Sample New Testament Survey Study Questions - National Bible: Fill & Download for Free

September 11 attacksJonestown massacre2013 Myanmar's Buddhist anti-Muslim riots"...kill the idolaters wherever you find them" (Quran 9:5)"... utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox, and sheep, camel and ass". (1 Samuel 15:3)How can we tell what elements of God’s morality are culturally relative assumptions and which are genuine revelations? If it is up to us to decide what God said and what he didn’t, especially if these judgment calls are based on what sounds good to us, then we have become the authority, not God, not scripture.Atheist nations are more peacefulBy Tomas ReesBy Tomas Rees​"The 2009 Global Peace Index has just been released. It's basically a ranking of how turbulent and warlike a country is.They put it together by assessing 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy (Guardian).You can see a world map of peace at the Vision of Humanity website, and also take a look at country rankings for 2009, as well as earlier years.New Zealand came top this year. Hmm, New Zealand is a pretty non-religious country. In fact, if you eyeball the rankings, the top few countries are all pretty non-religious.What I've done in the figures here is to take data from the World Values Survey on the percentage of people in each country who say they are a committed atheist, and also on the percentage of people who say that they go to a religious service at least once a month.Then I split the sample into two equal groups, based on their score on the Global Peace Index. The ones in the 'Peaceful' group are countries with a GPI score of less than 1.8.Sure enough, peaceful countries have more atheists and fewer regular worshipers. The difference is highly statistically significant (P=0.001 or less) - in other words, it's real, not just a chance finding.Now, there are several possible reasons for this. It could be that people living in turbulent countries turn to religion, or it could be that religion is not a good way to structure modern society. Or it could be that some other factor or combination of factors (democracy? free speech? education? government welfare?) generates citizens who are both peaceful and non-religious.Whatever, it's another blow to the idea that secularization leads to social meltdown. Atheist countries are, in fact, more peaceful."The causes can be many, but more atheist countries are less likely to have criminals than more theist countries: Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime RateSince the field of criminology got started and data were collected of the religious affiliation of criminal offenders, the fact that the unaffiliated and the nonreligious had the lowest crime rates has been noted (von Hentig, H. 1948. The Criminal and His Victim. Yale University Press.). According to von Hentig, being unaffiliated is the best predictor of law-abiding behavior. There is no reason to doubt the validity of this generalization today (all data from Wikipedia):Rates of self-reported atheism:United States 4%Italy 7%Portugal 12%Sweden 85%Denmark 80%Norway 72%Japanese 65%Country Prisoners per 100,000 populationUnited States 716Portugal 134Italy 108Norway 71Sweden 67Denmark 68Japan 54Countries by intentional homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitantsUnited States 4.7Portugal 1.2Italy 0.9Sweden 1.0Norway 0.6Denmark 0.9Japan 0.4The obvious comparison is between the United States, which is unusually religious for an industrialized nation, and Europe, which over the past century has become increasingly secular. As far as we can tell, European morality does not appear to be on the verge of collapse. Europa's murder rate is much lower, as is the number of people in prison. Although Jesus is reported as saying that God will save those who have fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, and clothed the naked, if you are weak and vulnerable, you will be fortunate if you are in Europe, with its much better safety net and systems of universal health care than in the United States. When it comes to helping the world’s poorest people, the record of almost all the European nations is far better than that of the United States. Sweden gives more than four times as large a proportion of its gross national income in foreign aid as the United States.Indication of failure of the societyThere is a negative relationship between societal well-being and religion: the least religious societies tend to be the most successful. The total proportion of people of no religion, which encompassed those who self-described as atheists and agnostics, and those indifferent towards organized religion, it’s a majority: 71% in Denmark, 73% in Norway, 79% in Sweden, 67% in France, 52% in Germany, and 58% in the United Kingdom. Sociologists measure the well-being of countries using indices of social dysfunction that include things like levels of divorce, homicide, incarceration, juvenile mortality, alcohol consumption, poverty, income inequality, and so on. The least religious societies are the most successful. (See Sacred and Secular - Religion and Politics Worldwide - Pippa Norris 2nd ed 2012 and Atheist nations are more peaceful and Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate). While this correlation does not by itself implicate a cause, neither does it support the claim that religion is essential for a harmonious society. A strong predictor of religiosity is income inequality. In the United States, income inequality is one of the statistics most highly correlated with the national level of religious belief: the higher the inequality, the higher the average degree of religiosity. The two factors fluctuate in tandem, with religiosity increasing only after income inequality rises. The strength of religious belief changing after income inequality, and in the same direction, suggests that it’s the inequality that breeds faith rather than the other way around. There is nothing in the data that supports the claim that increased national religiosity is correlated with increased national virtue. We should surely find it strange that religion that is alleged to be a particularly important constituent of moral virtue fails to be significantly negatively correlated with uncontroversial measures of societal dysfunction. Look at the tables that plot nations’ religiosity and the tables that plot nations’ societal dysfunctions: murder rates, rape rates, burglary rates, alcohol abuse rates, drug abuse rates, marital breakdown rates, teen pregnancy rates, and so forth in http://www.nationmaster.com. Religiosity is not negatively correlated with higher levels of societal dysfunction. It is false that religion is a necessary condition of societal well-being, and it is false that secularity, atheism, agnosticism, and religious indifference are detrimental to society.IntoleranceThere is a positive correlation between the degree of involvement with religion and intolerance and prejudice. Religiosity has been found to correlate with increased racial prejudice, intolerance of non-conformists, and a punitive rather than forgiving attitude. 34 of 44 findings, from 36 studies conducted between 1940 and 1975, suggest a positive relationship between intolerance and involvement in religion, with only 2 of these 44 findings bucking this trend (See Batson, C. Daniel in Religion, Intolerance, and Conflict: A Scientific and Conceptual Investigation, edited by Steve Clarke, 2013) Religious commitment in the United States is highly correlated with racism. This should abolish the ever-present claim that religion is the most important warrant of morality. (See Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (1), 126–139)Why is Religion such a Potent Source of Violence?Religion correlates with heightened tolerance of in-group members, but it also correlates with increased intolerance of out-group members; and in religiously pluralistic countries, such as the USA, the overall effect of religion is to promote intolerance and prejudice. The relationship between religion and intolerance is nothing if not paradoxical. Increased involvement in religion, which often involves increased exposure to exhortations from religious leaders to be tolerant and to avoid prejudice, tends to result in heightened intolerance and increased prejudice. ( See The Justification of Religious Violence - Steve Clarke, 2014)What are explanatory or motivating reasons for religious violence?The followers of many different religions believe that there is an ongoing war, taking place on a cosmic scale, between the forces of good and the enemies of the good; and they are liable to appeal to the ethics of conventional war to justify violent action undertaken while prosecuting this cosmic war. The forces of good are typically understood by the religious to be led by God, or some other supreme good supernatural being, who is often believed to be locked in a struggle with forces led by Satan, or some other powerful evil supernatural being. Almost all of the religions that postulate an ongoing cosmic war call upon the devout to be soldiers or play the equivalent role in other religious traditions and contribute to the war effort on behalf of the forces of good. Most secular people will be familiar with appeals to the concept of a just war, which is often invoked in public discourse in attempts to persuade them to endorse their country’s participation in this or that war. Religious people think that, if they are at war, then they are fighting a just war. If a religious group is under attack, or imminent danger of being harmed, by Satan, or evil, or God’s enemies, or the allies of Satan, then presumably that religious group is entitled to use all reasonable means to defend its members, including violent ones. Religious groups are entitled to forcibly intervene to protect those innocent parties.The possibility of eternal happiness in heaven is sufficient to justify a range of violent acts. Indeed, in religions in which these are invoked, they are used to motivate the incorporation of considerations of consequence into justifications for violent action. If in the September 11 attacks hijackers believed that they will experience an eternity of bliss in heaven, rather than an eternity of suffering in hell, as a result of conducting the 9/11 attacks, then at least one set of consequences, which needs to be considered when we evaluate the morality of the 9/11 attacks, tells in favor of conducting those attacks. Members of Heaven's Gate believed that they will not die, if they kill themselves in the right way, at the right time, but will go on to live lives of eternal happiness instead, then the consequences of killing themselves in the right way, at the right time, are sure to be preferred to the consequences of not killing themselves. If Japanese people members of the religious group of Aum Shinrikyo believed that they will experience significantly better afterlives if they die by sarin gas sooner rather than later, then, all things being equal, considerations of consequence will lead us to prefer their dying sooner rather than later.Any demonstration of disrespect towards, or any mistreatment of, sacred lands, scripture, buildings, relics, or people can be expected to provoke outrage amongst those who hold these to be sacred and is liable to incite violence. The sacred is not an exclusively religious concept, and some of the appeals to the sacred that are made are conceptually close to secular appeals to sacred values. The view that human life is sacred, which is widespread amongst religious believers, underpins much ordinary secular morality, and which is enshrined in the common law. George Tiller, an American physician who provided abortions, was shot and killed. The appeal to justifiable homicide, offered in defense of Scott Roeder for his killing of George Tiller involves an appeal to a variant of this widely accepted view about the moral status of all living humans, with just one minor conceptual shift. Instead of holding that it is always immoral to attempt to kill innocent humans after they have been born, defenders of Scott Roeder hold that it is always immoral to kill innocent humans after they have been conceived. The conviction that lands, such as Israel and Arabia, are sacred and that everyone except members of certain religious groups should be forcibly removed from them is not wholly without analogs in the secular world. Secular sacralization occurs in many countries, which treat battlefields and memorials to national heroes as sacred sites. Also, national emblems such as flags are often sacralized. Bin Laden’s view that all forms of government, other than Islamic theological government, are blasphemous. Meir Kahane was an American Rabbi that emigrated to Israel and founded the Kach Party. Kahane and the Kach Party’s main goal was the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, by force if necessary. Bin Laden’s and Meir Kahane’s view that a particular people are holy and therefore entitled to disregard the moral claims and interests of all other peoples are extreme appeals to sacred values.What is so scandalous about outside influence in a religious milieu? The message from the outside world is not just that other ways of living are possible, that some people may not believe, or believe differently, or feel unconstrained by religious morality, or in the case of women make their own decisions without male supervision. The message is also that people can do that without paying a heavy price. Seen from the point of view of a religious group, the fact that many choices can be made in outside conditions without paying a heavy price means that defection is not costly and is therefore very likely.ConsiderationsWe have a choice between conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence would you invoke to prove they should value evidence? Can you claim that hatred based on religion would inevitably be replaced by hatred based on something else as if the world had to fulfill a given quota of antagonism? Sunnis and Shiites are still Muslims and have the same cultural background. They kill each other for faith alone. If you believe that religion can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. The more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the situation. Without a doubt, faith is the prime aggravator of violence in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Christian Serbians vs. Catholic Christian Croatians and Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Christian Protestants vs. Christian Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims and Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians). Religions gave us the assassinations of Egypt’s president Anwar Sadat by Islamic believers, of Israel’s prime minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish gunman, and India’s prime minister Indira Gandhi by Sikh bodyguards.Religion disables reality checks when it encourages people to believe in beings of untestable existence and undetectable forces, making people more vulnerable to oppression, fraud, and abuse. Religious leaders frequently contribute to wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting violence to promote their religious goals. For example, nowhere is faith's violence described more vividly, and with more stomach-turning details of ruthlessness, than in the Hebrew Bible. Nowadays Palestinians have been several times associated with a Biblical antagonist, Amalekites. Rabbi Israel Hess has recommended killing Palestinians, basing on biblical verses such as 1 Samuel 15. Shulamit Aloni, a member of the Israeli Knesset indicated in 2003 that Jewish children in Israel were being taught in religious schools that Palestinians were Amalek, and therefore an act of total genocide was a religious obligation. From Maya's human sacrifice to Shiite and Catholic self-flagellation, a sense of righteousness leads to violence because of claims of divine unverifiable favor for themselves, based on appeals to God.The notion of Buddhism as an inherent pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers and against them for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering. In Myanmar currently, much of the violence is directed at the Rohingya, a largely stateless Muslim group in Myanmar’s far west that the U.N. calls one of the world’s most persecuted people. In 2013 the central town of Meikhtila burned for days, with entire Muslim quarters razed by Buddhist mobs after a monk was killed by Muslims. The official death toll: two Buddhists and at least 40 Muslims. Among the country’s majority Bamar ethnic group, as well as across Buddhist parts of Asia, there’s a vague sense that their religion is under siege, that Islam, having centuries ago conquered the Buddhist lands of Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, now seeks new territory. Buddhist nationalists stoke fears that local Muslim populations are increasing faster than their own, and they worry about Middle Eastern money pouring in to build new mosques. Says the Buddhist monk Wirathu: “In Buddhism, we are not allowed to go on the offensive, but we have every right to protect and defend our community.” “You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog." Later, as he preaches to a crowd, he compels others to repeat after him, “I will sacrifice myself for the race”. When more than 1,500 monks met in 2013 at a monastery in the outskirts of Rangoon, the monks discussed a proposal to restrict marriages between Buddhists and Muslims.Is there objective morality in Christianity as were the biblically justified inquisitions, Crusades, anti-Semitism and pogroms, warrior Popes, witch hunts and executions, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of “spare the rod and spoil the child”, justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men, and killings of doctors on abortion clinics viewed as skirmishes in a grand Christian confrontation between forces of evil and good? If Christ said, "I came not to bring peace but a sword", (Matthew 10:34), it is the only prophecy in the New Testament that has been literally fulfilled.The very fact that there is no faith that is the majority in the world shows that there is not enough impartial evidence of a specific God and his morality for the majority. Why would God allow mortal disagreements about him for lack of convincing impartial evidence, not making his existence and morality absolutely obvious and undeniable? Why would a good God need to be absent?If the concept of God or supernatural is compatible with most cultures remaining radically mistaken, why does every religion like to think that his faith accurately indicates true morality? If a moral God existed, he would ensure that people would know how not to relate to him immorally, as through human or animal sacrifices, or through the religious precedence of the masculine over the feminine, or through costly or painful religious demonstrations of vulnerable people to him.The affection of a caring mother is palpable and comforts her children. A caring mother is not absent and does not need and could not use her power to coerce her children to love her. However, some believers say that God’s true existence and love cannot be palpable because that would unduly coerce people, taking away their moral freedom. If so, then:People are not coerced now but will be in the afterlife, for eternity;Supposed palpable divine providence and miracles nowadays or in sacred scriptures are palpable evidence of false Gods;Those who believe in God do not practice the morality they desire because they are coerced;Moses, Mohamed, the disciples of Jesus, and even Satan himself were compromised in their moral freedom;Loving a being does not require its palpable existence, only imagination of hypotheses;For sacred scriptures, divine love and moral freedom don’t have any meaning: Eternal hate and everlasting torture await in the afterlife anyone who questions the compassionate God's infinite love. If it's scary and sick if your boyfriend or girlfriend tells you: "If you don't love me, I'll torture you indefinitely", why is it not if God tells you this in the sacred scriptures?If God’s lack of moral improvement does not detract from his perfect goodness, then why does he value so much that we learn to resist evil instead of always being so? If God can create a paradise full of angels with free will, then free will is no justification for suffering. The value developed through experience with evil is the overcoming of evil. If there was no evil, why would God have to allow and make evil? If God's existence and love were palpable, coercion would not be necessary;God is unjust because he does not immediately punish and coerce immoral actions, but only in an intangible supposed life after death, and therefore makes his morality without tangible consequences in this life. The result is that human history and cultures reveal widespread differences of belief about what is morally wrong. There is no religious morality that forms a majority in the world. If God is hidden, the majority cannot develop the supposedly necessary morality, and therefore the absence of a good God is actually evidence that he does not exist;Why do believers support any attempts by people or governments to coerce immorality that God does not want to coerce? God’s intention cannot be that we alleviate the worst suffering, because our ignorance about why God allows or causes terrible and incomprehensible suffering is equal to our ignorance about why we should intervene in God’s supposed always good actions or omissions. If we must trust in God’s intentions, this trust must paralyze our morality;If an absent God is good, why would evil be the absence of God? Many can testify from personal experience that the state of alienation from God is not a state for which torture is an adequate metaphor. They were never interested in fellowship with God, to begin with, why would death change that?The simplest and most justifiable belief is not that an absent God is good, an unjustifiable belief, but that a good God simply does not exist.Supplement to DevasGuru's answer to What are the strongest arguments against religion?

I could not do better than Wayne Jackson on this very important question:Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy WeeksBy Wayne JacksonJesus Christ emphatically declared that the Old Testament Scriptures contained prophecies he would fulfill (Luke 24:27,44). Biblical scholars have catalogued more than three hundred amazing prophecies that find precise fulfillment in the life and labor of the Son of God. One of these predictive declarations is found in Daniel 9:24-27, commonly referred to as the prophecy of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” In this article, I would like to consider this important Old Testament oracle.A proper analysis of Daniel 9:24ff involves several factors. First, one should reflect upon the historical background out of which the prophetic utterance arose. Second, consideration should be given to the theological aspects of the Messiah’s work that are set forth in this passage. Third, the chronology of the prophecy must be noted carefully; it represents a prime example of the precision of divine prediction. Finally, one should contemplate the sobering judgment that was to be visited upon the Jewish nation in the wake of its rejection of the Christ. Let us give some attention to each of these issues.The Historical ContextBecause of Israel’s apostasy, the prophet Jeremiah had foretold that the Jews would be delivered as captives to Babylon. In that foreign land they would be confined for seventy years (Jeremiah 25:12; 29:10). Sure enough, the prophet’s warnings proved accurate. The general period of the Babylonian confinement was seventy years (Daniel 9:2; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Zechariah 1:12; 7:5). But why was a seventy-year captivity decreed? Why not sixty, or eighty? There was a reason for this exact time frame.The law of Moses had commanded the Israelites to acknowledge every seventh year as a sabbatical year. The ground was to lie at rest (Leviticus 25:1-7). Apparently, across the centuries Israel had ignored that divinely-imposed regulation. In their pre-captivity history, there seems to be no example of their ever having honored the sabbath-year law. Thus, according to the testimony of one biblical writer, the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity was assigned “until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths” (2 Chronicles 36:21).If each of the seventy captivity-years represented a violation of the sabbatical-year requirement (every seventh year), as 2 Chronicles 36:21 appears to suggest, this would indicate that Israel had neglected the divine injunction for approximately 490 years. The captivity era therefore looked backward upon five centuries of sinful neglect. At the same time, Daniel’s prophecy telescoped forward to a time—some 490 years into the future—when the “Anointed One” would “make an end of sins” (9:24). Daniel’s prophecy seems to mark a sort of midway point in the historical scheme of things.In the first year of Darius, who had been appointed king over the realm of the Chaldeans (ca. 538 B.C.), Daniel, reflecting upon the time-span suggested by Jeremiah’s prophecies, calculated that the captivity period almost was over (9:1-2). He thus approached Jehovah in prayer. The prophet confessed his sins, and those of the nation as well. He petitioned Jehovah to turn away his wrath from Jerusalem, and permit the temple to be rebuilt (9:16-17). The Lord responded to Daniel’s prayer in a message delivered by the angel Gabriel (9:24-27). The house of God would be rebuilt. A more significant blessing would come, however, in the Person of the Anointed One (Christ), who is greater than the temple (cf. Matthew 12:6). This prophecy was a delightful message of consolation to the despondent Hebrews in captivity.The Messiah’s MissionThis exciting context sets forth the primary purpose of Christ’s mission to Earth. First, the Messiah would come to deal with the problem of human sin. He would “finish transgression,” make an “end of sins,” and effect “reconciliation for iniquity.” That theme is developed gloriously throughout the New Testament (see Matthew 1:21; 20:28; 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:20; 1 Peter 2:24; Revelation 1:5—passages that are but a fractional sampling of the New Testament references to this exalted topic).The advent of Christ did not put an end to sin in the sense that wickedness was eradicated from the earth. Rather, the work of the Savior was to introduce a system that could provide effectually and permanently a solution to the human sin predicament. This is one of the themes of the book of Hebrews. Jesus’ death was a “once-for-all” event (see Hebrews 9:26). The Lord never will have to return to the earth to repeat the Calvary experience.It is interesting to note that Daniel emphasized that the Anointed One would address the problems of “transgression,” “sin,” and “iniquity”—as if to suggest that the Lord is capable of dealing with evil in all of its hideous forms. Similarly, the prophet Isaiah, in the fifty-third chapter of his narrative, revealed that the Messiah would sacrifice himself for “transgression” (vv. 5,8,12), “sin” (vv. 10,12), and “iniquity” (vv. 5,6,11).It is worthy of mention at this point that Isaiah 53 frequently is quoted in the New Testament in conjunction with the Lord’s atoning work at the time of his first coming. Since Daniel 9:24ff quite obviously has an identical thrust, it, too, must focus upon the Savior’s work at the cross, and not upon Jesus’ second coming—as is alleged by premillennialists.Second, in addition to his redemptive work in connection with sin, Daniel showed that the Messiah would usher in an era of “everlasting righteousness.” This obviously is a reference to the Gospel dispensation. In the pages of the New Testament, Paul forcefully argued that Heaven’s plan for accounting man as “righteous” was made known “at this present season” (Roman 3:21-26) through the Gospel (Romans 1:16-17).Third, the angel’s message suggested that as a result of the Messiah’s work, “vision and prophecy” would be sealed up. The Hebrew term denotes that which is brought to a conclusion or is finished (Gesenius 1979, 315). It should be emphasized that the major burden of the Old Testament was to proclaim the coming of God’s Son. Peter declared that the prophets of ancient times heralded the “sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them.” He affirmed that this message now is announced in the Gospel (1 Peter 1:10-12). Here is a crucial point. With the coming of the Savior to effect human redemption, and with the completion of the New Testament record which sets forth that message, the need for vision and prophecy became obsolete. As a result, prophecy (and other revelatory gifts) have “ceased” (see 1 Corinthians 13:8-13; Ephesians 4:11-16). There are no supernatural visions and prophecies being given by God in this age. [For further study, see Chapter 5 of Judisch, Jackson (1990, 114-124), and Miracles.]Fourth, Daniel stated that the “most holy” would be anointed. What is the meaning of this expression? Dispensational premillennialists interpret this as a reference to the rebuilding of the Jewish temple during the so-called “millennium.” But the premillennial concept is not supported by the facts.Any view that one adopts regarding this phraseology must be consistent with other biblical data. The expression “most holy” probably is an allusion to Christ himself, and the “anointing” a reference to the Lord’s endowment with the Holy Spirit at the commencement of his ministry (Matthew 3:16; Acts 10:38). Consider the following factors.While it is possible that the grammar can reflect a “most holy” thing or place (i.e., in a neuter form), it also can yield a masculine sense—“Most Holy One.” The immediate context tips the scales toward the masculine since the “anointed one, the prince” is mentioned in verse twenty-five.The “anointing” obviously belongs to the same time frame as the events previously mentioned, hence is associated with the Lord’s first coming, not the second one.Thompson has observed that the act of anointing never was associated with the temple’s “most holy” place in the Old Testament (1950, 268).Anointing was practiced in the Old Testament period as a rite of inauguration and consecration to the offices of prophet (1 Kings 19:16), priest (Exodus 28:41), and king (1 Samuel 10:1). Significantly, Christ functions in each of these roles (see Acts 3:20-23; Hebrews 3:1; Matthew 21:5).The anointing of Jesus was foretold elsewhere in the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1), and, in fact, the very title, “Christ,” means anointed.Fifth, the Anointed One was to “make a firm covenant with many” (Daniel 9:27a, ASV). A better rendition would be: “Make a covenant firm.” The meaning seems to be: the Messiah’s covenant surely will remain firm, i.e., prevail, even though he is killed. The “covenant,” as E.J. Young observed, “is the covenant of grace wherein the Messiah, by His life and death, obtains salvation for His people” (1954, 679).Sixth, as a result of Christ’s death, “the sacrifice and the oblation” would cease (9:27a). This is an allusion to the cessation of the Jewish sacrifices as a consequence of Jesus’ ultimate sacrificial offering at Golgotha. When the Lord died, the Mosaic law was “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). That “middle wall of partition” was abolished (Ephesians 2:13-17), and the “first covenant” was replaced by the “second” one (Hebrews 10:9-10). This was the “new covenant” of Jeremiah’s famous prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31-34; cf. Hebrews 8:7ff), and was ratified by the blood of Jesus himself (Matthew 26:28). This context is a rich depository of truth concerning the accomplishments of Christ by means of his redemptive work.The Prophetic ChronologyThe time element of this famous prophecy enabled the studious Hebrew to know when the promised Messiah would die for the sins of humanity. The chronology of this prophetic context involves three things: a commencement point, a duration period, and a concluding event.The beginning point was to coincide with a command to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” The time span between the starting point and the concluding event was specified as “seventy weeks.” This would be seventy weeks of seven days each—a total of 490 days. Each day was to represent a year in prophetic history. Most conservative scholars hold that the symbolism denotes a period of approximately 490 years (Payne 1973, 383; Archer 1964, 387; cf. RSV). Finally, the terminal event would be the “cutting off,” (i.e., the death) of the Anointed One (9:26). [NOTE: Actually, the chronology is divided into three segments, the total of which represents 486½ years. This would be the span between the command to restore Jerusalem, and the Messiah’s death.]If one is able to determine the date of the commencement point of this prophecy, it then becomes a relatively simple matter to add to that the time-duration specified in the text, thus concluding the precise time when the Lord was to be slain. Let us therefore narrow our focus regarding this matter.There are but three possible dates for the commencement of the seventy-week calendar. First, Zerubbabel led a group of Hebrews out of captivity in 536 B.C. This seems to be an unlikely beginning point, however, because 486 years from 536 B.C. would end at 50 B.C., which was eighty years prior to Jesus’ death. Second, Nehemiah led a band back to Canaan in 444 B.C. Is this the commencement point for computing the prophecy? Probably not, for 486 years after 444 B.C. ends at A.D. 42—a dozen years after the death of Christ. However, in 457 B.C., Ezra took a company from Babylon back to Jerusalem. Does this date work mathematically? Indeed. If one starts at 457 B.C., and goes forward for 486½ years, the resulting date is A.D. 30—the very year of Christ’s crucifixion! This is the common view (Scott 1975, 5.364).The strongest objection to this argument is the claim that Ezra issued no charge to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and so the starting point of the prophecy could not date from the time of his return. Noted scholar Gleason Archer has responded to this allegation by affirming that Ezra’s commissionapparently included authority to restore and build the city of Jerusalem (as we may deduce from Ezra 7:6,7, and also 9:9, which states, ‘God . . . hath extended lovingkindness unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a wall in Judea and in Jerusalem,’ ASV). Even though Ezra did not actually succeed in accomplishing the rebuilding of the walls till Nehemiah arrived thirteen years later, it is logical to understand 457 B.C. as the terminus a quo for the decree predicted in Daniel 9:25 (1964, 387; emphasis in original).In “the midst” of the seventieth week, i.e., after the fulfillment of the 486½ years, the Anointed One was to be “cut off.” This is a reference to the death of Jesus. Isaiah similarly foretold that Christ would be “cut off out of the land of the living” (Isaiah 53:8).But why are the seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy divided into three segments—seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and the “midst” of one week? There was purpose in this breakdown.The first division of “seven weeks” (literally, forty-nine years) covers that period of time during which the actual rebuilding of Jerusalem would be underway, following the Hebrews’ return to Palestine (9:25b). This was the answer to Daniel’s prayer (9:16). That reconstruction era was to be one of “troublous times.” The Jews’ enemies had harassed them in earlier days (see Ezra 4:1-6), and they continued to do so in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. [For further discussion of this circumstance, see Whitcomb 1962, 4435.]The second segment of sixty-two weeks (434 years), when added to the previous forty-nine, yields a total of 483 years. When this figure is computed from 457 B.C., it terminates at A.D. 26. This was the year of Jesus’ baptism and the beginning of his public ministry.Finally, the “midst of the week” (three and one-half years) reflects the time of the Lord’s preaching ministry. This segment of the prophecy concludes in A.D. 30—the year of the Savior’s death.The Consequences of Rejecting ChristNo historical revisionism can alter the fact that the Lord Jesus was put to death by his own people, the Jews (John 1:11). This does not sanction any modern-day mistreatment of the Jewish people; it does, however, acknowledge that Israel, as a nation, suffered a serious consequence as a result of its role in the death of the Messiah.Daniel’s prophecy depicted the Roman invasion of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish temple. The prophet spoke of a certain “prince that shall come,” who would “destroy the city and the sanctuary” like an overwhelming flood (9:26b). All of this was “determined” (see 9:26b,27b) by God because of the Jews’ rejection of his Son (Matthew 21:37-41; 22:1-7; see Young 1954, 679).The interpretation of this portion of the prophecy is beyond dispute. Jesus, in his Olivet discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-34), talked about “the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (24:15). The Lord was alluding to Daniel 9:27. The “abomination that makes desolate” was the Roman army, under its commander, Titus (“the prince”—9:26b), who vanquished Jerusalem in A.D. 70. [NOTE: The “prince” of verse twenty-six is not the same as the anointed “prince” of verse twenty-five. The prince of verse twenty-six comes after the anointed Prince has been cut off.]The historical facts are these. In A.D. 66, the Jews, who were subject to Rome, revolted against the empire. This plunged the Hebrews into several years of bloody conflict with the Romans. Titus, son and successor of the famous Vespasian, overthrew the city of Jerusalem (after a five-month siege) in the summer of A.D. 70. The holy city was burned (cf. Matthew 22:7), and the “sanctuary” (temple) was demolished. Christ had informed his disciples that the day was coming when the Jews’ “house” would be left desolate (Matthew 23:38); indeed, not one stone would be left upon another (Matthew 24:2). Significantly, only one stone from that temple, and parts of another, have been identified positively by archaeologists (Frank 1972, 249). J.N. Geldenhuys summarized this situation by noting that Titusoverran the city with his army, destroyed and plundered the temple, and slew the Jews—men, women and children—by tens of thousands. When their lust for blood had been sated, the Romans carried off into captivity all the able-bodied remnant of the Jews (for they had done away with all the weaklings and the aged), so that not a single Jew was left alive in the city or its vicinity. Only on one day in the year—the day of remembrance of the destruction of the temple—were they allowed to mourn over the city from the neighboring hill-tops (1960, 141).This event was referred to by Daniel as the “abomination of desolation” because the city of David was desolated by the Roman army—an abominable force because of its idolatrous fabric. It is not without considerable interest that apparently even the Jews recognized that the destruction of the Hebrew nation was a fulfillment of Daniel’s remarkable prophecy. Josephus, the Jewish historian, stated that “Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them” (Antiquities of the Jews X.XI.7).ConclusionDaniel’s inspired record regarding the “seventy weeks” is a profound demonstration of the validity of scriptural prophecy. It foretells the coming of the Messiah, and details his benevolent work. The prophecy pinpoints the very time of Jesus’ crucifixion. Finally, it reveals the disastrous consequences of rejecting the Son of God. How thankful we should be to Jehovah for providing this rich testimony.Related ArticlesA Study of Matthew 24Has the Messiah of the Old Testament Come?A Survey of the Major ProphetsBabylon: A Test Case in Prophecy—Part 1The Marvelous Book of JeremiahThe Little Horn of Daniel’s Sea-beastMASADA: The Final and Futile StandA Faith-Building Study From Daniel 11The Holy Bible, Inspired of God: A Look at the EvidenceExamining PremillennialismWorks CitedArcher, Gleason L. 1964. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago, IL: Moody.Frank, Harry Thomas. 1972. An Archaeological Companion to the Bible. London, England: SCM Press.Geldenhuys, J. Norval. 1960. Luke. The Biblical Expositor. Carl F. H. Henry, ed. Philadelphia, PA: Holman.Gesenius, William. 1979 Reprint. Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.Jackson, Wayne. 1990. Miracles. Giving a Reason for Our Hope. Winford Claiborne, ed. Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University.Judisch, Douglas. 1978. An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.Payne, J. Barton. 1973. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Scott, J. B. 1975. Seventy Weeks. Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.Thompson, J. E. H. 1950 Reprint. Daniel. The Pulpit Commentary. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph Exell, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Whitcomb, John C., Jr. 1962. Nehemiah. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody.Young, Edward J. 1954. Daniel. The New Bible Commentary. F. Davidson, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Scripture ReferencesLuke 24:27, 44; Daniel 9:24-27; Daniel 9:24; Jeremiah 25:12, 29:10; Daniel 9:2; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Zechariah 1:12, 7:5; Leviticus 25:1-7; 1 Chronicles 29:21; Matthew 12:6; Matthew 1:21, 20:28, 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:20; 1 Peter 2:24; Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 9:26; Isaiah 53; Romans 3:21-26; Romans 1:16-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 1 Corinthians 13:8-13; Ephesians 4:11-16; Matthew 3:16; Acts 10:38; 1 Kings 19:16; Exodus 28:41; 1 Samuel 10:1; Acts 3:20-23; Hebrews 3:1; Matthew 21:5; Isaiah 61:1; Daniel 9:27; Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:13-17; Hebrews 10:9-10; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7; Matthew 26:28; Ezra 7:6, 7; Daniel 9:25; 1 Thessalonians 5; Isaiah 53:8; Ezra 4:1-6; John 1:11; Matthew 21:37-41, 22:1-7; Matthew 24:1-34; Matthew 22:7; Matthew 23:38; Matthew 24:2Cite this articleJackson, Wayne. "Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks." ChristianCourier.com | Church of Christ magazine investigating religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and ethical issues.. Access date: April 22, 2019. Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

Wow...a lot of hasbara propaganda going on in these answers.I've also notice, no one really ever answered your question. It's danced around, but never really answered.1. Palestinians are from many religions, including Jewish. Palestine referered to *all* the inhabitants of Palestine...they are the descendants of all who inhabited Palestine thru the ages, including the ancient Israelites. DNA studies show Palestinians have a closer genetic connection than do the European/American/white Jews. So yes, Palestininian referred to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Ba'hai, Jehoveh's Witness, what have you, who lived in Palestine prior to the European invasions.2. The PLO and the Hamas Charters both recognize the Jewish Palestinians as citizens of Palestine.3. Palestinian Jews helped found Palestinian liberation organizations such as the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.4. If Palestine only referred to Jews, why change the name to Israel? Because Israel refers *exclusively* to Jews, whereas Palestine refers to multi-religions. When Israel came about, they couldn't wait to change the names and wipe all references of Palestine out of history.5. Originally, the propaganda from Israel was there was no Palestine, no Palestinians existed. Maps, photos, ancient and modern documents, original source material, old census records, etc. proved differently.As the evidence mounted, the new trope is that 'oh, *those* Palestinians, hey, they were actually all Jews-no Arabs at all.' Well, why not say that from the beginning, instead of changing the history yet again?And no, my references were not refuted.Incidentally, you will see quotes, made by Arabs and Palestinians supposedly, denying Palestine existed, but you won't see those quotes referenced or sourced...just a quote.If Palestine *only referred to Jews (who were a mere fragment of the population according to censuses, Why did Palestinian Arabs call them self such from an early time?6. Many Israel supporters claim "Palestine" is a Phoenecian word that means "Invaders." Why would the Jews refer to themselves as 'invaders?' (It actually doesn't mean that, but you will hear it).I've listed more detailed info below, but it represents only a very small part of the evidence collected. There are many books that include more info. Its impossible to list everything here.I wish I could spend more time on Quora, but my mom is in the end stage now, and I just don't have the time I used to.Census Studies:As for the early population of Palestine, even the Jewish virtual library puts the Jewish population at less than 2% in 1517 ( Page on jewishvirtuallibrary.org... )According to the founder of Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics Roberto Bachi there were:
 219 000 Muslims, 
 11 000 Christians and only2 000 Jews in the year 1690.So Muslims were the vast majority. Even by each Palestinian city, you can see that. In the middle of the 16th century for example:
 Hebron had 749 Muslim taxable households to only 20 Jewish.Jerusalem had 7,287 Muslims and only 1,363 Jews.Nablus 806 Muslim households to only 15 Jewish.Safed had 1,121 Muslim households to 716 Jewish (Jewish community of Safed was just formed at that time of Jewish refugees from Spain).As early as 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, Zionist pioneers in Palestine, talked about 500 000 Arabs living in Palestine.Ahad Ha'am, the founder of cultural Zionism, visited Palestine in 1891 and described it as Arab developed land. The founder of Israel David Ben Gorion, spoke about Arab farmers as descendants of ancient Hebrews. Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion's official biographer, said that Palestine was not an empty land, and the Jews were only a small minority of its population.Arthur Ruppin the founder of the Bit Shalom Kibbutz movement, said that in Palestine there were hardly any more arable unsettled lands, Israel Zangwill, another Zionist leader in 1900 said that the pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews, ..."Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata" - a detailed geographical survey of Palestine in 1696 written in Latin by Adriaan Reland published by Willem Broedelet, Utrecht, in 1714.Nablus: 120 muslims, 70 SamaritansNazareth: 700 people - all Palestinian ChristiansUmm al-Fahm: 50 people-10 families, ALL Palestinian ChristianGaza: 550 people- 300 Jews, 250 Christian (Jews engaged in agriculture ,Christians deal with the trading and transporting the products)Tiberias: 300 residents, all Jews.Safed: about 200 inhabitants, all JewsJerusalem :5000 people,most of them (3,500) Jews, the rest - 1500 Palestinians (1000 Christian,500 Muslim)

(It should be noted that the Jews there were *Palestinian* Jews.)

Jewish Palestinians helped start the PLO and the DFLP.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, 30% of Palestinians were Christian and Jewish.DNA STUDIES:American author and Professor of Political Science Alan Dowty put it best when he wrote, "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries." Moreover, studies suggest, that part, if not the majority of Arabs living in Palestine, descend from a core population that dates back thousands of years.I Traveled to Palestine-Israel and Discovered There Is No 'Palestinian-Israeli Conflict'High-Resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs Reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of JewsAlmut Nebel · Dvora Filon · Deborah A. Weiss · Michael Weale · Marina Faerman · Ariella Oppenheim · Mark G. Thomas 21 November 2000 c. Springer-Verlag 2000AbstractHigh-resolution Y chromosome haplotype analysis was performed in 143 paternally unrelated Israeli and Palestinian Moslem Arabs (I&P Arabs) by screening for 11 binary polymorphisms and six microsatellite loci. Two frequent haplotypes were found among the 83 detected: the modal haplotype of the I&P Arabs (~14%) was spread throughout the region, while its one-step microsatellite neighbor, the modal haplotype of the Galilee sample (~8%), was mainly restricted to the north. Geographic substructuring within the Arabs was observed in the high-lands of Samaria and Judea. Y chromosome variation inthe I&P Arabs was compared to that of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, and to that of North Welsh individuals. At the haplogroup level, defined by the binary polymorphisms only, the Y chromosome distribution in Arabs and Jews was similar but not identical. At the haplotype level, determined by both binary and microsatellite markers, amore detailed pattern was observed. Single-step micro-satellite networks of Arab and Jewish haplotypes revealed a common pool for a large portion of Y chromosomes,suggesting a relatively recent common ancestry. The two modal haplotypes in the I&P Arabs were closely related tothe most frequent haplotype of Jews (the Cohen modal haplotype). However, the I&P Arab clade that includes the two Arab modal haplotypes (and makes up 32% of Arab chromosomes) is found at only very low frequency among Jews, reflecting divergence and/or admixture from other populations.Page on ucl.ac.ukDowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. “Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.”Likhovski, Assaf (2006). Law and identity in mandate Palestine. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-8078-3017-8.According to Rashid Khalidi, the modern Palestinian identity encompasses the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period. (Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian identity: the construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 2009 p.18.)According to Palestinian author Walid Khalidi: "the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial."("(With reference to Palestinians in Ottoman times) Although proud of their Arab heritage and ancestry, the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanites before them.Acutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history, the Palestinians saw themselves as the heirs of its rich associations.") and according to Palestinian anthropologist Ali Qleibo: "in their customs and manners, fossils of these ancient civilizations survived until modernity—albeit modernity camouflaged under the veneer of Islam and Arabic culture."("Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland: Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European crusaders, to name a few. Each of them appropriated different regions that overlapped in time and competed for sovereignty and land. Others, such as Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Persians, Babylonians, and Mongols, were historical 'events' whose successive occupations were as ravaging as the effects of major earthquakes ... Like shooting stars, the various cultures shine for a brief moment before they fade out of official historical and cultural records of Palestine. The people, however, survive. In their customs and manners, fossils of these ancient civilizations survived until modernity—albeit modernity camouflaged under the veneer of Islam and Arabic culture."Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times.(Gibbons, Ann (October 30, 2000)."Jews and Arabs Share Recent Ancestry". ScienceNOW. American Academy for the Advancement of Science.. Studies cited are: M. F. Hammer et al. (2000)."Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97 (12): 6769–6774. doi:10.1073/pnas.100115997. PMC 18733. PMID 10801975. and Almut Nebel et al. (2000)."High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews". Human Genetics 107 (6): 630–641. doi:10.1007/s004390000426. PMID 11153918.Another study says; "Our recent study of high-resolution microsatellite haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool." "Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, and Ariella Oppenheim,'The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East,' American Journal of Human Genetics, November 2001; 69(5): 1095–1112. 10.1086/324070,PMCID: PMC1274378.)REFERENCES TO PALESTINIAN ARAB LEADERSHIP BEFORE ISRAEL**1919: Aref Al-Dajani President of the Palestine Arab Congress, (also president of the Jerusalem Christian-Muslim Society). Also part of the Executive Committee were Izzat Darwaza and Yusef al-‘Isa, editor of paper Falastin, the newspaper of Palestine. (So much for an invented people.)**1920-1934: Musa al-Husayni, former mayor of Jerusalem was elected President of the Palestine Arab Congress. It had 36 delegates, including Sheik Suleiman al-Taji Al-Faruqi, Daoud Issa, and head of the Catholic community -Bullus Shehadeh. The congress was opened by Haifa's mufti, Muhammad Murad.1921 Musa Kazem led a delegation from the executive committee to meet the British Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill.1922- funds were raised by the 100 delegate Congress and Executive Committee by the selling of stamps that depicted the Dome of the Rock and said "Palestine for the Arabs" in English and Arabic. (again...usage of the national identity term “Palestine.”A Women's Congress, attended by 200 women, was convened in 1929. Organisers included Wahida al-Khalidi (wife of Hussein al-Khalidi) and Amina al-Husayni (wife of Jamal al-Husayni). It was led by Salma al-Husayni, wife of Musa Kazim.**1934, Christian executive vice-president Yacoub Farraj became acting president. The Palestine Arab Congress was eventually broken up by the British and other groups took its place in a splintered Palestine.April - Palestine Arab Party established.23 June - Reform Party (Palestine) established.**1935- 25 April – The Arab Higher Committee is established, on the initiative of the Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husayni, to oppose British rule and Jewish claims in Palestine.**1936-1939 Palestine Arab Revolt for Independence against the British. Palestinian Arabs -Arab Higher Committee (until October 1937)Central Committee of National Jihad in Palestine (from October 1937) 1 in 10 Palestinian adults were murdered by the British and led to greater support for the Zionist immigration and division of Palestine. Palestine was lead by city leaders during this time. Each city had its own leader and coordinated attacks against the British.From 1939-1948 Britain and Palestinians fought. Zionist immigration expands dramatically, most of the Kibbutzes are founded. thousands of Palestinians are murdered and most Palestinian villages are destroyed.**1948-1959 All-Palestine Government established and is recognized by all Arab League States, except the Trans-Jordan. The Prime Minister of the Gaza-seated administration was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, and the President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee. The Government was taken over and dissolved by Egyptian President Nasser, who was trying to establish a Pan-Arab nation.Palestine was occupied by Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. War, massacres, and refugee status led to a largely government-less population.****1966-Palestine National Congress established, with 422 representatives under Ahmad Al-Shuqeiry as the elected Chairman.1969-2004 Yassir Arafat was Chairman until his death.1988 Palestine declared its independence, and under the Oslo Accords, recognized Israel’s right to exist, deleting the part of the charter that said otherwise.REFERENCES TO PALESTINE PRIOR TO ISRAELITES, ROMANS, AND ARAFAT-THAT DON'T REFERENCE OR MEAN JEWSBCE1150 BCE Land of “Peleset” referred to in numerous Egyptian heiroglyphics, refering to their neighbors during the 20th dynastyFirst mention was in the texts at the temple of Medinet Habu referring to the “Sea People during Ramsses III reign.800 BCE The Assyrians called them the Palashtu or Pilistu. There were references to them for over a century.5th century BCE- Herodotus wrote about Palaistine in The Histories
^ In his work, Herodotus referred to the practice of male circumcision associated with the Hebrew people: "the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians.... Now these are the only nations who use circumcision." The History of Herodotus^ Beloe, W., Rev., Herodotus, (tr. from Greek), with notes, Vol.II, London, 1821, p.269 "It should be remembered that Syria is always regarded by Herodotus as synonymous with Assyria. What the Greeks called Palestine the Arabs call Falastin, which is the Philistines of Scripture."^ Elyahu Green, Geographic names of places in Israel in Herodotos This is confirmed by George Rawlinson in the third book (Thalia) of The Histories where Palaestinian Syrians are part of the fifth tax district spanning the territory from Phoenicia to the borders of Egypt, but excludes the kingdom of Arabs who were exempt from tax for providing the Assyrian army with water on its march to Egypt. These people had a large city called Cadytis, identified as Jerusalem.4th century BCE Aristotle wrote about the Dead Sea in Palestine in his book, Meteorology,"Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," an obvious reference to the Dead Sea.Later writers such as Polemon, and Pausanias also used the term to refer to the same region. This usage was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder,[15] Statius, as well as Roman-era Greek writers such as Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom and Roman-era Judean writers such as Philo of Alexandria[16] and Josephus.135 CE After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Romans called it Syria Palaestina*In Hebrew, the name Palestine (פלשת) and the name Philistine (פלשתי) are pretty much the same, and Philistine literally means One Of Palestine. The Philistines are descendants of the Casluhim, who were sons of Mizraim, son of Ham, son of Noah (Genesis 10:14).Page on www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Palestine.html#.VNI2l8afu0c ********Peleshet (פלשת Pəlésheth)- usually translated as Philistia in English, is used in the Bible more than 250 times.In the Torah / Pentateuch the term is used 10 times and its boundaries are undefined. The later Historical books (see Deuteronomistic history) include most of the biblical references, almost 200 of which are in the Book of Judges and the Books of Samuel, where the term is used to denote the southern coastal region to the west of the ancient Kingdom of Judah.1500sAs for the early population of Palestine, even the Jewish virtual library puts the Jewish population at less than 2% in 1517 ( Page on www.Home | Jewish Virtual Library/jsou... ) According to the founder of Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics Roberto Bachi there were 219 000 Muslims, 11 000 Christians and only 2 000 Jews in the year 1690. So Muslims were the vast majority. Even by each Palestinian city, you can see that. In the middle of the 16th century for example Hebron had 749 Muslim taxable households to only 20 Jewish. Jerusalem had 7,287 Muslims and only 1,363 Jews. Nablus 806 Muslim households to only 15 Jewish. Safed had 1,121 Muslim households to 716 Jewish (Jewish community of Safed was just formed at that time of Jewish refugees from Spain).SHAKESPEAREthere are also references to "Palestine" in Shakespeare. In Othello, Act 4, scene 3, "I know a lady in Venice would have walked bare-foot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip". In King John, Act 2, Scene 1, "fought Holy Wars in Palestine". Othello was written between 1601 and 1604. King John Was written in 1594-1596.1600s"Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata" - a detailed geographical survey of Palestine in 1696 written in Latin by Adriaan Reland published by Willem Broedelet, Utrecht, in 1714.1800sAs early as 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, Zionist pioneers in Palestine, talked about 500 000 Arabs living in Palestine.Ahad Ha'am, the founder of cultural Zionism, visited Palestine in 1891 and described it as Arab developed land. The founder of Israel David Ben Gorion, spoke about Arab farmers as descendants of ancient Hebrews. Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion's official biographer, said that Palestine was not an empty land, and the Jews were only a small minority of its population.^ a b Robinson, Edward, Physical geography of the Holy Land, Crocker & Brewster, Boston, 1865, p.15. Robinson, writing in 1865 when travel by Europeans to the Ottoman Empire became common asserts that, "Palestine, or Palestina, now the most common name for the Holy Land, occurs three times in the English version of the Old Testament; and is there put for the Hebrew name פלשת, elsewhere rendered Philistia. As thus used, it refers strictly and only to the country of the Philistines, in the southwest corner of the land. So, too, in the Greek form, Παλαςτίνη), it is used by Josephus. But both Josephus and Philo apply the name to the whole land of the Hebrews ; and Greek and Roman writers employed it in the like extent."^ Studies in Hellenistic Judaism ：Louis H. Feldman1900sArthur Ruppin the founder of the Bit Shalom Kibbutz movement, said that in Palestine there were hardly any more arable unsettled lands, Israel Zangwill, another Zionist leader in 1900 said that the pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews, ...1910sBattle of Nablus (1918)American author and Professor of Political Science Alan Dowty put it best when he wrote, "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries." Moreover, studies suggest, that part, if not the majority of Arabs living in Palestine, descend from a core population that dates back thousands of years.I Traveled to Palestine-Israel and Discovered There Is No 'Palestinian-Israeli Conflict'Filastin was a daily newspaper published from 1911-1967 in Palestine. Published from Jaffa, the principal publishers (who edited and owned the paper) were Issa El-Issa and his cousin Yousef El-Issa.[1] Both El-Issas were Greek Orthodox, opponents of British administration, and supporters of pan-Arab unity. The paper supported the Committee of Union and Progress, opposed Zionism, and promoted Palestinian nationalism.[2]**1919: Aref Al-Dajani President of the Palestine Arab Congress, (also president of the Jerusalem Christian-Muslim Society). Also part of the Executive Committee were Izzat Darwaza and Yusef al-‘Isa, editor of paper Falastin, the newspaper of Palestine. (So much for an invented people.)1920s**1920-1934: Musa al-Husayni, former mayor of Jerusalem was elected President of the Palestine Arab Congress. It had 36 delegates, including Sheik Suleiman al-Taji Al-Faruqi, Daoud Issa, and head of the Catholic community -Bullus Shehadeh. The congress was opened by Haifa's mufti, Muhammad Murad.1921 Musa Kazem led a delegation from the executive committee to meet the British Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill.1922- funds were raised by the 100 delegate Congress and Executive Committee by the selling of stamps that depicted the Dome of the Rock and said "Palestine for the Arabs" in English and Arabic. (again...usage of the national identity term “Palestine.”A Women's Congress, attended by 200 women, was convened in 1929. Organisers included Wahida al-Khalidi (wife of Hussein al-Khalidi) and Amina al-Husayni (wife of Jamal al-Husayni). It was led by Salma al-Husayni, wife of Musa Kazim.JEWISH REFERENCES TO ARABS PREDATING THEM IN PALESTINE“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
– David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99″We will expel the Arabs and take their place. In each attack a decisive blow should be struck resulting in the destruction of homes and expulsion of the population.” David Ben Gurion, Letter to his son, 1937"We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village." ­ Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969.PALESTINIAN FLAG HAS BEEN IN USE SINCE 1911The flag used by the Arab Palestinian nationalists in the first half of the 20th century is the flag of the 1916 Arab Revolt. The origins of the flag are the subject of dispute and mythology. In one version, the colours were chosen by the Arab nationalist 'Literary Club' in Constantinople in 1909, based on the words of the 13th-century Arab poet Safi a-Din al-Hili:Ask the high rising spears, of our aspirations
Bring witness the swords, did we lose hope
We are a band, honor halts our souls
Of beginning with harm, those who won’t harm us
White are our deeds, black are our battles,
Green are our fields, red are our swords.
(Safi al-Din al-Hili, poet).Another version credits the Young Arab Society, formed in Paris in 1911. Yet another version is that the flag was designed by Sir Mark Sykes of the British Foreign Office. Whatever the correct story, the flag was used by Sharif Hussein by 1917 at the latest and quickly became regarded as the flag of the Arab national movement in the Mashriq.[1]On October 18, 1948, the flag of the Arab Revolt was adopted by the All-Palestine Government, and was recognised subsequently by the Arab League as the flag of Palestine. A modified version (changing the order of stripes) has been used in Palestine at least since the late 1930s[citation needed] and was officially adopted as the flag of the Palestinian people by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. On November 15, 1988 the PLO adopted the flag as the flag of the State of Palestine.On the ground the flag became widely used since the Oslo Agreements, with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1993. Today the flag is flown widely by Palestinians and their supporters.[2][3][4]Source: Wikipedia