the Bible VS the holy Qura'n

[نصير الدين]

You're terribly missing the point hear honestly .

Quote

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.

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 .

[*اسلامي عزي*]

@ Nosayr Allah

may Allah bless you brother .

Quote

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

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 ?????

Quote

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.

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 !

Quote

Why is she not called Queen in the Quran?

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 .

[pandora]

Quote

@ 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 ?????

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.

Quote

Why 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 .
[/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.

[pandora]

Quote

You're terribly missing the point hear honestly .

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

Quote

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 ?

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.

Quote

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" ?

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...

Quote

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 .

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.

[Burninglight]

Quote

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.

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.

[*اسلامي عزي*]

Quote

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.

2Timothy 3 :16

Quote

All scripture is given by inspiration of God .

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



peace to you .

[pandora]

Quote

2Timothy 3 :16



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



peace to you .

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