If we assume that everything in the Torah is true, we have not shown that nothing else is or that we understand everything we are told.

Even if the Torah doesn't mention gradual settlement, it could still have happened. And G-d providing for all one's needs does not necessarily manifest in the ways we envision today, with supernatural special effects. It could simply mean, and most likely did, that the settlements always had what they needed.

The events told in the Torah happened on some days, but not necessarily on all days.

To be more specific this is because of the rebellion of Kadesh-Barnea:

The Lord told Israel to spy out the land (Numbers 13).  When the 12 men came back to give their report only Caleb and Joshua came back with a good report (v30) they said "let's go take it."  But the other 10 spies were cowards and not obedient.  All they saw were giants in the land.  Scardy britches. 

So all the people were influenced by the majority of the 10 spies disregarding the two (Chap14) and they went after Moses complaining bitterly calling for a new leader and wanting to go back to Egypt (represents worldliness).  So Moses and Aaron fell before God interceding on behalf of Israel knowing how rebellious this was.  God basically said stand back and I'll wipe them all out.  But because of the intercession of Moses and Aaron God instead said these Jews over the age of 20 would not enter the promised land of Canaan. 

This was the last straw.  God had it with the Israelites.  He said this in Numbers 14:

"Because all those men which have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I sware to their fathers neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.  But my servant Caleb becasue he had another spirit with him and had followed me fully, him will I bring into the land where he went and his seed shall posses it.  ......you shall not come into the land concerning which I sware to make you dwell except Caleb and Joshua.  But your little ones which you said should be a prey them will I bring in and they shall know the land which you have despised.  But as for you, your carcases they shall fall in this wilderness.  And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years..........after the number of the days in which you searched the land, even forty days each day for a year shall you bear your iniquities even forty years.....

The fulfillment of this time can be found in Joshua 14 where Joshua recounted this time and says:

"Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land and I brought him word again as it was in my heart...I wholly followed the Lord my God...and Moses swore on that day saying Surely the land whereon your feet have trodden shall be your inheritance and your children's forever, because you have wholly followed the Lord."

I just answered this question on the other site for you because you asked there as well.  Maybe that will help? 

The short answer is the Holy Spirit and I explained it further there.  But also as you say here, it's from the reading of scripture.  I tend not to believe others unless I thoroughly research...learned the hard way over the years.  I rely on the Holy Spirit's guidance to lead me to the scriptures..that's not to say that I don't take Godly counsel over the years from very good preaching and teaching as well. 

whisper2 posts:

KFC,

Did you delete my response to Whisper2 regarding the highlighted part of his comment?

Thank you KFC for your answer.  It makes sense to me, but can you tell me what you mean by "research"?

Leauki, do you have an opinon of what KFC wrote about the hebrews in the desert?  Do you agree or disagree?

By the way thank you for your further explanations.

This was the last straw.  God had it with the Israelites.  He said this in Numbers 14:

"Because all those men which have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I sware to their fathers neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.  But my servant Caleb becasue he had another spirit with him and had followed me fully, him will I bring into the land where he went and his seed shall posses it.  ......you shall not come into the land concerning which I sware to make you dwell except Caleb and Joshua.  But your little ones which you said should be a prey them will I bring in and they shall know the land which you have despised.  But as for you, your carcases they shall fall in this wilderness.  And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years..........after the number of the days in which you searched the land, even forty days each day for a year shall you bear your iniquities even forty years.....

The fulfillment of this time can be found in Joshua 14 where Joshua recounted this time and says:

"Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land and I brought him word again as it was in my heart...I wholly followed the Lord my God...and Moses swore on that day saying Surely the land whereon your feet have trodden shall be your inheritance and your children's forever, because you have wholly followed the Lord."

This is what you agree with Leauki?  If you do, why?

I am not sure what you are getting at...

I agree that the land was given to the Israelites for forever, if that is what you are wondering.

Sorry I quoted the wrong part, here it is:

I don't understand how her explanation is different from mine:

"The Torah itself says that G-d was disappointed with the current generation of Israel and hence decided to make sure that everyone would die before the nation would reach the promised land. But their children would enjoy the land of promise and nobody was meant to die early. That's why it had to take 40 years."

Taking that amount of time to cross the desert because of the number of people to make the crossing because it takes that much time, sounds radically different from because God wished to weed out those that were not "worthy".  I do see a similarity between your points of view, but only to a point.  You credit the 40 years to the movement of so many peoples, and she creidits it (according to Torah) because of the will of God.  

I am curious, what is your personal point of view that you deem the truth on this subject of 40 years to cross such a small desert, God, or simply time?  Or perhaps it's a combination of both?

lula posts:

LEAUKI POSTS:

First, It's good to see that no one is denying that Almighty God kept His promise of giving the land of Genesis 15:18-20 to Abraham and his descendants. This confirms the first time the ancient Isrealites acquired the land resulted from the promise of God.

The second time Jews got the land of present day Isreal in 1948 was the result of the godless political forces of the United Nations is a completely different story.

The Jewish takeover involved a bloody slaughter against native Palestinians has been called a "miracle" by some. Was it? My conscience tells me the answer is NO. I think the Jews were in the wrong to do this. And for this I will incur everyone's wrath and be labeled an "anti-Semite" because no one, but no one who is a non-Jew can speak of the wrongs committed by Jews.

Nevertheless, as far as keeping God's commands, what's new among the Jews? The taking over the Palestinian land in the manner the Jews did is just more sinning against God and their fellow man followed by more sin and that is the rationalizations to justify it.

when someone makes a claim about scripture and I'm not sure of it, or if a red flag starts to wave in my face I not only go and read it in full context but I also cross reference it with other scriptures especially if it's a hard teaching.    For  instance when Lula was adament about the baptism washing away sins I knew it was not right.   I didn't have to look anything up because I know the theology quite well.  But when she put down Acts 22:16 to prove her point she might as well have bought the biggest flag she could find because it sure didn't make any sense to what I believe is the correct interpretation of scripture.  Sure enough she left off the most important part of the scripture. 

does this have something to do with the "worthyiness" of the people? 

Whisper...if you have a bible just read Numbers 13-14 and Joshua and you'll see exactly what happened.  It will take you just a few minutes and you'll get a good grasp of what happened. 

Most kids know this story...the story of Caleb and Joshua from way back in SS.  So I take it you didn't go to SS when you were a kid? 

I believe both are the same thing.

I believe that whatever G-d does manifests itself as a force of nature in our world. Saying that god wouldn't let anyone 20 or older into the land of Israel is the same as saying that it simply takes that long to get there. There is no difference between the two.

Yes.

Says who? And what do you mean "second"? You keep forgetting the Babylonian exile.

1:

"Almighty God kept His promise of giving the land of Genesis 15:18-20 to Abraham and his descendants. This confirms the first time the ancient Isrealites acquired the land resulted from the promise of God."

Note that I am one of those descendants.

This kingdom was overrun by Assyrians/Babylonians.

2:

Cyrus, G-d's Annointed King (a "Messiah" in Bible speech), returned the Israelites to the land of Israel and a kingdom of Israel existed within the Persian empire.

This kingdom was overrun Greeks and then ruled by Romans until its dissolution about 2000 years ago at the hands of Rome.

3:

In the late 19th century Jews returned to Israel again, bought land, founded cities like Tel Aviv, and lived as Ottoman subjects until World War 1, when Israel became a British territory and until 1948 when Israel became independent again.

KFC would say that this is part of the plan and ultimately Jesus' doing. If it was, I am fine with it. But there is nothing "godless" about it. It's simply that "descendants" thing. The word didn't go away. The land was given to Abraham and his descendants and the land of Israel itself was given to Moses' people and their descendants.

And your theological argument against that simply consists of declaring it godless, but no part of scripture says so.

That's why you have to ignore the Babylonian exile, because it provides a Biblical example of the Israelites losing and regaining their land and Judaism existing without a Temple.

The "bloody slaughter" myth is a lie.

I also find it interesting that someone who pretends to be Catholic seems to believe that the holy land belongs to the (Muslim) Arabs.

Either way, it was the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1948. And that Israel survived the attack and the following attacks was a miracle.

If you believe that a couple hundred thousand Jews actually planned a war against one hundred million Arabs led by the British-trained and equipped Transjordanian army you are insane.

You are.

You claim the fact that the Israelites live in the land now is "godless" and that the land belongs to the Arabs.

You are denying that G-d kept His promise by denying my people the right to live in the land of promise.

Where did this "bloody slaughter" myth originate anyway?

Israel was already settled by Jews before World War II. Then happened the Holocaust and for a few months the world thought that maybe all the stories told about the blood-thirsty Jews were lies.

But three years later it was forgotten and the Arabs were allowed to attack the Jews to "throw them into the sea" under the leadership of the British-trained Tranjordanian army led by British officers and under the "spiritual guidance" of Hitler's good friend, the "Grandt Mufti" of Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat's uncle and mentor.

The attacked were Jews that survived the Holocaust and fled to British territory and middle-eastern Jews who had escaped Nazi-allied Iraq and other Arab countries as well as native "Palestinian" Jews.

And when the Arabs failed to throw the Jews into the sea and a second Holocaust was avoided, the legend of the "bloody slaughter" of "natives" (because obviously the attacking Arabs were "native" to "Palestine", like Cairo-born Arafat) was born, because what other explanation was there for the Arab defeat?

How could it be that for the first time in history a routine slaughter of Jews failed to materialise? How dare the Jews to fight back for the first time in thousands of years? Why of all peoples did the Arabs fall victim to such a novelty. It's unfair. Everybody else was allowed to kill the Jews whenever it came handy. Why did the dream of a Jew-free middle-east have to fail so quickly when Germany had the thing going for Europe for years?

Or in the words of Palestinian Arab leader Al-Husainy in a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation submitted to Germany:

"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."

It was outrageous.

And we are back to the blood libels.

But to top it all, the lies are not told by honest fascists in black uniforms and skull symbols on their hats. No. They are told by self-proclaimed Christians and Muslims.

And suddenly the invading Arab armies were forgotten and the war was not between Israel and many Arab states but between evil Zionists and a "native population" (who themselves barely fought in the war and were told by the invading armies to leave the very country the armies claimed to want to "liberate").

History changed. It CANNOT be that a small group of Jews beats an empire. It must not be. It would be a miracle and it must not be.

Hence an Arab attack becomes a Jewish slaughter of a native population. And suddenly all Arabs in Palestine, including those who migrated to Israel from Egypt in search for jobs in a Zionist-created economy, were more "native" than Jewish communities that had lived in Hevron and Jerusalem for over 3000 years until thrown out by the Arabs during the "Jewish slaughter of native Palestinians".

"does this have something to do with the "worthyiness" of the people?"

Not at all.  However you do know my feelings on the use of the term "worthy".  All are worthy, for God created all, but some are simply not ready to render unto God that which is Gods.

Is this all that you do for "research", look into more books and texts?  I'm asking because it's all that you mentioned.  Do you have no life experiences that aid you in proving or disproving the validity of what you read?

Yes KFC, as a matter of fact I did attend sunday school, but only for a short period of time due to the fact that my father was transfered overseas.  What I learned there was not the jewish histories nor even very much about Jesus, but of something far more important, that of the parable of the mustard seed.  In all fairness I must say that what I learned there in sunday school was the impetus that I needed as a child to further explore the spiritual.

lula posts:

Yes, this passage is in the NT, written by St.Paul to the Romans 11:25-27,

"25 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (Lest you should be be wise in your own conceits), taht blindness in part has happened in Isreal, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. 26 and so all Isreal should be saved; as it is written: "There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob", 27 and this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins."

KFC POSTS:

Ancient Judaism had oral Tradition as does the Catholic Church have Apostolic oral Tradition. The Protestant forefathers revolted from the Church and rejected Apostolic oral Tradition so it's not surprising that you, following Protestantism' own brand of tradition, makes statements such as this.

It's dogma developed and taught by Protestant oral tradition that holds sway over your interpretation of this passage of Scripture. To you,  "All" literally means every Jew, en masse will be saved and "Isreal" literally means in the modern physical state of Isreal.  But that you rely on Protestant oral tradition to come to this interpretation of Scripture escapes your notice. Again, why did you delete my post in which that was pointed out?

What does the clause of v. 26  mean? What's the correct interpretation?

You have often said,  "It's all about Him". So practice what you preach and apply "All Isreal" to Truth..."All Isreal" means all  those who accept Christ as Lord God and keep His commands, the summation of which is to love God and one's neighbor for God's sake. 

Ever since Adam and Eve fell into sin, it's been a spiritual battle for souls...In Genesis, God promised a Redeemer of all mankind....again, it's all about Him....Scripture is clear...it boils down to those who accept Christ and those who reject Him.

"All Isreal" consists of only those of ancient Judaism who were faithful ..only they retained the adoption...only they are the "remnant". The rest  belong to Satan.

The kind of "remnant' here is a group that is left over from a larger group.

I'm not going to belabor the point other than to say that a literal interpretation of this clause requirers the interpreter to satisfy the total inclusiveness of the word "all" and that hasn't been done by anyone and for good reason becasue it doesn't mean what you say it means.

Besides that, from St.Paul's use of the word "all" in other parts of Romans as well as his use of the word "remnant"  we can properly conclude taht he is including all the remnant of Jews from the Old Testament taht are added to all the remnant of Jews in the NT, such as both comprise "all Isreal".This way, God saves "Isreal" just as He intended to from the beginning when He gave His promises to Abraham.

Yeah, I would also use the word "all" to mean "some of the lot".

And the theology you know quite well is Protestant theology that comes from the Protestant forefathers and handed down through Portestand oral tradition which falsely teaches that Baptism is not necessary for salvation and doesn't wash away sins which is what your are repeating here.

Acts 22:16 fully supports that Baptism washes away sins. Christ didn't institute the Sacrament of Baptism and command that Baptism be done on all converts for no reason.

Excuse me Lulapilgrim, but what makes you think that the baptism of which Jesus speaks and instructs his apostles to perform is a baptism of water? 

Did not John the baptist say "I indeed baptize you with water, for repentance.  But he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to bear.  He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire."?

Can you explain this?

you keep saying this over and over and over.  I showed you where it was the blood of Christ or the calling on his name that washes away sins.  You admitted it by saying clearly it's God who washes away sins.  Then you resort back to this yet once again.  Do you know how absured this is? 

Ok, let's look at this from another angle shall we?  Go to Matt 15:1-20.  I'll put in only the first portion. You read the rest:

"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem saying, 'why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?'  He answered them 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?  For God commanded saying Honour your father and mother and He that curses father or mother let him die the death but you say whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, it is a gift, by whatsoever you might be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.  Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.  You hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, This people draw nigh to me with their lips but their heart is far from me.  But in vain they do worship me teachng for doctrines the commandments of men.  And he called the multitude and said to them, Hear and understand; Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth this defiles a man. 

Then his disciples said to him, did you know that the Pharisees were offended, after they head this saying? But he answered and said Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up.  Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind.  And if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch. "

The point of the story is external washings could NOT keep the Pharisees or anyone else spiritually clean.  It's the same with baptism.  It's NOT about the externals.  Physical water baptism is an external and a work.  It doesn't save nor does it wash away any sin.  Sin comes from within, from the heart. 

in v2 only traditional interpretation and expansion of the law required this cleansing, (Lev 22:1-16)

The false religion of legalistic Judaism like all false systems (RCC included) cannot change the inside so it is left to manipulate life on the outside.  That's what false religion is all about.  It's not about a relationship but about legalism and adherence to the church leaders' traditions. 

I see alot of similarities between the Pharisees traditions and legalisms and that of the RCC's traditions and dogmas.  They're pretty much the same.  It's like the modern RCC is the replacement for the Judizers of old.  Maybe that's the real genuine replacement that has taken place.  Makes much more sense. 

BINGO!  Exactly.  It has NOTHING to do with natural water!  Notice the word "but"?   External baptism does NOTHING to remedy sin.  That was John's whole point.