but then why does every piece of coal you find have carbon 14 in it? Since it took "millions" of years to form.

"Nothing biological "poofs".""

The Cambrian Explosion? Evolutionists say life did... they cant explain how one layer has not one fossil, but the very next layer has millions of different types of full body plans. Look it up

"Your bones are different sizes, your chemistry is different, your Brain is larger (hopefully), Your personality has even changed somewhat"

Thats genetic variation, has nothing to do with macro-evolution. You don't gain in complexity with genetic variation, your DNA has the capability to adapt to the environment. Whether you live in the arctic and have long hair, or live in Africa and have barely any hair, its the same exact DNA. Your body just adapts. Thats the biggest problem with evolution, DNA never gains in complexity, it only looses information, but they stand true to their faith that one day they might be able to work around that little problem. Its the way you can breed a wolf into a Chiwawa, but you can never breed a Chiwawa into a Wolf. When your breed from a Wolf into a Chiwawa, your looses Genetic information. To breed a Chiwawa into a Wolf, you need to gain information. Which is impossible. Where is the information going to come from?

"Anyway, this IS a form of evolution in itself. From smooth baby to wrinkled old man you evolve and die."

No, thats the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Any more?

Name: Red • Date: 03/14/07 13:39

A: You use entropy to isolate an evolutionary process, and not accept entropy as part of the process. This is typical of Creationsts.

You use equilibrium to isolate the rate, but do not accept that equilibrium is one funtion involved in determining that rate.

You use genetics to isolate evolution, yet do not accept that genetics are a function of evolution.

Biblical creationist have been on a mission to confuse science with science. It is an attempt to shift questioning from a philishopical explanation which can prove little, confusing facts of science. More Smoke screen. loike I said, it may work for church members, but it does not fool science.

"If there was no light in the begining then all of a sudden the planets decided they wanted to have light".. Uh, What the hell does this mean?

"whether or not you believe God created the universe with the light around here,or weather you believe the big bang where the universe exploded into existence, already, the light would already be here".

The 64000$ question..... WHAT LIGHT? please explain...

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 15:57

A: Red,

"You use entropy to isolate an evolutionary process, and not accept entropy as part of the process. This is typical of Creationists."

What does dying have to do with evolution, maybe you need to look up the definition of evolution. Your not gaining in complexity as you get older. Your DNA is the same from when your born till you die. Then entropy takes over to break down your body. Do you honestly know what your talking about? or just talking. I don't mind having debates, but this is ridiculous what your coming up with.

"The 64000$ question..... WHAT LIGHT? please explain..."

Haha the light you were talking about. ""It told astronomers that those lights in the sky are very far away,(farther than originally thought), and that light spent 10's of thousands, and in some cases millions of years traveling from point A to B.""

"You use equilibrium to isolate the rate, but do not accept that equilibrium is one function involved in determining that rate."

Equilibrium is involved in determining the rate, but they use it as if our planet was, which it is not. Any honest evolutionist will laugh at the idea of radiocarbon dating. Don't try to prove it to me.

"You use genetics to isolate evolution, yet do not accept that genetics are a function of evolution."

Then prove it to me

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 17:15

A: Red,

And don't try to bring up mutations to DNA. Every mutation we've observed has resulted in either neutral or a loss in DNA. We have never observed a mutation that resulted in a gain in information, but since you believe it is true then prove it, maybe you'll get your noble prize.

Name: Red • Date: 03/14/07 23:20

A: Of course death is a part of live and evolution. Stars do it all the time. (every million years or so) They blow, scatter material, and beget new stars and planet type things.

Your answer about the light issue explains your original post.. I.E. "Our sun lit the whole universe" Dont believe me, read your own post.

Of course our planet is not in perfect equalibrium. For anything to come into existance require "constructive Imbalance". Yes, nothing is truely balanced, but it is the attempt of balance where creation begins.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 23:32

A: Red,

The more you post the more I believe you have no idea what your talking about.

"Of course death is a part of live and evolution. Stars do it all the time. (every million years or so) They blow, scatter material, and beget new stars and planet type things."

Thats just a theory which has never been observed and doesn't have any evidence for it. If you find some evidence please share it with me.

"Your answer about the light issue explains your original post.. I.E. "Our sun lit the whole universe" Dont believe me, read your own post."

I have no idea what your talking about?

"Of course our planet is not in perfect equilibrium. For anything to come into existence require "constructive Imbalance". Yes, nothing is truly balanced, but it is the attempt of balance where creation begins."

Do you know what equilibrium I'm talking about? I can honestly say no you don't. I'm talking about the amount of Carbon 14 used up verses how much is created from the sun in the atmosphere. If the earth was millions of years old, the amount being used would be the same as the amount being created.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/01/07 18:45

A: Red,

"Of course death is a part of live and evolution. Stars do it all the time. (every million years or so) They blow, scatter material, and beget new stars and planet type things."

The popular theory is that stars form from vast clouds of gas and dust through gravitational contraction. Which has never been observed and has a huge problem trying to fight around heat pressure. These dust clouds are light years in size so they have an extremely small gravitational field. As they start to contract heat pressure becomes greater then the gravitational field and the clouds actually expand.

Hannes Alfaren (Nobel Prize Winner) Nasa, Gustaf Arrhenius (Evolution of the solar system)

"There is general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse, in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found and observational indicator of contraction. Thus the generally accepted theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred "unsupported" dogmas which constitute a large part of present day astrophysics".

Charles Lada & Frank Shu (Both Ph.D in Astronomy) "The Formation of Sunlike Stars, Science

"Despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation... The origin of stars represents one of the fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics".

You wont find information like that in your books.

Or how about the star formation & time that evolutionists provide.

Evolutionists say there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
(10^11)
Evolutionists say there are 200 billion stars per galaxy
(2x10^11)
Evolutionists say the universe is 20 billion years old, most say its around 13 billion years old, but we'll make it larger to help them.
(2x10^10

(100billion x 200billion) / 20 billion = 1 Trillion stars per year created, 2.7 billion stars per day, 31,700 stars per second, but we have yet to OBSERVE ONE!

Name: Panluna • Date: 04/01/07 21:46

A: There is a probability theory and answer in the book.It's too leanthy for me to list here.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/29/07 1:44

A: Panluna,

"There is a probability theory and answer in the book.It's too leanthy for me to list here."

The idea is, that probabilities prove nothing. Unless the limit on the time interval h goes to 0, unless that happens, it is not a proven probability.

Name: Panluna • Date: 04/29/07 15:07

A: They proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.People will just have to accept the facts.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/30/07 1:30

A: Panluna,

What I'm saying is that the probability that you flip a coin and get heads is 1:2. But that doesn't mean that it happens every time unless the limit as h--]0 = 1. Which is considered 1:1. They got 600:1. So the probability theory isn't proven. So they cannot use mathematics to prove their theory.

Name: Panluna • Date: 04/30/07 2:21

A: I've got a coin with two heads. I understand the probability factor.I still feel that it is 100% THE TOMB of Jesus's family,sad but true.

Name: JMD • Date: 04/30/07 3:12

A: The Jesus Dynasty Blog
April 29, 2007
Filed under: Tabor's Blog — James Tabor @ 9:00 am

The Talpiot Tomb: Separating Truth from Fiction

With the initial airing of the Discovery Channel documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” in the U.S., Canada, and Israel, and the publication of the book, The Jesus Family Tomb by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pelligrino, the Talpiot “Jesus tomb” has generated an avalanche of media coverage and Internet discussion. A simple Google search for the string “Jesus family tomb” generates a million and a half Web sites. The passions and emotions on this topic have been high, and correct and reliable information has been hard to come by. In this post I want to attempt to sort through a list of the “fictions” regarding the Tomb, its discovery, and its investigation, focusing on things that have been reported or written over the past month that are, to my knowledge, in
error.

STATISTICAL STUDIES
15) "The statistical work of Dr. Andrey Feuerverger and others was flawed from the beginning based on incorrect assumptions built into the calculations, i.e., that Mariamene was to be identified with Mary Magdalene, that Yose was the brother of Jesus, and so forth. It was a classic case of “garbage in, garbage out,” with no mathematical value."

This is simply not the case and represents a misunderstanding of Dr. Feuerverger’s methods and assumptions. In view of all the confusion he recently released the following statement: “I would like to make it clear that I stand by the statements I had made in my probability calculations. I have retracted nothing. My website makes clear the assumptions of my calculations. Subject to these assumptions, my estimates have not changed.” He has concluded (subject to the stated historical assumptions) that it is unlikely that an equally “surprising” cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling. Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the probability under random chance of observing a cluster of names as compelling as this one within the given population parameters is 600 to 1, meaning that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600. This means that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally “surprising” cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions.

Feuerverger’s mathematical calculations have to do with the probability of this particular cluster of names occurring in a family tomb by random chance. Feuerverger ended up focusing on just the four names in the specific form they occurred and the one relationship specified: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, and Yose, as names potentially associated with the Jesus family based on textual evidence. His thinking was that if these four alone, as a cluster, could be shown to be sufficiently rare, then he could properly draw the conclusion that although the generic forms of these names were indeed common, their specific forms, in these configurations, would not be. Feuerverger assigned frequency values to the individual names based on a synthesis of the
figures in Tal Ilan and Hachlili. His initial calculation of 1/2,400,000 was
quite high, but he then made two other moves that drastically reduced it. He divided by 4 for “unintentional biases in the historical sources,” and then he divided that result by 1000 to adjust for all possible 1st century tombs–thus his 1/600 computation.

Clearly Feuerverger is interested in the historical identification questions, as we all are, but he also recognizes this area is not his specialty. Math alone is not going to determine to what degree this cluster of names, in their configurations, are “appropriate,” or “highly appropriate,” as names for the Jesus family. That task, finally, rests upon the judgment of the historian who must make the case that such identifications are expected and likely.

16) "We have no good statistical data showing the frequencies of various names among Jews in 1st century Palestine and only a small portion of the tombs of the period have been opened and examined. There is no way to accurately evaluate how rare or unique this particular cluster of names might have been in that time."

On the contrary our data on name frequencies among male and female Jews living in Palestine before, during, and after the time of Jesus is amazingly complete thanks to the monumental work of scholars like Tal Ilan, Rachel Hachlili, and L. Y. Rachmani. The most comprehensive survey is that of Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I: Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE. Dr. Ilan surveys male and female names from all extant sources: ossuary inscriptions, other epigraphic inscriptions, literary and historical texts, papyri and ostraca, and manuscript finds. She also distinguishes between “valid” and
“invalid” names, i.e., names of fictional characters. She surveys a total of
2538 occurrences of valid male names and 320 of valid female names.

Based on this broad data it is possible to calculate percentages of males and females who would have used a given name. For example, just taking the names in the Talpiot tomb in their generic form (i.e. Joseph not Jose; Joshua not Jeshua) we get the following results: Joseph 8.6%; Judah 6.5%; Joshua 3.9%; Matthew 1.6%; and Mary 21.9%. Since Tal Ilan’s survey is from such a wide range of extant sources, over a period of 500 years, these percentages are statistically
sound.

If we compare these results with those of Rachel Hachlili [“Names and Nicknames of Jews in Second Temple Times,” Eretz-Israel, vol. 17 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1984), pp. 188–211 (Hebrew) and 9*-10* (English), esp. 194.], who draws on a more narrow body of data, the correlations are quite close: Joseph 14%, Judah 10%, Joshua 9%, Matthew 5%, and Mary 21.4%. The much more narrow sampling of the 286 names found on ossuaries in the Israeli State Collection, as compiled by L. Y. Rahmani in his Catalogue, also reflect very similar name frequencies.

This data allows us to calculate, for example, how many males out of 100 might have the name Joseph or Judah or Joshua, and further, the probabilities of whether a given Joshua might also have a father named Joseph, or a son named Judah.

Today, if I teach a class of 100 students, most of whom were born in the late 1980s, I can predict quite accurately that three males will have the name Michael and three females the name Jessica, based on name frequency percentages for that period. I can further project that in our entire student body undergraduate population of 20,000 we have about 600 Michaels and 600 Jessicas.

With a more complex mathematical model one could also determine how many Michaels, born in the late 1980s, have a father named David and a mother named Linda, and so forth (born in the 1950s). The Social Security Administration has a Web site with all of this data collected and it is fascinating to search for name frequencies over the years.

We do not have this kind of precision in our ancient data but what we do have offers an amazingly good tool for determining how common 1st century Jewish names were in the population and thus to calculate probabilities of a given set of names appearing in a cluster in a family tomb such as the one in Talpiot.

17) "The names found in the Talpiot tomb are common names used by countless Jews in 1st century Jewish Palestine, so their presence in this tomb means nothing. There would have been hundreds of tombs with just this combination of names so this particular “Jesus son of Joseph” is one of many and very unlikely connected with Jesus of Nazareth."

The refrain that the “names are common” is perhaps the most frequently repeated reaction of scholars who have been asked to comment on the Talpiot tomb and its possible relation to Jesus of Nazareth. Like so many general statements, it is partly true but partly fiction.

First, one has to clarify what one means by “the names” and second, what one means by “common.” For example, the name Joshua, from which we get the nickname Yeshua or Jesus, has a frequency percentage of 3.9% among the 2538 examples surveyed by Tal Ilan. Is 3.9% a high enough number to call it common? I suppose it depends on how one uses the word “common.” But remember, that is the percentage of all forms of the name Joshua in Aramaic and Greek, not the specific nickname Yeshua. If you just take the Rahmani catalogue of 231 inscribed ossuaries in the Israeli State collection there are three examples of Yeshua (#9, 121, 140) plus the two in the Talpiot tomb, for a total of five out of 286 total names. Should one refer to that as “common”? The Rahmani collection does not include all inscribed ossuaries found in the Jerusalem area for the period, but the name frequencies and distributions appear to be fairly representative of our large body of data.

Joseph, was certainly a relatively “common” name (14%), but then the specific form Yose, in Aramaic, only occurs one other time on an ossuary, and two additional times, as pointed out above. One would surely not call the name Yose common.

Still, in the end, it is not merely the frequency of the names, however they are counted (generic or nickname forms), but the cluster of names that one has to consider. If we are considering a hypothetical “Jesus family tomb” with these names we would then ask: What are the probabilities of a Jesus son of Joseph, with a brother named Yose, and a mother named Mary being found in a 1st century Jewish family tomb? That is actually something a statistician can work with and the results can be correlated with what a historian might then postulate as the likelihood of these particular names being in a pre-70 CE Jesus tomb.

The fact is of the hundreds of tombs in the Jerusalem area that have been opened in a distributively random way over the past 200 years no other tomb so far has been found with even this limited cluster of names: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, and Yose.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/30/07 3:30

A: JMD,

I'm sorry since it is a good article, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Out of all the variables found within the Tomb, it could be Jesus, Joseph, etc... but how do we know its the same Mary. There can be a Mary within the tomb, but how do we know its the same Mary. That is why you have to factor every Mary from the area into the equation, which they didn't. The idea is that this is not one probability equation but several.

Name: JMD • Date: 04/30/07 3:58

A: jsm, you don't know what you're talking about, Dr. Tabor does. End of story.

Name: betty47 • Date: 04/30/07 4:05

A: "From JMD... jsm, you don't know what you're talking about, Dr. Tabor does. End of story. "

Well said, JMD. Let's find out who Jesus really was, even though, the fundamentalists don't like things that don't conform to exactly what they want to believe. I think Dr. Tabor is brillant. I think Jesus would want us to figure out who he really was.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/30/07 4:09

A: JMD,

"jsm, you don't know what you're talking about, Dr. Tabor does. End of story."

Prove me wrong then...

Name: JMD • Date: 04/30/07 4:13

A: Betty47 "I think Dr. Tabor is brillant."

I agree!

Name: jsm • Date: 04/30/07 4:14

A: And try not to copy and paste something, I want to see your own work, since you say I'm wrong. Your determined I'm wrong, but you haven't proven me wrong, you just have faith that I am. This isn't a religious chat, its a science chat.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/30/07 4:30

A: Randy Ingermanson, Ph.D

http://www.ingermanson.-com/jesus/art/stats.php

Take- out any "-" if present.

Came up with an estimate that the odds are at least 10,000 to 1 AGAINST Jesus of Nazareth being the man found in the tomb.

He submitted his work to Dr. James Tabor and Dr. Mark Goodacre

Name: betty47 • Date: 04/30/07 13:06

A: ": And try not to copy and paste something, I want to see your own work, since you say I'm wrong. Your determined I'm wrong, but you haven't proven me wrong, you just have faith that I am. This isn't a religious chat, its a science chat. "

I think Dr. Tabor, Simcha and company have proven you wrong, but you refuse to believe them. I would like for you to prove that anything in Christianity is true in the first place. Just because the bible says it's true, doesn't make it so. If you say there were witnesses, well any police officer will tell you that eye witness reports are typically filled with errors. If the burden of proof is on the people making the claim as you've written, then prove the following:

1) Jesus was born of a virgin mother.
2) Jesus rose from the dead.
3) Jesus is Lord.
4) Jesus made miracles.
5) Jesus was born on December 25th.

The problem with Christianity is that most of it is probably not true, and yet we choose to believe anyway because of our faith, but it can't be proven. The only thing we know that is probably true is that Jesus lived, Jesus was Jewish, Jesus taught, Jesus died and Jesus was buried.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/30/07 16:24

A: betty47,

If you could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith... and it wouldn't be true love if everybody knew it was true. Prove to me your meditation with nature works. That you can communicate with the energy of leaves or whatever you were talking about. You cannot, but its your faith.

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Name: betty47 • Date: 04/30/07 16:30

A: "JSM, If you could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith... and it wouldn't be true love if everybody knew it was true. Prove to me your meditation with nature works. That you can communicate with the energy of leaves or whatever you were talking about. You cannot, but its your faith.

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Finally, JSM. A statement on which we both can agree on.

Name: jsm • Date: 04/30/07 16:56

A: betty47,

But don't forget, there is lots of faith within science. Thats what a hypothesis is.

Name: betty47 • Date: 04/30/07 18:43

A: That's true too. I agree with that also, JSM.

Name: sadinoel • Date: 04/30/07 21:55

A: I just bought the book, the DVD, the T-shirt, The official coffee mugs, the Simcha and Cameron limited edition action figures, AND bonus trading cards along with the life sized autographed poster!

I also plan to invest in the bed spread and throw pillows with official Templar symbol embroidery. Is there anything else I need to have?

Name: jsm • Date: 05/01/07 0:27

A: sadinoel,

"Is there anything else I need to have?"

Hahaha fruit of the loom is running a promo on limited edition boxers. I seen the commercial, kinda made me sick seeing Dan Brown model them...

Name: betty47 • Date: 05/01/07 0:28

A: No video game?

Name: jsm • Date: 05/01/07 0:41

A: betty47,

"No video game?"

Haha... you'd have to look up cheat codes to win.

Name: betty47 • Date: 05/01/07 1:42

A: That's probably very true!

Name: JMD • Date: 05/01/07 8:49

A: Matthew 13:13 [21st Century King James Version]
Jesus says: "Therefore speak I to them in parables, because seeing, they see not, and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand."

John 4:27 [New International Version]
"Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, 'What do you want?' or 'Why are you talking with her?' "

:D

Name: sam • Date: 05/01/07 17:06

A: Betty47,

You mentioned in your post (04-30-07) "its a science chat. "
---------------------------
In Sience chat or science talk, there should be no room for anythig else, but fact, reasoning and logic.
Then you bring what was proven by Dr. Tabor...etc.

I think Dr. Tabor, Simcha and company have proven you wrong, but you refuse to believe them. I would like for you to prove that anything in Christianity is true in the first place.
Then you said, "Just because the bible says it's true, doesn't make it so."
--------------------------------
In another post You agree with Shlomo, that your bible is right while the other two books (Gospel and Quran ) are made of iron and clay and they cannot be trusted!!!. Just because you and your people say that your bible is true, doesn't make it so too. because your Bible is full of contradictions and errors as the Bishop J.S. Spong said.

Then you claim this "The problem with Christianity is that most of it is probably not true, and yet we choose to believe anyway because of our faith, but it can't be proven.
----------------------------
Jesus said: WHY DO YOU LOOK AT THE SPECK THAT IS IN YOUR BROTHER'S EYE, BUT DO NOT NOTICE THE LOG THAT IS IN YOUR OWN EYE?. L-6:41
That is 100% true. My question is "Are you also blinded by your faith so you accept everything IN YOUR BOOKS even when they are wrong (the six days creation in Genesis one of those), but before that you talk about "SCIENTIFIC CHAT".

You believe that your religion is right and built on holy books(KNOWING THAT ONLY THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS ARE HOLY AND TRUE), but here the truth as written by Dr. Sam Zaidan: (THE CRACK)
Note: It is a long post, and a logical analysis to bring the truth. If you are not interested in the truth, then you should not read it, and you can follow what you been taught.

Presentation
Throughout the path of time, whenever pressures increase,
religion becomes the ultimate sanctuary for mankind.

Recently, man became to realize that the sacred holy religious texts
should be reinterpreted according to logical analysis and objective criticism. This process would clarify right from wrong.

Since religious topics have special sensitivity, writers about these subjects select their expressions cautiously. Some present day scholars take the holy book for granted as a whole and illuminate any possibility that change might have occurred over the years.

Others say that modern man should be more reasonable and open minded.He is supposed to realise that religion had been used
to fulfill nonheavenly goals through tampering with the Bible.

As a member of modern society, I feel the responsibility of dealing with such issues and addressing all these crucial questions objectively and honestly, whatever the consequences might be.

Introduction
The Bible has two major parts,
The Old testament and the New Testament.The Old testament is a collection of 39 books.
Both Jews and Christians accept these books as Scripture.
The Old Testament start with the creation of the universe and of the human race.
Then it continues with the history of God’s chosen people Abraham,Issac, Jacob, and their descendents, whom God formed into the nation of Israel.
The New Testament is made up of 27 books accepted by Christians as Scripture. Out of these 27 books, 13 are Saint Paul’s.

It took about 1500 years for the whole Bible to be written
– from Genesis, written at the time of Moses,
to Revelation written by the apostle John about 65 years after Jesus’ death.

When the books of the Bible were first written, the only way people could have a copy was for someone to write it out entirely by hand. This work was done by men called scribes, who spent their entire day copying the Bible letter by letter.
Because this was a long and tiresome job, few people had their own copy of the Bible.
The Old Testament was first written in the Hebrew and Aramic languages.All of the New Testament was written in Greek.

About 350 years after Jesus’ death, Jerome, who was a leader in the early church, translated the Bible into Latin, the commonly spoken language by many people at that time.

Several hundred years later, most people no longer spoke Latin.
In the late 1300s John Wycliffe came to believe that it was important for all Christians to read the Bible in their own language. He and his followers were the first to translate the whole Bible into English. But because the printing press had not yet been invented, copies were made by hand and very few were available.

About 140 years later, WilliamTyndale translated the New Testament from Greek to English.

In 1611 the best-known English Bible, the King James Version, was published.
It was revised many times over many years.
During the second half of the twentieth century many new translations become available.

The books of the Bible had many different authors, living at different times and in different places. Yet not one of these writers contradicts another. God guided them so that they wrote in their own words what he wanted them to say.

This means that the Bible is completely dependable and a trustworthy book. We can believe everything it says because it comes from God.

About The Bible The New International Version
Let us examine Abraham’s story as mentioned in the bible
under the spot light of the above.
From Genesis 15 (Old Testament) we learn the biography of Abraham:
18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,
"To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphra'tes. Genesis 15:18

And we find the following information in Genesis 16:
1- Now Sar'ai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar; 2- and Sar'ai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sar'ai. 3- So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sar'ai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.
4- And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. 5 -And Sar'ai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my maid to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!" 6 - But Abram said to Sar'ai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sar'ai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her. 7- The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. 8 - And he said, "Hagar, maid of Sar'ai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from my mistress Sar'ai." 9- The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her." 10- The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude."
11- And the angel of the LORD said to her,
"Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ish'mael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12- He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."

13- So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her,
"Thou art a God of seeing"; for she said,
"Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"
14- Therefore the well was called Beer-la'hai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered.
15- And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish'mael.16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish'mael to Abram.
Genesis 16:1/16
Later, we find the following information in Genesis 21:

1- The LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did to Sarah as he had promised. 2- And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age at the time of which God had spoken to him.
3- Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac. 4- And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.
5 -Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
Genesis 21/1:5

" 8- And the child grew, and was weaned; and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.
9- But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac.
10- So she said to Abraham,
"Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac." 11- And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son.
Genesis 21/8:11
Genesis then continues to say:
14- So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. 15- When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. 16 -Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, "Let me not look upon the death of the child." And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept.
17- And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar?
Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18- Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand;
for I will make him a great nation."
19 -Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water;
and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink.
20- And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. 21- He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
Genesis 21/14:21

A comment should be made here about the above words,
when Isaac was supposed to be weaned,
he must have been about 2 years old.
So Ishmael should have been sixteen years old

The question here is: how did Abraham have his wife, Hagar,
carry his sixteen years old son Ishmael on her shoulder!
Why would we encounter such ambivalence in the story of the Bible?

As we see from the Bible’s story: God talked to Hagar, An incident that never took place with another woman in the Old Testament !

Also we read in the story of the Bible that Ishmael’s naming was heavenly:
11- And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ish'mael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 -He shall be a wild ass of a man
Genesis 16/11:12

Any reader wonders why,
after Ishmael gets a heavenly name, he gets such an awful label
as a mountain ass (Basic English Bible),
a wild donkey among men (World English Bible),
a wild donkey of a man (New American Standard Bible).

* * *
Let’s go back, to the revolutionary changes in the life of Abraham:
-Abram’s name to Abraham.
-his eternal covenant with Almighty God.

We notice that these events took place before the birth of Isaac,
when Ishmael was thirteen years old.
1- When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless."
2- And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly."
3 -Then Abram fell on his face;
and God said to him,

4- "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.
5- No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
6- I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you.
7- And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.
8- And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."
9- And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
10 -This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
11- You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
12- He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 -both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
14- Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
Genesis 17/1:14
Then the text of Genesis 17 runs as follows:

23 -Then Abraham took Ish'mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
24- Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
25- And Ish'mael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
26- That very day Abraham and his son Ish'mael were circumcised;
Genesis 17/23:26

* * *
And finally, the story comes to an end:
The Sacrifice

1- After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
2 -He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."
3 -So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4- On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. 5 -Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you."
6- And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together.
7 -And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?"
8 -Abraham said, "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together.
9- When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
10 -Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11- But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
12- He said,"Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him;
for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld YOUR SON, YOUR ONLY SON, from me."
Genesis 22/1:12

15 -And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld YOUR SON, YOUR ONLY SON,
17- I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies,
18- and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."
Genesis 22/15:18

The sacrifice story, as written in the Bible, is illogical!

How come Ish'mael is Abraham’s first born son, while Isaac is his only son?!!

The only solution to this dilemma is:
Ish'mael was chosen to be sacrificed and then redeemed before Isaac was born!

* * *
When we go back to the text in Genesis 21:

10 - So she said to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac."

It is clear that Sara got no revelation from God.
Her words struck Abraham mercilessly and cruely, and he ultimately rejected them:

11- And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son.

On the other hand, the Bible tells us that Jacob, Isaac’s son,
had twelve children from four wives, out of which two were maid-servants to Leah and Rachel:

23 -The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacob's first-born), Simeon, Levi, Judah, Is'sachar, and Zeb'ulun.
24-The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin.
25 -The sons of Bilhah, Rachel's maid: Dan and Naph'tali. 26 The sons of Zilpah, Leah's maid: Gad and Asher.
These were the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram.

Genesis 35/23:26
These were the sons of Jacob!
Why The Bible did not discriminate against any of Jacob’s sons
because of their mothers?!!

According to what preceded, the following question imposes itself:
What is the truth beyond Sara’s statement?

The rituals consecration of this particular statement by Paul renews its destructive effects, in an ambivalent text in the New Testament, which dangerously results in a racist behavior that dominates the beliefs of people around the planet, being mentioned in a holy Book:

21- Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
22- For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.
23- But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.
24 -Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25 -Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26- But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27 -For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married."
28 -Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29 -But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
30- But what does the scripture say?
"Cast out the slave and her son;
for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
31- So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Galatians 4/21:31

This verse became doubtless,
being mentioned in both The Old and The New Testaments!

We wonder who is responsible!
Could Paul be ambivalent to this extreme? By discarding The Old Testament:

6- But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. Romans 7:6

Until we see him cursing its followers!

10- For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse;Galatians 3:10

13- Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
Galatians 3:13

To the extent that he is seen in Galatians 3 refusing to discriminate between a Roman and a Jew or between a slave and a free:

28 -There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29- And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3/28:29

To finally label himself as the apostle of all nations!
Though Paul is seen in Galatians 4, switching back and clinging to the racist idea to exclude Arabs, due to the fact that they are the spawn of that slave-woman who is rooted in Sinai; homeland of humility and slavery.

Consequently, he asks to banish her along with her progeny depriving them from the right of heritage.

Can we match these two Pauls?
Is the Paul in chapter 3 the same as the Paul in chapter 4?

We know that God is bias to no one.
As Paul 3 says : There can be neither bond nor free!

God does not discriminate between masters and slaves
because He created them equally.

He is the Eternal mercy to all mankind, or else how could we interpret the heavenly care for Hagar and her son!
He saw their misery, sent His angels to sooth them, and guided her eyes towards the water so she could quench her son’s thirst.

How come God’s providence took care of Hagar and her son,
then someone insists on banishing their progeny out of God’s grace!!!.

How could Paul 4 deafens his ears to her voice when God Himself heard her agony!!!

How come that the Almighty God named His servant Ishmael,
while we find some who dare label him a human wild donkey !!!!

Is it logical that The Almighty announced the creation of a great nation out of Ishmael, yet Paul confuses the word of God with the words of Sara!!!

How could Paul describe the land chosen by God to be Hagar’s home as the land of slavery, knowing that this (mountain in Sinai) is Jacob’s homeland as well, and it is where Moses got the word of God!

Could Paul forget that he himself might have been a descendent of an Arabian woman who was once the wife of Moses!!!

Do the descendents of that free woman have the right to object and alternate God’s orders according to their interests!!!

Why do we ignore the word of God:

For I desire goodness, and not sacrifice and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings. Hosea 6:6

Why do we ignore the words of Jesus Christ:
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,
ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Matthew 12:7

If we assume that Sara’s statement is true and that her offspring,
has the right to claim the land, then the disliked wife’s should be given twice as much of the land.
According to the law of primogeniture, stated in the Bible:

15 -"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is hers that is disliked,
16- then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born,
17- but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
Deuteronomy 21/15:17

Is not that right?

Ye People of the Book!
Why do ye clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth,
while ye have knowledge? Qur’an 3:71

Taking into consideration all the afore mentioned reasons we see that the current Bible’s version of this story is not acceptable unless we shed the light of the holy Qur’an to straighten its contradictions and clarify its ambiguity.
In respect to what the Qur’an says:

O people of the Book commit no excesses in your religion! Qur’an 4:171

O ye people of the Book! Why obstruct ye those who believe, from the path of Allah, seeking to make it crooked, while ye were yourselves witnesses (to Allah’ covenant)? But Allah is not unmindful of all that ye do!
Qur’an 3:99

Abraham is widely regarded as the Patriarch of monotheism and the common father of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Through His second son, Isaac, came all Israelite prophets including such towering figures as Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus. May peace and blessings be upon them all. The advent of these great prophets was in partial a fulfillment of God's promises to bless the nations of earth through the descendents of Abraham.

BLESSINGS OF ISHMAEL

Ishmael Was the first born son of Abraham
and his descendants included in God's covenant and promise:

1- “Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
2- And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
3 -I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." (Genesis 12:2-3)

1. Reiterates God's promise after the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac:
4- "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 17:4)

2. Ishmael was specifically blessed and promised by God to become "A great nation":
13-"And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring." (Genesis 21:13)
18-"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation." (Genesis 21:18)

3. The traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother in the Bible:
15- "If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is hers that is disliked,
16- then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born,
17- but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

4. The full legitimacy of Ishmael as Abraham's son and "seed", and
the full legitimacy of his mother, Hagar, as Abraham's wife are clearly stated in the Bible:
Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish'mael.

13-And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. (Genesis 21:13)

3-And Sa’rai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. (Genesis 16:3)

After Jesus, the last Israelite messenger and prophet,
it was time that God's promise to bless Ishmael
and his descendants be fulfilled.
Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. Jesus Christ (John 14:30)

Less than 600years after Jesus, came the last messenger of God, Muhammad, from the progeny of Abraham through Ishmael. God's blessing of both of the main branches of Abraham's family tree was now fulfilled. But are there additional corroborating evidence that the Bible did in fact foretell the advent of prophet Muhammad?

Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures, in the Torah and the Gospel...
Holy Qur’an VII : 157
MUHAMMAD: The Prophet Like Unto Moses God's promise to send the long-awaited Messenger. Moses spoke of the prophet to be sent by God who is:
From among the Israelite's "brethren". (Deuteronomy 18:18)
A reference to their Ishmaelite cousins, as Ishmael was the other son of Abraham who was explicitly promised to become a "great nation".
A prophet like unto Moses. There were hardly any two prophets ,who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad. Both were given comprehensive law code of life, both encountered their enemies and were victors in miraculous ways, both were accepted as prophets/statesmen and both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them. Analogies between Moses and Jesus overlooks not only the above similarities but other crucial ones as well (e.g. the natural birth, family life and death of Moses and Muhammad).

THE AWAITED PROPHET WAS TO COME FROM ARABIA
Combines references to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad in (Deuteronomy 33:1-3).
It speaks of God (i.e. God's revelation) coming from Sinai, rising from Seir (probably the village of Sa'ir near Jerusalem) and shining forth from Paran.
1-AND this is the blessing. Wherewith Moses the man of God bless the children of Israel before his death.
2- And he said, The Lord came from Si’nai, and rose up from Se’ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
3 - Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at they feet; every one shall receive of thy words. (Deuteronomy 33:1-3)
The wilderness of Paran was the place where Ishmael settled (i.e. Arabia, specifically Mecca).
21-And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran. (Genesis 21:21)
The Psalms 84:4-6 (King James version) of the Bible mentions that the pilgrims passing through the valley of Ba’ca (another name of Mecca):
4-Blessed are they that dwell in they house: they will be still praising thee. Se’lah.
5-Blessed is the man whose strength is in the thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.
6-Who passing through the valley of Ba’ca make it a well: the rain also filleth the pools.
The first house (of worship) appointed for men was that at Ba’ca:
Full of blessing and of guidance for all the worlds.Holy Quran: III - 96

Isaiah 42:1-13 speaks of the beloved of God. His elect and messenger who will bring down a law to be awaited in the isles and who "shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set judgment on earth:
"1- BEHOLD my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
2-He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
3- A bruised reed shall be not break, and the smoking flax shall be not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
4-He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
5-Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it , and spirit to them that walk therein:
6- I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people for a light of the Gentiles;
7-To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
8- I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
9- Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
10- Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.
11-Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Ke’dar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sin, let them shout from the top of the mountains.
12-Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his praise in the islands.
13-The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. (Isaiah 42:1-13)

That awaited one is the descendants of Ke'dar.
11-Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Ke’dar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sin, let them shout from the top of the mountains. (Isaiah 42:11)

Ke'dar was the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of prophet Muhammad.
13- And these are the names of the sons of Ish’mael, by their names according to their generations: the first born of Ish’mael, Ne-bajoth; and Kedar and Adbe-el and Mibsam. (Genesis 25:13)

MUHAMMAD'S MIGRATION FROM MECCA (BA’CA) TO MEDINA:
PROPHECIED IN THE BIBLE?
Habakkuk3 from the old testament speaks of God (God's help) coming from Te'man (an Oasis North of Medina according to J. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible), and the holy one (coming) from Paran. That holy one who under persecution migrated from Paran (Mecca) to be received enthusiastically in Medina was none but prophet Muhammad!
3- God came from Te’man. and the Holy One from mount Paran, Se’lah.
His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. (Habakkuk3:3)
Indeed the incident of the migration of the prophet and his persecuted followers is vividly described in Isaiah 21:13-17. That section foretold as well about the battle of Badr in which the few ill-armed faithful miraculously defeated the "mighty" men of Ke'dar, who sought to destroy Islam and intimidate their own folks who turned -to Islam.
13-The burden upon Arabia, in the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge. O ye traveling companies of Ded’a-nim.
14-The inhabitants of the land of Te’ma brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.
15-For they fled from the swords from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.
16- For thus hath the LORD said unto me, within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Ke’dar shall fail:
17-And the residue of the numbers of archers, the mighty men of the children of Ke’dar, shall be diminished: for the LORD God of Israel has spoken it. (Isaiah 21:13-17)
THE QUR'AN (KORAN) FORETOLD IN THE BIBLE?
God's words (the Qur'an) were truly put into Muhammad's mouth in twenty-three years. The Qur'an was dictated to him by Angel Gabriel who asked Muhammad to simply repeat the words of the Qur'an as he heard them. These words were then committed to memory and to writing by those who hear them during Muhammad's life time and under his supervision.
Was it a coincidence that the prophet "like unto Moses" from the "brethren" of the Israelites (i.e. from the lshmaelites) was also described as one in whose mouth God will put his words and that he will speak in the name of God, (Deuteronomy 18:18-19).
18- I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19-And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Was it also a coincidence the "Paraclete" that Jesus foretold to come after Him was described as one who "shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak (John 16:13)
13 - Howbeit when he, the spirit of the truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you thinks to come.

Was it another coincidence that Isaiah ties between the messenger connected with Ke'dar and a new song (a scripture in a new language) to be sang unto the Lord
10-Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.
11-Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Ke’dar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sin, let them shout from the top of the mountains. (Isaiah 42:10-11)
More explicitly, prophesies Isaiah "For with stammering lips, and another tongue, will he speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:11).
This latter verse correctly describes the "stammering lips" of Prophet Muhammad reflecting the state of tension and concentration he went through at the time of revelation. Another related point is that the Qur'an was revealed in piece-meals over a span of twenty three years. It is interesting to compare this with Isaiah 28:12 which speaks of the same thing. “But the word of the LORD was unto them PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT, precept upon precept, LINE UPON LINE, line upon line; HERE A LITTLE, AND THERE A LITTLE.
THAT PROPHET- PARACLETE- MUHAMMAD
Up to the time of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Israelites were still awaiting for that prophet like unto Moses prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:18. When John the Baptist came, they asked him if he was Christ and he said "no". They asked him if he was Elias and he said "no". Then, in apparent reference to Deuteronomy 18:18, they asked him "Art thou that Prophet" and he answered, "no". (John 1: 1 9-2 1).
In the Gospel according to John (Chapters 14, 15, 16) Jesus spoke of the "Paraclete" or comforter who will come after him, who will be sent by Father as another Paraclete, who will teach new things which the contemporaries of Jesus could not bear. While the Paraclete is described as the spirit of truth, (whose meaning resemble Muhammad's famous title Al-Amin, the trustworthy), he is identified in one verse as the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). Such a designation is however inconsistent with the profile of that Paraclete. In the words of the Dictionary of the Bible, (Ed. J. Mackenzie) "These items, it must be admitted do not give an entirely coherent picture."
Indeed history tells us that many early Christians understood the Paraclete to be a man and not a spirit. This might explain the followings who responded to some who claimed, without meeting the criteria stipulated by Jesus, to be the awaited "Paraclete".
It was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who was the Paraclete, Comforter, helper, admonisher sent by God after Jesus. He testified of Jesus, taught new things which could not be borne at Jesus' time, he spoke what he heard (revelation), he dwells with the believers (through his well-preserved teachings). Such teachings will remain forever because he was the last messenger of God, the only Universal Messenger to unite the whole of humanity under God and on the path of PRESERVED truth. He told of many things to come which "came to pass" in the minutest detail meeting, the criterion given by Moses to distinguish between the true prophet and the false prophets.
22- When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the things follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.(Deuteronomy 18:22)
He did reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment
8 -And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. (John 16:8)
WAS THE SHIFT OF RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP PROPHESIED?

Following the rejection of the last Israelite prophet, Jesus, it was about time that God's promise to make Ishmael a great nation be fulfilled (Genesis 21:13, 18):
13-And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
.
18-Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
In Matthew 21:19-21, Jesus spoke of the fruitless fig tree (A Biblical symbol of prophetic heritage) to be cleared after being given a last chance of three years (the duration of Jesus' ministry) to give fruit.
In a later verse in the same chapter, Jesus said: 43- "Therefore, say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof" (Matthew 21:43)
That nation of Ishmael's descendants (the rejected stone in Matthew 21:42) which was victorious against all super-powers of its time as prophesied by Jesus:
44- "And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matthew 21:44)

OUT OF CONTEXT COINCIDENCE?
Is it possible that the numerous prophecies cited here are all individually and combined out of context misinterpretations? Is the opposite true, that such infrequently studied verses fit together consistently and clearly point to the advent of the man who changed the course of human history, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Is it reasonable to conclude that all these prophecies, appearing in different books of the Bible and spoken by various prophets at different times were all coincidence? If this is so here is another strange "coincidence"!
One of the signs of the prophet to come from Paran (Mecca) is that: ”He came with "ten thousands of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law" (Deuteronomy 33:2 KJV). That was the number of faithful who accompanied Prophet Muhammad to Paran (Mecca) in his victorious, bloodless return to his birthplace to destroy the remaining symbols of idolatry in the Ka'bah.
Says God as quoted by Moses:

I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
(Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

The only thing we know that is probably true is that Jesus lived, Jesus was Jewish, Jesus taught, Jesus died and Jesus was buried.

Name: Not Dattaswami • Date: 05/30/07 0:36

A: ..

Name: jsm • Date: 06/01/07 6:24

A: Sam,

You talk a good talk, but to bad its not your talk. Since you love to Google 95% of your post, why don't you Google copyright laws...

Name: Panluna • Date: 06/01/07 15:13

A: As long as you give credit to the source quoted and DO NOT reproduce the said material for monetary gains there is no violation of copyright.Many students quote passages for book reports and most people will draw on an outside source to help them make the point.

Name: jsm • Date: 06/02/07 3:31

A: ... and do you see any works cited other then bible verses?

Name: Panluna • Date: 06/02/07 13:10

A: JSM,
Yes there have been poetry and phrases and paraghraghs from other works along with material from religious texts throughout the posts.

Name: jsm • Date: 06/02/07 14:57

A: 95% of it... Must not know what he believes, so he needs other peoples words to help him.

Name: Panluna • Date: 06/04/07 14:28

A: JSM,
Sam quotes from the Qu'ran.He's Moslem.

Name: jsm • Date: 06/05/07 3:31

A: I don't care if he's Jedi. And no, most of his post were bible quotes. But the problem is, that almost his whole post was pieces taken from other peoples websites and he didn't credit them, he credits himself. All I'm saying is, that he must not be able to defend what he believes or even know what he has faith in, if he has to copy other peoples words and use them as his own.

Name: Panluna • Date: 06/05/07 13:33

A: JSM,
Sometimes people have a problem expressing their own opinions without substantiation --quoting from outside sources.

Design and Marketing by TalMor Media