| Revision as of 17:43, 29 October 2010 edit196.210.239.170 (talk) →Publications← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:44, 8 June 2024 edit undoApaugasma (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,853 edits Reverted 1 edit by Sharekizek (talk): Rv block evasion (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial)Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Israeli political scientist}} | |||
| '''David Bukay''' is a Professor of Middle East Studies at the ]. He is the author of ''Islamic Fundamentalism and the Arab Political Culture''. He specializes in the ]; inter-Arab relations and the Palestinian question; international ] and fundamental ]; theoretical issues and political applications in the ]; ]'s foreign policy towards ] and ]; the culture approach to understanding the Middle-East. | |||
| '''David Bukay''' is a Professor of Middle East Studies at the ]. He is the author of ''Islamic Fundamentalism and the Arab Political Culture''. He specializes in the ]; inter-Arab relations and the Palestinian question; international ] and fundamental ]; theoretical issues and political applications in the ]; ]'s foreign policy towards ] and ]; the culture approach to understanding the Middle-East. | |||
| ==Views== | ==Views== | ||
| Bukay is a supporter of the controversial ] thesis of the ]. He argues that there is a wide gap between what he categorises as "Western political culture" and "the Arab-Islamic political culture". Bukay also holds controversial opinions in his own right. In a speech to a conference in Jerusalem in 2003, he argued that "the aggressiveness and fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism is an existentially lethal phenomenon". He went on to claim that "Islam and democracy are totally incompatible, and are mutually inconclusive. The same applies to Modernity, which is perceived as a threat to Islamic civilization", and that "Leaders and policy-makers in the West refuse to grasp that the Islamic and Palestinian terrorism embodies the SARS decease: Suicide and Ruin Syndrome of democratic society. Until it is understood that this struggle is the war between the Son of Light against the Sons of Darkness, that they represent the invasion of the Huns, in order to destroy modern |
Bukay is a supporter of the controversial ] thesis of the ]. He argues that there is a wide gap between what he categorises as "Western political culture" and "the Arab-Islamic political culture". Bukay also holds controversial opinions in his own right. In a speech to a conference in Jerusalem in 2003, he argued that "the aggressiveness and fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism is an existentially lethal phenomenon". He went on to claim that "Islam and democracy are totally incompatible, and are mutually inconclusive. The same applies to Modernity, which is perceived as a threat to Islamic civilization", and that "Leaders and policy-makers in the West refuse to grasp that the Islamic and Palestinian terrorism embodies the SARS decease: Suicide and Ruin Syndrome of democratic society. Until it is understood that this struggle is the war between the Son of Light against the Sons of Darkness, that they represent the invasion of the Huns, in order to destroy modern culture—the world will continue to face an existential more growing threat".<ref name=JerusalemSummit>Bukay, David. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161024095148/http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/full.php?id=23&speaker=72&summit=32 |date=October 24, 2016 }}, First Jerusalem Summit, October 12–14, 2003.</ref> | ||
| In his book ''Arab-Islamic Political Culture'', Bukay writes: "This is a culture where rumors are an integral part of social activity, and they quickly become absolute truth that cannot be challenged. It has to do with exaggerations, flights of fancy, and especially, in a society that believes in conspiracies, a society wherein every date is important, that remembers everything and forgives nothing. This is a society wherein the lie is an essential component of behavior patterns, and lying is endorsed by religious sages". |
In his book ''Arab-Islamic Political Culture'', Bukay writes: "This is a culture where rumors are an integral part of social activity, and they quickly become absolute truth that cannot be challenged. It has to do with exaggerations, flights of fancy, and especially, in a society that believes in conspiracies, a society wherein every date is important, that remembers everything and forgives nothing. This is a society wherein the lie is an essential component of behavior patterns, and lying is endorsed by religious sages".<ref name=Culture>Bukay, David. {{cite web|url=http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/issue1/bukay-1.htm |title=The First Cultural Flaw in Thinking: The Arab Personality |accessdate=2006-12-03 |url-status=bot: unknown |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071205101531/http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/issue1/bukay-1.htm |archivedate=December 5, 2007 }}, ''NATIV'', Vol. 1, 2003.</ref> | ||
| According to an article in '']'', Bukay also wrote in the same book: |
According to an article in '']'', Bukay also wrote in the same book: "There is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum, of any social position". The article further alleges that he distributed a document to his students stating that "when an Arab or a Muslim opens his remarks with the expression wallahi, he is apparently intending to lie".<ref name=Rappaport>Rappaport, Meron. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071001061915/http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=570225 |date=October 1, 2007}}, '']'', April 28, 2005.</ref> | ||
| Bukay held a presentation at the 2008 "Facing Jihad" conference in Jerusalem,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://facingjihad.com/schedule|title=About Facing Jihad: A Lawmakers' Summit|accessdate=January 21, 2023|work=Facing Jihad|archive-date=February 4, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090204130510/http://facingjihad.com/schedule|url-status=bot: unknown}}</ref> a ] summit hosted by MK ] that included a screening of the film '']'' by ].<ref>{{cite book|title=Das Fanal von Wangen: Der Schweizer Minarettdiskurs - Ursachen und Folgen|first=Oliver|last=Wäckerlig|year=2014|pages=213–214|publisher=Akademikerverlag|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260115101|language=German|isbn=978-3-639-49757-1}}</ref> His 2016 book ''Islam and the Infidels: the Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah'' cites ]'s ] thesis as "acclaimed research".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://archive.org/stream/IslamAndInfidelsDavidBukay/Islam%20and%20Infidels%20%28David%20Bukay%29_djvu.txt|title=Full text of "Islam And Infidels ( David Bukay)"|accessdate=23 January 2023}}</ref> | |||
| <!-- ==Criticism== | |||
| The ] alleged that in the 2004-2005 University of Haifa semester Bukay made a number of offensive and anti-Arab remarks in his lectures, including “we should shoot terrorists in the head in front of their families” as a deterrent and “destroy a whole house, with everyone in it,” in order to get rid of one wanted person, that “the Arabs are just alcohol and sex”, and that “the Arabs are stupid and have contributed nothing to humanity.”<ref name=ArabHRA>]. , ], June 2005.{{deadlink}}</ref> Bukay wrote a lengthy article rebutting the claims, insisting that the comments attributed to him had been fabricated.<ref>Bukay, David. , ''NATIV'', Volume 8, October 2005.</ref> The rector of the University conducted his own investigation and concluded that the alleged remarks "were not made in the way they were quoted and parts of sentences that were uttered in different contexts were yoked together by manipulation."<ref name=Rappaport/> | |||
| ==Criticism== | |||
| The AAHR also took issue with a number of statements he made in an article titled "The First Cultural Flaw in Thought: The Arab Character"; the latter were also criticized by the ], which stated they "fall... into the trap of old and hurtful stereotypes, which express prejudices that are liable to be very destructive..."<ref name=Rappaport/> | |||
| The Arab Association for Human Rights alleged that in the 2004–2005 University of Haifa semester Bukay made a number of offensive and anti-Arab remarks in his lectures, including "we should shoot terrorists in the head in front of their families" as a deterrent and "destroy a whole house, with everyone in it,” in order to get rid of one wanted person, that "the Arabs are just alcohol and sex", and that "the Arabs are stupid and have contributed nothing to humanity."<ref name=ArabHRA>]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927215142/http://www.arabhra.org/publications/reports/Word/YearlyReport2005English.doc |date=2007-09-27}}, ], June 2005.</ref> Bukay wrote a lengthy article rebutting the claims, insisting that the comments attributed to him had been fabricated.<ref>Bukay, David. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061217124537/http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/08-issue/bukay-8.htm |date=December 17, 2006}}, ''NATIV'', Volume 8, October 2005.</ref> The rector of the University conducted his own investigation and concluded that the alleged remarks "were not made in the way they were quoted and parts of sentences that were uttered in different contexts were yoked together by manipulation."<ref name=Rappaport /> The AAHR also took issue with a number of statements he made in an article titled "The First Cultural Flaw in Thought: The Arab Character"; the latter were also criticized by the ], which stated they "fall... into the trap of old and hurtful stereotypes, which express prejudices that are liable to be very destructive..."<ref name=Rappaport/> | |||
| --> | |||
| ==Publications== | ==Publications== | ||
| ===Books=== | ===Books=== | ||
| * ''Islam and the Infidels: the Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah''. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2016. | |||
| * ''Total Terrorism in the Name of Allah: The Emergence of the New Islamic Fundamentalists''. Shaarei-Tikva: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2002. | * ''Total Terrorism in the Name of Allah: The Emergence of the New Islamic Fundamentalists''. Shaarei-Tikva: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2002. | ||
| * ''Arab-Islamic Political Culture''. Shaarei-Tikva: Center for Policy Research, 2003. | * ''Arab-Islamic Political Culture''. Shaarei-Tikva: Center for Policy Research, 2003. | ||
| * Ed.: '' |
* Ed.: ''Muhammad's Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to Radical Islam for Western Audiences''. Green Forest, Ar.: Balfour Books, 2004. | ||
| * ''Arafat, the Palestinian National Movement and Israel: The Politics of Masks and Paradox''. New York: Mellen Press, 2005. | * ''Arafat, the Palestinian National Movement and Israel: The Politics of Masks and Paradox''. New York: Mellen Press, 2005. | ||
| * |
* ''From Muhammed to Bin Laden: Religious and Ideological Sources of the Homicide Bombers Phenomenon''. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2008. | ||
| ===Articles=== | ===Articles=== | ||
| * |
* "Zionists, Post-Zionists and Pseudo-Zionists: The Media Leftist Complex and the al-Aqsa Intifadah", in: S. Sharan (ed.). ''Israel and the Post-Zionists''. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2003. | ||
| * |
* "The New Islamic Anarchistic Groups", in: D. Bukay. ''Muhammad's Monsters''. | ||
| The Facts about the Bible | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| Introduction | |||
| {{Reflist}} | |||
| {{Authority control}} | |||
| What should be made known is the fact that the history of the Bible as revealed by Christians and Jews proves that the Bible was constructed by them. Their claims reveal that the Bible is not a divine book nor is it an inspired book as no one knows its authors! The Bible is divided into two sections, which constitute their Scriptures, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The first Church in Christianity is the Roman Catholic Church, they claim that the Old Testament generally consists of 45 books and the New Testament consists of 27 books. Then shockingly, they add a rider to it: “Although the number might be some-what higher or lower depending on how one separates or combines certain Old Testament books”. However, the Protestants who came into existence only 1228 years after the first Church, claims that the Old Testament contain only 39 books. | |||
| The evidence to substantiate what has been said: | |||
| Christianity is taught to be one of the major ways of life in the world. It is claim by Christians to a religion. Yet they claim that their book is not based on the original guidance or revelations from the Creator. The first Church in Christianity claims: | |||
| “Bible, Manuscripts of the. Copies of the Biblical text, written by hand. The text of the Bible has been handed down to us through handwritten and printed copies of the original writings and through translations into various ancient and modern languages. None of the original manuscripts written by the inspired authors themselves (autographs) is known to exist, but there are many ancient copies of the originals.” (Our emphases) | |||
| The effect of the above claim is so devastating that the other denominations of Christianity which came into existence 1,228 years after the first Church wants to claim that the first Church has no right to state what they claimed is the truth! On what grounds can anyone object to what the original Church in Christianity knows is the truth? In spite of the foolish objections, the combined mainstream Protestant Churches claims: | |||
| “Since no autograph of any book of the Bible has survived, textual criticism plays an important part in Bible study. The material on which textual critics of the Bible work includes not only manuscript copies of the books of the Bible in their original languages but also ancient translations into other languages and quotations of biblical passages by ancient authors”. | |||
| The above submission must have been known to them as they were originally all Catholics, who became Protestants only after they first became apostates! However, it is clear that the main bone of contention must have been the Bible itself! The fact that the Biblical contents were changed proves the point! | |||
| Why was it so easy to create all these great devastating differences, if the Bible was the word of their Creator? There are many reasons that made it so simple! Out of the many, one of the most obvious is the language! Is it not strange that “Moses” is claimed to have appeared in the year 4004 BC? Yet, the name of the book is claimed to be the Bible which is ‘derived through Latin from the Greek’ language! Both nations entered Palestine thousands of years after “Moses”! Now surely “Moses” could never have spoken to Pharaoh in any of the languages claimed by the Jews and Christians, which according to them was Hebrew or even if they want to claim that it was Aramaic! It should be known that the name of the language Hebrew is a Greek word and not a word originated from the Children of Isrâ’îl. What does this mean? It means that not one word of the Old Testament can be the truth, as no prophet that came to the Children of Isrâ’îl spoke Hebrew! | |||
| Adam never sinned according to the Bible | |||
| Let us prove what we claim: | |||
| Genesis 2:15: “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. | |||
| 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: | |||
| 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. | |||
| 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. | |||
| 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. | |||
| 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. | |||
| 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; | |||
| 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. | |||
| 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man | |||
| 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. | |||
| Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. | |||
| Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? | |||
| 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: | |||
| 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. | |||
| 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: | |||
| 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. | |||
| 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. | |||
| 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. | |||
| 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. | |||
| 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? | |||
| 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. | |||
| 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? | |||
| 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. | |||
| 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. | |||
| 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: | |||
| 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. | |||
| 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. | |||
| 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; | |||
| 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; | |||
| 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. | |||
| 20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. | |||
| 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. | |||
| 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: | |||
| 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. | |||
| Genesis 3:24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” | |||
| When we informed a sane but ordinary uneducated Christian person about this story, he went and lay on his stomach and laughed for some time; when he was finished, we told him this is a Holy Biblical story. He reacted by saying this cannot be true! He said: ‘are you saying that God wants to dress the Garden of Eden and let human beings walk naked?’ We said: ‘This is what is written in your Holy Bible.’ He said: ‘I am not an educated person and cannot read, but what you are saying is bullshit!’ We said ‘you must retract those words because you are talking about the Holy Bible!’ Then he got furious, and said ‘do you play with the words of God?’ Then we gave him a Bible and said go home and ask anyone to read to you the marked pages. He then said: ‘But I cannot believe that a serpent can talk!’ We said: ‘It might have happened in those days – who knows?’ He interjected and said ‘please stop this bullshit!’ Again we said ‘please retract those words.’ Then he asks, ‘can you prove to me that a serpent can speak?’ We tried to calm him, and he reacted by saying ‘the people still walk naked in Europe why cant serpents also still talk?’ Then we thought it is best not to continue as he might become violent. | |||
| Then we found a well educated Christian, who has a doctorate in Zoology and we said to him ‘brother, can you please explain this Biblical narration to us?’ We gave him the few pages which we photo-copied. He looked at it for some time and said ‘this can never be from my Holy Bible!’ We ask him why he thinks so. He said: ‘look at all the things Adam had done by naming every animal that exists which I myself do not know, and I have studied many animals!’ Then we tried to change the subject by saying you know that sometimes you see Christians runs naked on a Rugby field and you must have seen in the news papers that many educated Europeans in Holland ride bicycles naked the other day! So why must Adam not be able to be like those Europeans? Then he said: ‘Adam did not know anything until the talking serpent told his wife that it was God who lied about eating the fruit that they would die! So how could Adam have known the names of all the animals which I still do not know today? You must remember that I am a Zoologist.’ Then we ask him, how do you as a Christian explains that “they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day”? He then said: ‘These papers cannot be from the Holy Bible!’ We ask why you think so. He said: ‘Don’t be silly, it makes no sense as no one’s voice can walk. This could not even be a metaphorical statement.’ Then we said, alright but what have you to say about Adam’s sin? He quickly responded and said are we trying to be funny? We said what is funny about the question? He said ‘how was it possible for Adam to commit any sin while in a state of ignorance?’ We responded by saying that is what your Holy Bible claims! He said ‘these papers can never be the words of the Holy Bible!’ Then we said what are you going to do when we show you that these verses were copied from the Bible? He said do you know that ‘I am going to Church for over 45 years and never heard these verses!’ We said you might not have listened carefully enough. He said: Please bring me a Holy Bible! We fetch one, and he started reading it. Then he looked down and said: ‘Damn it!’ We said do not feel bad many people do not read their Scriptures. He responded, ‘I cannot believe this; it has shaken my entire life!’ We thought that we must just give him a Translated Qur’ân, then we gave him a Translated Qur’ân and said: Now you try and do the same what we have done, he then smiled and we said Goodbye! | |||
| However, the many absurd fables are in the Holy man-made reconstructed fabricated Bible as a whole must be classified as an Apocryphal book! | |||
| The fewer verses appeared first in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible. Thereafter, the New International Version’s Textual Critics decided to do the same as that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible, but the New International Version’s Textual Critics decided to remove the number of the verse also: | |||
| Matthew 17: 21 Matthew 18: 11 Matthew 23:14 | |||
| Mark 7: 16 | |||
| Mark 11: 26 Luke 23: 17 John 5:4 | |||
| Acts 8: 37 | |||
| Acts 15: 34 Acts 24: 7 Acts 28:29 Romans 16: 24 | |||
| The fewer books in all Protestant Bibles we referred to is as follows: We begin with the Roman Catholic’s Bible: | |||
| “OLD TESTAMENT | |||
| Historical Nooks (21) | |||
| Genesis; 4 Kings | |||
| Exodus 1 Paralipomenon | |||
| Leviticus 2 Paralipomenon | |||
| Numbers 1 Esdras | |||
| Deuteronomy 2 Esdras | |||
| Josue Tobias | |||
| Judges Judith | |||
| Ruth Esther | |||
| 1 Kings I Machabees | |||
| 2 Kings 2 Machabees | |||
| 3 Kings | |||
| Doctrinal Books (7) | |||
| Job Canticle of Canticles | |||
| Psalm Wisdom | |||
| Proverb Sirach | |||
| Ecclesiastes | |||
| Prophetic Books (17) | |||
| Isaias Jonas | |||
| Jeremias Micheas | |||
| Baruch Nahum | |||
| Ezechiel Habacuc | |||
| Daniel Sophonias | |||
| Osee Aggeus | |||
| Joel Zacharias | |||
| Amos Maiachias | |||
| Abdias | |||
| New TESTAMENT | |||
| Historical Books (5) | |||
| Matthew John | |||
| Mark Acts of the Apostles | |||
| Luke | |||
| Doctrinal Books (Epistles, 21) | |||
| Romans Titus | |||
| 1 Corinthians Philemon | |||
| 2 Corinthians Hebrews | |||
| Galatians James | |||
| Ephesians 1 Peter | |||
| Ephesians 2 Peter | |||
| Colossians 1 John | |||
| 1 Thessalonians 2 John | |||
| 2 Thessalonians 3 John | |||
| I Timothy Jude | |||
| 2 Timothy | |||
| Prophetic Book (1) | |||
| Apocalypse | |||
| Protestants accept both the Old and the New Testaments and generally di¬vide the books into groups in the same way as Catholics. Most Protestants, however, exclude from the Old Testa¬ment six complete books (seven, if Baruch is considered a separate book) and parts of two others. These books (called “apocrypha” by, most non¬-Catholics) were included in Protestant Bibles until fairly recent times. In his German Bible (1534), Luther did not exclude them, but relegated them to the end of the book. The King James translators (1611) did the same thing. It was only in 1827 that the British and American Bible societies began to ex¬clude them completely. | |||
| Moreover, the names of the Old Testament books differ somewhat be¬tween the King James Version or other Protestant versions and most Catholic Bibles. The difference in name is of no theological importance, and there is a tendency among some Catholics today to adopt the King James’ spellings. | |||
| CATHOLIC BIBLE PROTESTANT BIBLE | |||
| Genesis Genesis | |||
| Exodus Exodus | |||
| Leviticus Leviticus | |||
| Numbers Numbers | |||
| Deuteronomy Deuteronomy | |||
| Josue Joshua | |||
| Judges Judges | |||
| Ruth Ruth | |||
| 1 Kings 1 Samuel | |||
| 2 Kings 2 Samuel | |||
| 3 Kings 1 Kings | |||
| 4 Kings 2 Kings | |||
| 1 Paralipomenon 2 Chronicles | |||
| 2 Paralipomenon 2 Chronicles | |||
| Esdras Ezra | |||
| 2 Esdras Nehemiah | |||
| Tobias (omitted) | |||
| Judith (omitted) | |||
| Esther Esther (a portion omitted) | |||
| Job Job | |||
| Psalms Psalms | |||
| Proverbs Proverbs | |||
| Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes | |||
| Canticle of Canticles Song of Solomon | |||
| Wisdom (omitted) | |||
| Sirach (omitted) | |||
| Isaias Isaiah | |||
| Jeremias Jeremiah | |||
| Lamentations Lamentations | |||
| Baruch (omitted) | |||
| Ezechiel Ezekiel | |||
| Daniel Daniel (part omitted) | |||
| Osee Hosea | |||
| Joel Joel | |||
| Amos Amos | |||
| Abdias Obadiah | |||
| Jonas Jonah | |||
| Micheas Micah | |||
| Nahum Nahum | |||
| Habacuc Habakkuk | |||
| Sophonias Zephaniah | |||
| Aggeus Haggai | |||
| Zacharias Zechariah | |||
| Malachias Malachi | |||
| 1 Machabees (omitted) | |||
| 2 Machabees (omitted) | |||
| The Jews, who accept only 39 books of the Old Testament, divide, them into groups, but in a different way than Christians: | |||
| The Torah (the Law) | |||
| Genesis Numbers | |||
| Exodus Deuteronomy | |||
| Leviticus | |||
| The Former Prophets | |||
| Joshua 2 Samuel | |||
| Judges 1 Kings | |||
| I Samuel 2 Kings | |||
| The Latter Prophets | |||
| Isaiah Micah | |||
| Jeremiah Nahum | |||
| Ezekiel Habakkuk | |||
| Hosea Zephaniah | |||
| Joel Haggai | |||
| Amos Zechariah | |||
| Obadiah Malachi | |||
| Jonah | |||
| The Writings | |||
| Psalms Esther | |||
| Proverbs Daniel | |||
| Job Ezra | |||
| Song of Songs Nehemiah | |||
| Ruth I Chronicles | |||
| Lamentations 2 Chronicles | |||
| Ecclesiastes | |||
| The Bible is used in the Catholic Church chiefly for three purposes (I) the Bible is a source of divine revelation. God has spoken to men in two ways, through Scripture and through tradition (which see). The Council Of Trent stated that both founts of revela¬tion, Scripture and tradition, are to be esteemed equally. (2) Scriptural passages are always used in the Church’s liturgy. Both the praise of God and petitions to God found in liturgical prayer are either given in the words of the Bible or in a manner modeled after Scripture, e.g., the Psalms. Moreover, the readings and instructions incor¬porated in the liturgy are taken largely from Scripture. (3) Scripture is a re¬ligious book to be used also for one’s personal spiritual life. St. Jerome said that ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ, and Pope Benedict XV repeated this phrase of Jerome. No better book of personal spiritual reading could be found.” | |||
| After examining the above information one find it difficult to consider the Bible as a source of divine revelation or a book of inspired contents. The statement of the Roman Catholics that “Most Protestants, however, exclude from the Old Testa¬ment six complete books (seven, if Baruch is considered a separate book) and parts of two others” tells that there is no surety whether the book Baruch is really part of the Bible. The book Baruch is either a book of the Old Testament or it is simply not part of the words of God. This fact questions the authenticity of the first whole Bible. | |||
| Our concern is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. When the followers of the Roman Catholic Church decided to break away from the Church, they must either have disagreed with the Bible not being the words of God or they disagreed with the Pope or the Bishops or the Priests. If they disagreed with the Pope or the Bishops or the Priests, then they would not have changed the Bible. However, they have changed the Bible which makes it clear that it was the first Bible which they could not tolerate. If they had only disagreed with the Pope or the Bishops or the Priests or only one of the groups then they would never have changed the first Bible. Make no mistake, that those who broke away from the original Church must be termed as apostates. That is the first sin they committed; the second sin they committed is that they removed some books from the first Bible; the third sin they committed was that they changed the modus operandi of the Church. | |||
| Please keep in mind that we are not claiming that the Roman Catholics have the truth, as we have made our stand clear that they also do not possess the truth as by their own admission above, what we are doing is only revealing the state of those who broke away from the original Church. We shall reveal the state of all those who follows the Bible! One needs not to be a Professor to come to the conclusion that the Bible of all denominations is the main bone of contention. | |||
| It is important that we start with the biblical history as reported by those who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Bible opens with the following words: “To the most high and mighty prince James, by the grace of God, King of great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c.” This 1896 Bible reveals that Genesis chapter one began in the year 4004 BC. According to the book ‘The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary’ Jesus was born ‘(c 4 B.C. – c A.D. 30)’. According to John Blanchard, who states: “Strictly speaking, the Bible is not a book at all, but a collection of sixty-six documents brought together over the course of about 1,500 years, the most recent dating from about A.D. 95.” Then the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim: “The Bible was written over a span of some 1,600 years, from 1513 B.E.C. to about 98 C.E.” | |||
| We have the first oldest manuscripts dated 916 AD which is the Massoretic text. Then we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which brings the date a thousand years backwards. Blanchard reports as follows: “...the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript of a particular important chapter of the Bible is more than 1000 years older than the earliest copy we previously possessed...” What does this mean? It means that the Jehovah’s Witnesses seems not to tell the truth. If the Dead Sea Scrolls is a thousand years older, then the Bible cannot be older than about 100 BC. Even though the Dead Sea Scrolls are supposed to be the oldest, there is not one Bible that contains its contents. We ask why? They were forced to keep the documents for fifty years in secret and had to kill John Marco Allegro - in order to protect the secret of their manipulations of the Scrolls. So many controversial things were written about the Scrolls, but till today they have not been released, or even used in any of the Bibles. We believe strongly that the creation of Israel in 1948 was as a direct result of the Scrolls. It seems to have been the bargaining chip for Israel and it protection. Before 1947 the Jews and Christians did not see eye to eye but suddenly after the discovery of the Scrolls things changed dramatically and so quickly and Israel was created under the auspicious of the Christian nations. | |||
| We can safely say that the age of the Bible cannot begin before 100 BC, or let us be magnanimous and give it an extra 500 years grace, then we still have 3400 years left for which we must discover biblical documents in order to substantiate the authenticity of the Bible. Tom, Dick and Harry knows that there are no documents for those years. One can even go to the Kalahari and Sahara Deserts and the people there would tell you the same. It could even be that some of the people in Timbuktu might give reasons as to why there can never be an original Bible. | |||
| The Jehovah’s Witnesses, this new sect who emerged during 1931 claims the following: | |||
| “Book Writer Date Completed Time Covered Place Written | |||
| Genesis Moses 1513 after chapter 1, verse 2: Wilderness | |||
| 46,026-1657 | |||
| Exodus Moses 1512 1657 – 1512 Wilderness | |||
| Leviticus Moses 1512 1 Month (1512) Wilderness | |||
| Job Moses c. 1473 Over 140 years Wilderness | |||
| Between | |||
| 1657 -1473 | |||
| Numbers Moses 1473 1512 – 1473 Wilderness and | |||
| Plains of Moab | |||
| Deuteronomy Moses 1473 2 months (1473) Plains of Moab” | |||
| The Jehovah’s Witnesses who are supposed to have emerged from people who have studied the Bible, and called themselves ‘The Bible Students’ made the above false claim. If they had studied the Bible they would have known that the book of Job cannot be the book of Moses. They placed the book as the fourth book of Moses in the above quotation, but placed the book of Job in their Bible as the eighteenth book. What does it mean? Is this the work of righteous men? | |||
| Just on the above information the Bible cannot be the truth and by extension Christianity also cannot be the truth! | |||
| J. Arthur Findlay in the following words further supports the above view: | |||
| “Christianity was the compromise. Conditions then were like conditions now. Philosophy then, as Science now is doing, was killing superstition, and consequently the pagan priesthood opposed it just as the Christian priesthood opposed science. Science has conquered because it had behind it the printing press which philosophy lacked. The people then were turning away from the ancient Religion, the temples were neglected, and the Gods were not worshipped as of old. Something had to be done to preserve the power of the priesthood. Something new but yet the same had to be given to the people to satisfy their longings. Constantine on reaching the throne saw how events were moving within his domain, especially in Rome, and decided that the then little known cult, Christianity, suited best the needs of the people, provided its differences could be settled and it was brought more into line with pagan thought. Eusebius and Athanasius produced the necessary structure, the former the Nicene Creed and the latter the ideas which ultimately developed into the Athanasian Creed. Eusebius and the other Church fathers, it is reasonable to believe, would not hesitate to make what alterations were necessary in the writings and records of the cult to bring them into line with the creeds they produced. Honesty and accuracy, as we understand them, did not exist in those days. For three hundred years prior to Nicœa no historical records existed, so there was no great difficulty in deluding the people as to the past story of the cult. Any thing could be added to or subtracted from its past beliefs without undue comment” | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| <references/> | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Bukay, David}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:Bukay, David}} | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:44, 8 June 2024
Israeli political scientistDavid Bukay is a Professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Haifa. He is the author of Islamic Fundamentalism and the Arab Political Culture. He specializes in the Arab–Israeli conflict; inter-Arab relations and the Palestinian question; international terrorism and fundamental Islam; theoretical issues and political applications in the Middle East; Asad's foreign policy towards Israel and Lebanon; the culture approach to understanding the Middle-East.
Views
Bukay is a supporter of the controversial Huntington thesis of the Clash of Civilisations. He argues that there is a wide gap between what he categorises as "Western political culture" and "the Arab-Islamic political culture". Bukay also holds controversial opinions in his own right. In a speech to a conference in Jerusalem in 2003, he argued that "the aggressiveness and fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism is an existentially lethal phenomenon". He went on to claim that "Islam and democracy are totally incompatible, and are mutually inconclusive. The same applies to Modernity, which is perceived as a threat to Islamic civilization", and that "Leaders and policy-makers in the West refuse to grasp that the Islamic and Palestinian terrorism embodies the SARS decease: Suicide and Ruin Syndrome of democratic society. Until it is understood that this struggle is the war between the Son of Light against the Sons of Darkness, that they represent the invasion of the Huns, in order to destroy modern culture—the world will continue to face an existential more growing threat".
In his book Arab-Islamic Political Culture, Bukay writes: "This is a culture where rumors are an integral part of social activity, and they quickly become absolute truth that cannot be challenged. It has to do with exaggerations, flights of fancy, and especially, in a society that believes in conspiracies, a society wherein every date is important, that remembers everything and forgives nothing. This is a society wherein the lie is an essential component of behavior patterns, and lying is endorsed by religious sages".
According to an article in Haaretz, Bukay also wrote in the same book: "There is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum, of any social position". The article further alleges that he distributed a document to his students stating that "when an Arab or a Muslim opens his remarks with the expression wallahi, he is apparently intending to lie".
Bukay held a presentation at the 2008 "Facing Jihad" conference in Jerusalem, a counter-jihad summit hosted by MK Aryeh Eldad that included a screening of the film Fitna by Geert Wilders. His 2016 book Islam and the Infidels: the Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah cites Bat Ye'or's Eurabia thesis as "acclaimed research".
Criticism
The Arab Association for Human Rights alleged that in the 2004–2005 University of Haifa semester Bukay made a number of offensive and anti-Arab remarks in his lectures, including "we should shoot terrorists in the head in front of their families" as a deterrent and "destroy a whole house, with everyone in it,” in order to get rid of one wanted person, that "the Arabs are just alcohol and sex", and that "the Arabs are stupid and have contributed nothing to humanity." Bukay wrote a lengthy article rebutting the claims, insisting that the comments attributed to him had been fabricated. The rector of the University conducted his own investigation and concluded that the alleged remarks "were not made in the way they were quoted and parts of sentences that were uttered in different contexts were yoked together by manipulation." The AAHR also took issue with a number of statements he made in an article titled "The First Cultural Flaw in Thought: The Arab Character"; the latter were also criticized by the Anti-Defamation League, which stated they "fall... into the trap of old and hurtful stereotypes, which express prejudices that are liable to be very destructive..."
Publications
Books
- Islam and the Infidels: the Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2016.
- Total Terrorism in the Name of Allah: The Emergence of the New Islamic Fundamentalists. Shaarei-Tikva: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2002.
- Arab-Islamic Political Culture. Shaarei-Tikva: Center for Policy Research, 2003.
- Ed.: Muhammad's Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to Radical Islam for Western Audiences. Green Forest, Ar.: Balfour Books, 2004.
- Arafat, the Palestinian National Movement and Israel: The Politics of Masks and Paradox. New York: Mellen Press, 2005.
- From Muhammed to Bin Laden: Religious and Ideological Sources of the Homicide Bombers Phenomenon. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2008.
Articles
- "Zionists, Post-Zionists and Pseudo-Zionists: The Media Leftist Complex and the al-Aqsa Intifadah", in: S. Sharan (ed.). Israel and the Post-Zionists. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2003.
- "The New Islamic Anarchistic Groups", in: D. Bukay. Muhammad's Monsters.
Notes
- Bukay, David. "Cultural Fallacies in Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism and Palestinian Radicalism" Archived October 24, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, First Jerusalem Summit, October 12–14, 2003.
- Bukay, David. "The First Cultural Flaw in Thinking: The Arab Personality". Archived from the original on December 5, 2007. Retrieved 2006-12-03.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link), NATIV, Vol. 1, 2003. - ^ Rappaport, Meron. "In the name of truth" Archived October 1, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, Haaretz, April 28, 2005.
- "About Facing Jihad: A Lawmakers' Summit". Facing Jihad. Archived from the original on February 4, 2009. Retrieved January 21, 2023.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - Wäckerlig, Oliver (2014). Das Fanal von Wangen: Der Schweizer Minarettdiskurs - Ursachen und Folgen (in German). Akademikerverlag. pp. 213–214. ISBN 978-3-639-49757-1.
- "Full text of "Islam And Infidels ( David Bukay)"". Retrieved 23 January 2023.
- Cook, Jonathan. "On the Margins: Annual Review of Human Rights Violations of the Arab Palestinian Minority in Israel 2005" Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine, Arab Association for Human Rights, June 2005.
- Bukay, David. "The Image of Evil: On the Hideous Slander of Arab Students, Anti-Zionist Jews and the Scoop-Chasing Media" Archived December 17, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, NATIV, Volume 8, October 2005.