It's your belief that he chose what's right and left out falsehoods. The fact weather or not prophet Mohammed was illiterate or not makes no difference really. Sure, I find it odd that he ran his wife's business and over his lifetime despite being chosen as a prophet (your belief) he never thought that it be better to become literate the better to serve Allah. Does not Allah wish for people to educate themselves? However, he employed scribes, he was intelligent, he could hear and see... So assuming he spoke to people.. Jews and Christians of the time, of which there is evidence he did do... Then I still don't see how you can rule out the possibility that he heard and was influenced by those around him.
Yes, his life was recorded in detail.. In the aHadith? Of which there seems to be a great quantity which are considered as authentic or not as the case may be.. Who decides what is authentic? And when was it decided?
In regards to his enemies not noticing.. Or people not mentioning something they disagreed with.. Well, you don't know for sure they did not notice... Maybe someone corrupted or changed the texts... Are you sure no one mentioned the similarity of certain sources.. From Jewish writings etc? There must have been good reason for Jews and Christians of the time chose to reject Mohammed's claim as a prophet.. Otherwise they would have all been muslims. I can see why the Christians would not.. But the Jews were still awaiting their "Messiah" they had already rejected Jesus... Yet also rejected Mohammed.

Im not convinced of a lot of things... That is why I question things that do not add up to me.. I accept this could be down to my own misunderstanding when it comes to interpreting the Quran... As I have to compare it with what I already have and when I do that.. Then certain things do not make sense to me. I can respect that you have no such issues because you do not compare Islam to anything or see any faults. I struggle to see what the Quran brings that is "new" or improvement on what I already have in Jesus.


Fair enough..

Peace.

Look up the word ~~ INSPIRATION ~~ and please do NOT say YHWH makes mistakes. For you to accuse Almighty God of making mistakes... I think is a very big mistake on your part..



Peace

It is not the point to me that you are insidiously trying to make; moreover, you do have a very funny way of seeing things. Let's say the Quran has the more correct term. It has had several hundreds of more years to get it right. If the Bible was written the same time as the Quran perhaps it may have used the same or a better term. These arguments are futile and do not get to the root of the problem between the Bible and Quran. Moreover, as far as 2 Timothy, some versions of the Bible interpret this as "All Scripture given by God is good..." It is obvious that not all Scriptures written in some versions of the Bible are God breathed by inspiration, but the central gospel message that can be found in most Bibles is along with every Scripture pertaining to it. For the nth time the Bible wasn't received as a verbatim word from God as the Quran was supposedly; so, you cannot judge it the same way you are trying to.
Show me a Bible that says Jesus didn't die and He didn't rise from the dead or that He wasn't born of a virgin or that says God is not a trinity or there is no tri unity pertaining to the one God or that Jesus is not the son of God or that Jesus is not divine and not coming back or His blood is not what cleanses us from sin. You won't find it. This is what we base the central gospel message on and what is God breathed by inspiration. All other things you mention are trivial. Nice try or attempt to destroy the Bible. Maybe we should concentrate on dispelling misconceptions we have about each other's religion instead of trying to destroy them?

Peace

Now if , I'm saying IF we agree with this "possibility" , how on Earth did he choose what's right and leave the huge loads of falsehood ? You're not convinced if we say he's illiterate , you're not convinced if we say he never left his land , you're not convinced when we tell you his life is recorded in detail and the many enemies of Romans , Persians , and Arabians would have knew if he had been "quoting" someone . Not to mention that they failed completely to state what these imaginary sources are .

Now let's say it's not a mistake in hte Bible , Quran would be more accurate . That's the point .

2Timothy 3 :16

All scripture is given by inspiration of YAHWEH even the term " pharaoh " who is a big historical mistake !



peace to you .

Good points Pandora. Muslims still don't get that the Bible is not considered a dictation straight out of the mouth of God like the Quran is supposed to be. Sigh, I get tired repeating it. The Bible can contained variances as long as the central gospel message doesn't contradict itself we are fine. If any one tells me a book is directly from the mouth of God, it is guaranteed to have discrepancies, because no such books exists. God must be followed and obeyed by faith, and when we mix faith with God's grace the results in salvation and eternal life in paradise. There is no other name given whereby we might be saved but Jesus Christ. I have been following your posts and you are getting really good at presenting truth.

Blessings to you.

and hereby lies your problem.. Please accept my apology for not getting your point earlier.. You are thinking YHWH gave the Old Testament as per the Quran ... Word verbatim. The Bible has NEVER made this claim for itself. The Old Testament begins with the five books of Moses known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy....These books cover the history of mankind from the beginning of creation and then concentrate specifically on the history of the Israelites from the time of Abraham through to the great exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The Bible is very much a book of history... It's the unfolding of Gods plan for mankind... Told through his prophets... These prophets were given the revelation and the implicit understanding of Gods will to convey the revelation. There are parts that contain the actual words of YHWH in the Old Testament for sure, and it's quite clear where and what those words are.

The following ten books cover the history of the nation and the rise of its prophets up to the time of David. Up to this point the books are all primarily historical. Then follows the second major part of the Old Testament, namely five books that are commonly known as the wisdom books because they concentrate on teaching about the knowledge of God and true, discerning faith in him. They include the Book of Job, the Psalms of David and the Proverbs of Solomon. Finally there are the remaining seventeen books of the Old Testament which are known as the books of the writing prophets as they record the prophecies of the later prophets of Jewish history ...such as Jonah, Daniel and Ezekiel...before the Old Testament scriptures were completed some four hundred and fifty years before Christ. Unlike the Quran the Bible is revealed in chronological order and historical context has great importance to the unfolding of the revelations.

The Old Testament is a book defining God's dealings with the nation of Israel from the time of creation up to four hundred and fifty years before Christ.... It was completed nearly five centuries before the time of Jesus. It prepares the way for the Messiah.. Jesus .. And the main theme of most of the major prophets was prophesying was this very thing.. The Messiah.. Because that is the culmination of Gods plan for mankind's redemption. It was a given that worship of the one God.. YHWH.. Was a done deal.

so given that in matters of historical content were not the words of YHWH.. But simply mankind relaying the historical context of the revelation. It hardly matters weather the term pharaoh was used before it's time or King was used or whatever term.. The meaning is clear.. The measures YHWH takes to lead His people to salvation. So it's not as big a mistake as you believe it to be.. The important point is we do not rely on the exodus, or even the law given to Moses from YHWH.. For our salvation.


Exodus 11 : 5
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

peace to you .
[/QUOTE]

lol... Same reason.. Not that important as you say Pharaohs first born son we assume like yourselves in wife... Logically leads to the conclusion as the Pharaoh is royal thus his family are royal... I hope you do not see it a problem coming to the same conclusions you yourself make with your Quran.

Peace also to you.

I think I see the point now... Lol.. I will answer in my next post..

I don't buy that.. You cannot say prophet Mohammed never came into contact with materials written or otherwise and had knowledge of them. You cannot prove he did not so you can't rule out the possibility. I'm not saying he did or did not.. I'm just saying the possibility exists that information could have come his way. Word of mouth was like the newspapers of the day..or internet ;) information highway. The gospels were spread throughout that part of the world hundreds of years before prophet Mohammed was born.

I personally find the Quran does not have much in the way of historical context, which sometimes makes it difficult to date things. Maybe you do not place much emphasis on that kind of thing and are happy with just a nominal mention on some facts. Which is a tiny bit ironic that you expect a different standard entirely when disseminating the Bible.. Demanding proof to the enth degree. Even though the Bible... Certainly the Old Testament is considerably older by a 1000+ years than the Quran....There is still proof to be had. Not that you would believe it.. I guess. ;)

absolutely nothing wrong with the term "Pharaoh's wife"... On the same basis as what is wrong with the title "Pharaoh" being used in the Bible...

I will get to this.. Now I see where your problem lies.. :) however... You can't really claim because the Quran is more accurate in the term used as evidence that the Bible used the same term. The problem is how you are comparing the books.

Peace.

@ Nosayr Allah

may Allah bless you brother .

I do not talk about the date of the Exodus .
the bible made a big mistake and you say :" it is not a problem for Christians " !
how do you explain the fact : YAHWEH does not know that the term " pharaoh " was not used as a title to refer to the Egyptian ruler during the MK ?????




Even if the holy Qura'n contain many geographical, historical and scientific miracle he is not specialized in history or geography nor he is a book of salutations !

Why here the pharaoh's first born is not called "prince" ????

Exodus 11 : 5
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.





peace to you .

You're terribly missing the point hear honestly .

When Quran states a historical fact accurately and it is impossible for anyone at the time to know , it's further evidence of its divine source . Otherwise , how can a person know all these facts written in hyrogliphic which he couldn't even put his hands on in the first place ?

When we say Quran is not a history book , we mean it isn't concerned with details to the digree of mentioning what someone ate on lunch or dinner ! It doesn't mention everything but rather what holds a purpose to be mentioned . And what on Earth is the problem if Quran says "Pharoh's wife" ?

The point of this thread was that historical facts point that the title "Pharoh" isn't used during the times of prophet Yusuf but rather sometime before the birth of prophet Moses peace upon them both . Quran states that accurately . So either the Bible is wrong when it says Pharoh in an inaccurate period of time , or in case we accept the Bible using such a term , Quran is more accurate .

It doesn't and you are correct. The Bible cannot be compared to the way one sees the Quran. If you judge it based on the way the Quran was supposedly received the Bible would fail every time, but not even the Quran keeps up with the way it was supposed to have been received and Muslims are constantly using semantics, conjecture and speculation along with cutting down previous Scripture to support it.
Blessings to you Pandora

And.. I stated it is not a problem for Christians, reason being as our salvation does not depend on the date of the exodus.

yes .

Here is a link which has some good information on the dating of the exodus. Personally, I would go with the Bible date... But either way a few hundred years either way won't make any difference to mankind's redemption.. God acts outside our time frame.

https://www.evidenceunseen.com/date-of-the-exodus/
[/QUOTE]


the term "the Pharaoh 's wife" will automatically refer to the Queen .
the holy Qura'n does not care to details because he is not a book of history or geography !
maybe you will ask me why the holy Qura'n does not mention the shoe size of the pharaho's wife !!!!???

PEACE[/QUOTE]

So it's ok to make assumptions in regards to the Quran but not make similar assumptions with the Bible? Hmmm... I see. You are one of the few muslims I have heard say the Quran is not a book of history or geography... Most muslims constantly lay claims to historical and geographical facts as pointing to further proof of its divine nature. It's actually refreshing to hear a Muslim imply it's not that important. Although I disagree to some extent in regards to the importance of detail...it's the detail that give the clues as to the bigger picture.. The bigger and clearer the picture the greater degree of accuracy can be determined from proof. The Bible has a wealth of both historical and geographical proof that can be confirmed as accurate by today's archeological discoveries. This is of interest to me as a Christian but probably not so to yourself.. :)

In regards to the Pharaohs wife, Queen or whatever you would like to call her, and her footwear. She favoured sandals and her feet were size 36... That's European sizing.. ...... ...... That's a joke.. I don't really know what size shoes she had, although I'm sure someone could make a fairly accurate estimate by using archeological evidence to hand.

Peace.

as i mentioned the Hyksos who lived during the MK (the Middle Kingdom) does not use the term pharaoh as a title to refer to the Egyptian ruler .
here is the problelm ..!



please re-read carefully this :

The title of Pharaoh started being used for the king during the New Kingdom, specifically during the middle of the eighteenth dynasty.


yes .

And Pharaoh said, "Let me kill Moses and let him call upon his Lord.
Indeed, I fear that he will change your religion or that he will
cause corruption in the land."

the holy Qura'n 40 : 26

as you know the EXODUS take place in the NK (the New Kingdom)

where is the problem ?????

the term "the Pharaoh 's wife" will automatically refer to the Queen .
the holy Qura'n does not care to details because he is not a book of history or geography !
maybe you will ask me why the holy Qura'n does not mention the shoe size of the pharaho's wife !!!!???

.


PEACE

It doesn't.. But grasping at straws is sometimes the the only way left to go. I think it is difficult for muslims to see the Bible how we see it. They look at the Bible and apply the same criteria they would use for measuring the Quran. We know that cannot work on any meaningful level and so lends itself to misunderstandings.

Blessings to you BL.

Pharaoh VS Nesu? How does this effect the central message of the gospel that Christians follow?