the Bible VS the holy Qura'n

[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