Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
how i got an atheist speechless
04-10-2009, 12:23 PM
Post: #1
how i got an atheist speechless
this is part of a conversation that took place here on religionforums.org and the atheist which i am not naming was so greatly enthusiastic in discussing theist... he/she replied daily to everything i said... after that i told him i have proofs that God exists and that those stuff are proofs because they can be only explained as divine... well, since i showed him the link which was 3weeks ago!!!!) ... he never replies to me anymore!!! though he is daily replying in the forums. here are the threads... enjoy!!! i call it:

how i got an atheist speechless (well at least for 3 weeks):

digaxox Wrote:for you God doesn't have to exist, the reality is God exists because the Quran exists. there are stuff in the Quran that even non-muslim scientists and archeologists were simply stunned when informed of those stuff, and realized that only God could say those stuff 1400 years ago and that's not because they simply want to believe but because there is no way for those stuff to be said unless they were divine.
so now the next logical thing would be to tell you to look into those stuff.
would you be interested to know?

xxxxxxx Wrote:
Could you enlarge on these claims of the Quran being an accurate science book? I recall reading somewhere that the Quran says man was created from a "clot of blood". This cannot be one of the scientific direct hits referred to in your post, because it is reasoned by evolutionary biologists that every human being derives from a long chains of ancestors, all of whom successfully reproduced, and that these ancestors must extend back to a time way before we were recognizably human. This is the scientific view. A "clot of blood" just doesn't cut it in terms of explanatory power.

I would be very interested if the Quran makes accurate predictions, such as a declaration of humans being part of the animal kingdom, and the solar system being but a tiny part of a galaxy, which itself is a member of a family of other galaxies, numbering in the hundreds of billions.

digaxox wrote:
though i would have preferred to do this in a conversation on some kind of messenger, i guess you would rather not.. so i am doing it here, in your message you sent me privately you talked about men being visionaries (he/she was claiming Mohammad was a visionary)... well the stuff mentioned are not really visions but more like specific descriptions if you would like. plus you most realize that never does the stuff mentioned fail or contradicts the scientific discoveries
about the "colt of blood"... you will find an explanation of that in the link i will give you

before i tell you about it, remember that Muhammad was an ILLITERATE man that lived 1400 years ago in an area governed by desert so scientific discoveries are NULL!!!

in order for you to fully benefit from the link is by researching everything mentioned... wikipedia is a great site for checking infos if you want.

ok, here is a link that will show you some of the stuff that are mentioned in the quran that can only be divine http://www.islam-guide.com

check out the site and tell me what you think and remember that never does the stuff mentioned in the quran contradict science today.

waiting your reply anxiously!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
end of threads

it was a simple link: http://www.islam-guide.com
and as i said you can't really explain the stuff mentioned other than divine!!!
the question i ask now... did it get an atheist speechless or will it get all atheist speechless?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2009, 03:40 PM
Post: #2
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
Okay, okay, I'll finally look at the site.

Hmmm.

Okay, lets go over this point by point.

First, a human embryo doesn't look like gum. Nor does it look like a leech. Nor is it "suspended". That's mangling to fulfill prophecy at its finest.

Second, the "mountains as pegs" idea isn't in any way exclusive to Islam. The roots of mountains are found in other literature. Plus, the first part of that verse talks about the earth being a bed, that is, flat. Now, I was pretty keen on geography as a kid, and I'm pretty sure the earth isn't flat.

Third, yeah, that smoke verse is pretty neat. Lets look at the whole passage, shall we? The smoke verse is verse 41:11. In 41:9 it says Allah created the earth in two days. But that directly contradicts everything we know about evolution. Then in 41:12 it says Allah created the heavens in two days. This is AFTER he created the earth. And it says the stars are lamps. So wow, neat bit about smoke. The rest of it directly contradicts science. Failure.

Fourth, now any English translation of the Quran is going to be inaccurate. But the translation I've got says "forelock," not "front of the head". It's talking about grabbing a guy by his hair and casting him into hell.

Now, the fifth point is just silly. It talks about barriers between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, and then quotes a verse about saltwater and freshwater. Here's a hint - the Mediterranean is still salt water.

The sixth point isn't talking about the ocean at all. It's talking about the darkness that covers those to whom Allah has withheld his light. It's a spiritual darkness, and has nothing to do with the physical world.

The seventh point is a little more convincing, though my translation says "maketh them layers" instead of "stacks them". But still, that isn't anything new. Anyone who observes the skies can see how clouds move. True, the systems are a product of modern science, but how they look and behave can be easily seen just by simple observation. As a child I used to cloudwatch all the time, and I kept a journal of it (I've always been fascinated by earth science).

NOW . . . lets look at some of the scientific and historical contradictions in the Quran.

Like 7:124 and 20:71 which has Crucifixion in Egypt, an empire that didn't use crucifixion (a Roman punishment).

Or 13:2, 21:33, 35:13, 36:40, and others, which note that the sun orbits the earth.

Or 13:3, 15:19, 50:7, and others which suggest the earth is flat.

Or 18:86 and 90, which suggest the sun physically rises and sets from particular locations on the earth.

Or 24:45, which says Allah didn't create any creatures with more than four legs.

Or 27:61 which suggests the Earth does not move, but is fixed in place.

Or 54:1 which has Muhammed splitting the Moon in twain (much like Piccolo in Dragonball Z. Muhammed - the anime prophet)

More anime fun in 67:5 - the stars are actually missiles aimed at devils!

Or 86:5-7, which suggests humans are made from a gushing fluid that comes from the loins (true) and between the ribs (not true).

So no, I'm not considering the Quran any more of a science book than the Bible.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2009, 06:45 PM
Post: #3
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
GT doesn't look very speechless Sad

"Humanity invented religion initially to overcome the permanent loss of consciousness that occurs at death and it was then taken over by groups who use it to control other groups" - Innuendo, from Def-Logic forums.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2009, 08:11 PM
Post: #4
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
digaxox Wrote:for you God doesn't have to exist, the reality is God exists because the Quran exists. there are stuff in the Quran that even non-muslim [code]scientists and archeologists were simply stunned when informed of those stuff, and realized that only God could say those stuff 1400 years ago and that's not because they simply want to believe but because there is no way for those stuff to be said unless they were divine.
so now the next logical thing would be to tell you to look into those stuff.
would you be interested to know?



um as a archaeology major i find it interesting that niether me nor my professor knows what evidnece your talking about.

"Perhaps you've seen them only then you've just believed
And when they're fleeing then you feel you've been deceived
But in that feeling something ancient's been retrieved"
-Jack Hardy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2009, 09:34 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2009 10:27 PM by digaxox.)
Post: #5
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
(04-10-2009 06:45 PM)Mr_Redneck Wrote:  GT doesn't look very speechless Sad

well yeah, that's because i finally got his/her attention after three weeks!!!!
i am replying to him now, though i was very disappointed by some of the stuff he/she said because they make you realize he didn't read the stuff i gave him thoroughly!!!
best regards
now that i finally got your attention. let's get into it.
i am splitting my reply into certain parts because apparently it was too long
:o)
read it all though!!!! i wouldn't like it if you'd read only one part, and try to read it thoroughly, please.
1)it's really surprising that you(a man who believes in science) have the nerves to define his principles and say: "a human embryo doesn't look like gum. Nor does it look like a leech. Nor is it suspended. That's mangling to fulfill prophecy at its finest."

first, you can look at the pictures and you can see clearly that a human embryo does look like a gum, does look like a leech and does look suspended.

second, the description of the pictures shows that scientists agree with the description used.

third, scientists describe the names of the stages as named by the Quran to be accurate. since they quote DR keith l.moore, a high achiever in human embryo studies. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore )
let's do the same

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of King cAbdulazîz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them to interpret the many statements in the Qur'ân and Sunnah referring to human reproduction and prenatal development. At first I was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established."

he continues
"Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Qur'ân and Sunnah. The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge.

"The intensive studies of the Qur'ân and Hadîth in the last four years have revealed a system of classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D... the descriptions in the Qur'ân cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century..."
end of quote
http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scie...th%20L.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
so the question here is: you don't believe scientists anymore? why should a scientist agree to what's there and you don't?
=======================================================
2)"Plus, the first part of that verse talks about the earth being a bed, that is, flat." i am glad you mentioned that. first, you must take the two verses together "Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs? " beds are characterized by not being rough, if they were rough and made of rock no plants shall grow on em, however if there wasn't any rocky terrains (mountains) the earth wouldn't stay firm and will shake:
"And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... "
now how can you make sure that the description isn't saying that the earth is flat?

first, verses from the Quran:
21:33 It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.
36:40 It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).
39:5 He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again?
7:54 ......He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command...
second, muslim scholars many many centuries ago, before the earth was found to be round, took those verses and interpreted them as saying that the earth is round. scientists even calculated the diameter of the earth.
i am statting and quoting some scholars:
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=3648
Muhammad Ibn al-Idrisi (born in Andalusian city of Ceuta, in 1099 C.E.)
The presentation of the Earth as a round globe was revolutionary idea in the Christian world because they believed that the earth was flat. Al-Idrisi knew that the earth was round, and he even calculated the circumference of the earth to be 22,900 miles, a difference of eight percent from the present value, and explained the revolutionary idea about earth like this; “The earth is round like a sphere, and the waters adhere to it and are maintained on it through natural equilibrium on the surface of the earth, the air which suffers no variation. It remained stable in space like the yolk in an egg. Air surrounds it on all sides."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://answering-islam.com/earth_round.htm
Ibn Taymiyah (d. 728 H / 1328 CE), may Allah be merciful with him, in his famous treatise, ar-Risalah al-'Arshiyah, refutes the position of the neo-Platonic philosophers who identified Allah's Throne with the ninth celestial sphere (Majmu'ul-Fatawa, Vol. 6, pp. 546-ff). In the course of his response, Ibn Taymiyah discusses the question of the earth is it round or flat? He writes:

[That] celestial bodies are round (istidaaratul-aflaak) - as it is the statement of astronomers and mathematicians (ahlul-hay'ah wal-hisab) - it is [likewise] the statement of the scholars of the Muslims; as Abul-Hasan ibn al-Manaadi, Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, Abul-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi and others have quoted: that the Muslim scholars are in agreement [that all celestial bodies are round]. Indeed Allah - taala - has said: And He (i.e., Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a falak (The Noble Quran, 21:33). Ibn Abbas says: A falaka like that of a spinning wheel.

Ibn Taymiyah continues: The [word] falak [in the Arabic language] means that which is round. From which is the statement [of the Arabs]: <<The young girl's breasts have ta-fa-la-ka when they become round.>> (Vol. 6, pp. 566-567)

In an earlier passage (Vol. 6, pp. 565-566), Ibn Taymiyah discusses why those on the other side of the earth are not below us, just like we are not below them. He writes:

As for the other side of the earth it is surrounded by water. [Note: Admittedly, Ibn Taymiyah - as all Muslim scholars of his day- were not aware of the Americas and believed that the Old World was encompassed by an ocean.] There are no human beings or anything like that [on that side]. Even if we were to imagine that people were on that side of the earth, such individuals would still be on the face of the earth. Those on that side of the earth are not below those who are on this side; just like those on this side are not below those on that side. For as all spherical bodies surround a center point (markaz), no one side of a spherical body is under the other, nor is the north pole under the south [Note: Unlike Western maps, Muslim cartographers (map-makers) would draw the world with the south-side up.] or vice versa.

In another passage (Vol. 5, p. 150) Ibn Taymiyah clearly states the earth is spherical.

Significantly Abu Ya'la in his work Tabaqatal-Hanabilah (Biographical Entries of the Hanabali Scholars) quotes the unanimous consensus (ijma) of all Muslim scholars that the earth is round.

This consensus was mentioned by the scholars of the second generation (the students of the Prophet's Companions) and was based upon Ibn Abbas' explanation to 21:33 (previously cited) and other evidences.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ok so, muslim scholars, because of the Quran believed the earth to be round before the earth was ever proven to be in that way, and after 1400 years you want to claim that the quran is saying that the earth is flat.
let's talk with sense please
=====================================================
3)41:9-12
9 Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
10 He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).
11 Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
12 So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

first it is called "theory of evolution", that's because it can't be proven... people who support this idea are somewhere in Africa looking for the "missing link".
why do you believe in theory of evolution anyways, i thought you only believed in science?
second, about the lamps, how does is not fit the description? don't stars emit light and not reflect light like the moon? how would you have described the concept in a way for people living 1400 years ago to understand? you would have said it emits light not reflect it, like a lamp.
so the contradiction here is with the theory of evolution. i am not saying theories are wrong, but you can't say they are all true.
if one theory contradicts with the Quran then i will say the theory is wrong.
if scientific facts do contradict with the quran, then the quran contradicts itself when it says:
4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
only then will you be able to claim the Quran isn't from God... however, i dare you to find anything that contradicts with science today.
=======================================================
4)this is why we don't take translations to be accurate sources, and you said it yourself "any English translation of the Quran is going to be inaccurate".
======================================================
5) this part was really weird!!!!! did you actually read it thouroughly???
this part was clearly called: E) The Quran on Seas and Rivers
the quote is clearly:
He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)

notice the TWO SEAS!!!!

the other verse is talking about another phenomenon: between RIVERS AND SEAS:
He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)
the passage even explains to you that it is talking about another phenomenon:
One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?

please when you want to reply to something, there is always the idea of reading the stuff that's there, before replying!!! just take your time, read what's there, do some research if you want.
just don't come up to me with something that shows you didn't read it!!!
now that you have that cleared up, can you reply with an interpretation on how the Quran talks about such phenomenons?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6) so you are telling me that you don't know what an analogy is?
analogy:
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

when they ask you in an iq test:
the shoes is to the foot as is the gloves to the:
a) hand
b) head
c) shirt
d) arm
wouldn't you be able to see that this is an analogy?

Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!
now that you know that the verse is talking about the ocean... i wanna know your thoughts.
=======================================================
7)ok, so you are telling me that by just looking at the clouds, you know which one is the rainy one and which is not?
you will probably answer yes, and i don't want to get into how smart your judgment is so i am passing on this point.
===================================================

crucifixion: 7:124 and 20:71
here is a source that gathered sources that says otherwise:
http://www.lycos.com/info/crucifixion--a...egypt.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Punishment by crucifixion was widely employed in ancient times. It is known to have been used by nations such as those of Assyria, Egypt, Persia, by the Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians, and from very early times by the Romans. It has been thought, too, that crucifixion was ... used by the Jews themselves, and that there is an allusion to it (Deut. xxi. 22, 23) as a punishment to be inflicted, though this reference is commonly associated with lynching. There is evidence that captured pirates were crucified in the port of Athens in the 7th century BC.

Punishment by crucifixion was widely employed in ancient times. In the sense of impalement (as the Graeco-Roman concept encompassed that as well, see above Details of crucifixion), it was used from very early on in Ancient Egypt [3] and Assyria. Crucifixion, in one form or another, was ... used by Achaemenid Persia, the Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians and from very early times Rome. There is evidence that captured pirates were crucified in the port of Athens around the 7th century BC.
------------------------------------------------------------------
we find ourselves in front of two different theories, 1 claims they used crucifixion in Egypt the other claims they didn't. now we don't have thorough sources that date back to the ancient Egyptians... and there is nothing to prove they didn't use crucifixion + it's not like it needs alot of creativity to tie up a man to a tree. so until then you can't claim that the Egyptians didn't use crucifixion. (this is like saying that the bible is accurate though it has no reliable sources)
====================================================
verses 13:2, 21:33, 35:13, 36:40 do you actually read the verses before claiming anything? the 4 verses talk about the moon and the sun orbiting... it never says orbiting the moon... please read the verses before you actually claim something.
====================================================

verses 13:3, 15:19, 50:7. we already talked about the earth not being flat. and i say it again, if Muslim scholars believed the earth to be round because of the Quran before the earth ever been proven to be round that you can't claim that the Quran says it's flat.
===============================================
Or 18:86 and 90, maybe it's the translation that makes it unclear for you...
but any person that reads it in Arabic regardless of his beliefs understands that the verses talk about the time of sunset and sunrise (meaning he kept walking until it was time for sunrise/sunset...) and not giving it a physical meaning...
=============================================
verse 24:45 doesn't claim that God didn't create creatures that have more than 4 feet. you must read the verse before claiming anything.
And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.
it doesn't say anything about God not creating creatures that have more than 4 feet
========================================================
verse 27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not.
can you claim it is not firm? don't we live in it? don't we build on it? being firm is not related to being not moving. but to being firm under our feet
=======================================================
54:1 67:5, when you believe in the Quran you will have no problem believing in those two verses. plus here is a link that will help you through the event... it even has recordings from outside Mecca (where the prophet was when he split the moon)
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/151/
===================================================
i've read verse 86:7 and i can see how the translation you have can get you confused. mine says: 86:7 Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs (and actually this one is better cause it is identical in meaning to the verse in arabic)
the most simple explanation is reading the text as it is:
from between the backbone and the ribs... If we could visualize the womb, we will realize that its upper pole touches the sternum (chest bones); and its lower pole and back touches the vertebral column and the bony pelvis. Therefore at birth, the babe issues forth from the space located between the chest and the pelvis.
reference:
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Sate...boutIslamE
(you can also find other interpretations in that site that are also science compatible and even more complicated then the obvious explanation)

i have given you replies to everything you have claimed, and we don't look at the quran as a book of science but as a book of God.
=======================================================
ok, here's the part that you've left out:
Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran:

Dr. T. V. N. Persaud is Professor of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. There, he was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy for 16 years. He is well-known in his field. He is the author or editor of 22 textbooks and has published over 181 scientific papers. In 1991, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists.

Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson is the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Formerly, he was Professor of Ob-Gyn and the Chairman of the Department of Ob-Gyn at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. He was also the President of the American Fertility Society. He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992.

Dr. E. Marshall Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. There, for 22 years he was Professor of Anatomy, the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy, and the Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute. He was also the President of the Teratology Society. He has authored more than 200 publications.

Dr. William W. Hay is a well-known marine scientist. He is Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. He was formerly the Dean of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.

Dr. Gerald C. Goeringer is Course Director and Associate Professor of Medical Embryology at the Department of Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

Dr. Yoshihide Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.

Professor Tejatat Tejasen is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Previously, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the same university.

all these high achievers in their fields(among others), the scientists, what you can call your priests if you want (since you believe only in science) have confirmed that the stuff mentioned in the Quran are accurate and scientifically true.
now you can say that those scientists don't know any better... but then you'd be attacking all the morals that you defend as a science believer.
or you can admit that as a science believer, scientist do know better than you and that everything mentioned does fit science today and that you agree with scientists when they say that there is no way for a man to know all those science facts unless it was a divine thing.

best regards,
diga
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2009, 10:53 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2009 10:53 PM by digaxox.)
Post: #6
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
(04-10-2009 08:11 PM)Urthred Wrote:   um as a archaeology major i find it interesting that niether me nor my professor knows what evidnece your talking about.

first, i would like to say that what you do is awesome!!!!! i am a big fan of archeology and i love learning history, though my major is engineering.

first let me apologize because i thought that the stuff were mentioned in the link i had provided in my first post. here is one of the stuff i was talking about that are related to archeologist and historians:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/C...oseph.html

This article is about the usage of the term for the ruler of Egypt during the time of Joseph(P) and Moses(P) in the Qur'an. During the time of Joseph(P), the ruler of Egypt is addressed as King (Malik, in Arabic). And during the time of Moses(P), the ruler is called the Pharaoh (Fir'awn, in Arabic). This usage is consistent through out the Qur'an.

Below are some of the example verses from the Qur'an dealing with the ruler of Egypt during the time of Joseph(P) and Moses(P).

1. Joseph(P) & The King Of Egypt

A few examples of the usage of the word King during the time of Joseph(P) are underlined in red in the Arabic text.

The king (of Egypt) said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered. O ye chiefs! expound to me my vision, if it be that ye can interpret visions." [Qur'an 12:43]

They said: "We miss the great beaker of the king; for him who produces it, is (the reward of) a camel-load; I will be bound by it." [Qur'an 12:72]

More information about the usage of the word King during the time of Joseph(P) can be found in the Surah Yusuf and are given below.

King (Joseph's Story), 12:43, 12:50, 12:54, 12:72, 12:76

2. Moses(P) & The Pharaoh Of Egypt

A few examples of the usage of the word Pharaoh during the time of Moses(P) underlined in red in Arabic text.

Moses said: "O Pharaoh! I am a messenger from the Lord of the Worlds. [Qur'an 7:104]

Then after them sent We Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and his chiefs with Our Signs. But they were arrogant: they were a people in sin. [Qur'an 10:75]


More examples of the usage of Pharaoh during the time of Moses(P) can be found in the following verses.

Pharaoh, 7:104-137, 8:52, 8:54, 10:75-90, 11:97, 14:6, 20:24, 20:43, 20:56, 20:60, 20:78, 23:46, 26:10-66, 27:12, 28:3-42, 29:39, 38:12, 40:24-46, 43:46-85, 44:17, 44:31, 50:13, 51:38-40, 54:41-42, 66:11, 69:9, 73:15-16, 79:17-25, 85:18

punishment of, 3:11, 20:78-79, 26:66, 28:40, 43:55, 44:24, 51:40, 89:18
torture by and deliverance from, 2:49, 17:103
3. Egyptology At Our Rescue

What does modern Egyptology tells us about the rulers of the Egypt and when they were called as Pharaohs? The Encylopedia Britannica informs us under "Pharaoh":

(from Egyptian per 'aa, "great house") , originally, the royal palace in ancient Egypt; the word came to be used as a synonym for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty, 1539-1292 BC), and by the 22nd dynasty (c. 945-c. 730 BC) it had been adopted as an epithet of respect. The term has since evolved into a generic name for all ancient Egyptian kings, although it was never formally the king's title.[1]

Most of us are unaware of this minor but very important point that the rulers of Egypt were called Pharaohs only in the New Kingdom period. Loosely speaking, in layman terms, all the Egyptian rulers are addressed as Pharaohs which is, of course, incorrect.

4. When Did Joseph(P) & Moses(P) Stay In Egypt?

According to the Bible, the ruler of Egypt during the times of Abraham(P) (Genesis 12), Joseph(P) (Genesis 41) and Moses(P) was called a Pharaoh. If this is to be taken literally as well as correct (as some Biblicists would say!) then the whole story of Egypt in the Bible needs to be re-arranged from the New Kingdom Period. This is because the ruler of Egypt was called a Pharaoh only from this period onwards. Any mention of the term Pharaoh in connection with the ruler of Egypt before this period is an anachronism.

Let us briefly see what are the current hypothesis concerning the entry of Joseph(P) into Egypt. There are two well-known hypothesis. The first one is that he entered Egypt during the time of Hyksos. Hyksos belonged to a group of mixed Semitic-Asiatics who were settled in northern Egypt during the 18th century BC. Around 1630 they seized power, and Hyksos kings ruled Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630-1521 BC). The name Hyksos was used by the Egyptian historian Manetho (fl. 300 BC), who, according to the Jewish historian Josephus (fl. 1st century CE), translated the word as "king-shepherds" or "captive shepherds". Hyksos was probably an Egyptian term for "rulers of foreign lands" (heqa-khase).

The second one is that Joseph's(P) entry into Egypt took place during 12th Dynasty of Middle Kingdom Period. The ruler during his time is supposed to be Sesostris III. It is not our aim get into the research involved in finding the period. There are many issues involved here, e.g., Egyptology data, the doubt whether the Bible writers who were writing about the events, were eye-witnesses or whether the story of Joseph(P) was narrated/written many centuries later after the actual event. Interestingly, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible understood some of the discrepancies in the Egyptology data concerning the Story of Joseph(P) and states that:

The frank attitude toward the stories about Egypt in Genesis and Exodus is that folk memory had retained the essentials of great Hebrew experience but had later clothed that memory with some details imperfectly recollected and some circumstantial details borrowed from later times and conditions.[2]

In gist, the entry of Joseph(P) into Egypt occured before the ruler of Egypt was called Pharaoh. The use of Malik (King) instead of Fir'awn (Pharaoh) by the Qur'an represents historical accuracy with the data available to us. Whereas the mentioning of Pharaoh as a ruler during the time of Joseph(P) in Genesis 41 (and more so in the time of Abraham(P) in Genesis 12!) is an anachronism.

In the case of Moses(P), most of the scholars place the events of oppression and exodus in the New Kingdom Period when Merneptah and Ramases II were the rulers. They were of course, called Pharaohs. Hence the Qur'an is correct in the usage of the word Fir'awn (Pharaoh) for the ruler of Egypt.

Conclusions

With the current data available to us from Egyptology, the mentioning of the ruler of Egypt is addressed as King (Malik, in Arabic) during the time of Joseph's(P) and Pharaoh (Fir'awn, in Arabic) during the time of Moses(P) by the Qur'an is amazingly accurate. The Bible writers, on the other hand, while writing about the stories of Abraham and Joseph(P) used the term Pharaoh for the rulers of Egypt which is anachronic. Further studies in Egyptology will shed more light on the lives of the Prophets(P) in Egypt, inshallah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have other stuff related to Egypt also, that are really interesting to archeologists. i'll post about em later, because i really have to go now!!!!
i will be looking forward to seeing what you will reply to my post. especially to how did Mohammad know about pharaoh and king (considering he is illiterate and he lived in the desert).
oh and quick question: did the written language of the ancient Egyptians become obsolete at some point?

best regards,
diga
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2009, 02:15 AM
Post: #7
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
54:1 67:5, when you believe in the Quran you will have no problem believing in those two verses. plus here is a link that will help you through the event... it even has recordings from outside Mecca (where the prophet was when he split the moon)
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/151/

first off im going to adress this because frankly i find this statement ludicrus because all you're really saying is that when i believe in the quran then ill believe, which is a circular arguement its fallicity easily exposed by asking "well when do you believe the Quran?". "when you believe its verses". so that is really no proof.

ok on to the accuracy of the term pharoah and what not. i really dont see how this is a benefit to either the christian side or the islamic side in that yes both are right for the specfic time periods that the events were supposed to happen the problem is that there is no archaeological evidence in either of those time periods of a jewish exodus from eqypt there is the incident under ahmose where he expells the Hyskos but they certainly werent jewish slaves. so really the fact that muhammed slipped up and wrote king instead of Pharaoh (he was illerate so the mistake is easy) and happen to get the right time period some 1500 years he had to pick from seems more likely to me. from what i understand the archaeologist community stand on this is that it is merely a response from jewish sheperd skirmishes on the egyptian border that over time got expanded into the story we know today.

Now i will admit that im not overly familiar with the quran(ill have to remedy that) but joseph was taken slave before moses and eventually made advisor to the king if this is true then he would be buried with the pharoah as all slaves of the pharoah were killed at the time of his death and buried with him so if the story was backed by achaeology we would find his grave or atleast a record of him being buried there but there is no evidence.

"Perhaps you've seen them only then you've just believed
And when they're fleeing then you feel you've been deceived
But in that feeling something ancient's been retrieved"
-Jack Hardy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2009, 03:35 AM
Post: #8
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
it's the same thing when i ask you to believe in heaven and hell... do u believe in heaven and hell? i believe in heaven because God said in the Quran that there is heaven and there is hell...
how about splitting the moon? if yes, what proofs do u have today that mohamad splat the moon? the only proof is the recordings of the people who lived back then who saw the moon split in two and recorded what the unbelievers said.
what i was trying to say was that since i believe in the Quran, then everything in it for me is the truth. i don't claim that it is proof to you, all i am saying is that it is the truth for me, as a muslim.

ok so you are telling me that:
1)mohamad made up a story about joseph and about moses

2)he took a wild guess in calling the first king and the other pharaoh (though by doing that he would risk everything he worked for and have his followers abandon him?)

ok well
1) he didn't know them (Joseph and Moses) or know anything about them: he lived in mecca, middle of the desert, among all inhabitants only around 40 people can write, people worshiped stones so they don't know Joseph and Moses)

2) he couldn't have learned their stories from the Jews of the madina because the verses were descended when he was still living in Mecca.

3) no one in his right mind would take such guess + he wouldn't defy humanity to find errors in his book.

4) if you claim that mohamad made guesses, how come he never gets it wrong?
it is a simple as God says it:
4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.


i think you need to look into the story of Joseph because there is more into it than you know..
by the end of it, Joseph is of a great value to the king and he is given the responsibility of looking after the granary and in spending rations meaning he was no longer a slave.

quick question: did they use to burn bricks in Ancient Egypt?
the reason that i am asking is because the Quran states:
(28:38) pharaoh said: "O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace (Arabic: Sarhan, lofty tower or palace), that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!"
did he make another really wild guess and got it right another time?
did he make wild guesses concerning all the scientific stuff i mentioned before? (embryos, clouds, rivers and seas, formation of stars...)

i say it again:
4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

best regards and good luck on your quest for truth,
diga
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2009, 04:18 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2009 04:22 AM by Urthred.)
Post: #9
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
ok first the nature of believe in heaven and hell is exactly as you stated. if you state you believe that heaven is real becasue you believe in bible/quran/etc it then proves nothing if you say well if you believe that bible/quran/etc is true becasue you believe in heaven. because all your doing is going in a circular arguement "why do you believe the bible/quran/etc is true?" "because i believe heaven is true?" "well why do you believe the bible/quran/etc is true?" etc etc


ok on to the rest
1)Personally yes, it made him famous and geve him something to do i find it highly likely alot of people to this on more minor scales. but i might be wrong it might contain deep spiritual relevance. but as far as it being historically accurate document to events in ancient egypt im sorry but no.
2)yep this is seen in alot of things its a minor point in his time period and this i really doubt many muslims would stop believeing if he had been wrong on if the guy was pharoah or king they being equivelent and all.
1)true but you exclude oral trasport of stories. this is the oldest form of passing on traditions and beliefs, and its highly likely that he would have heard of christianity with Rome being a christian empire during this time period and having trade and prestige with all nearby countries.
2)what do you mean by desceneded? he probbably learned the stories from some trader from rome or maybe even from gossip or from a debate much like this.
3)um people have done this in history alot off the top of my head i think of ben franklin guessing on which way electrons flow (he got it wrong but lets face it it was a 50/50 chance) he then challenged the scientific community to disprove him and it wasent unil much later that he was dissproven. so do i think muhammed might have guessed yes. can i persuaded you to think like this probbably not from personal experience most devote people are pretty unbending about there various faiths.
4)what do you mean he never gets it wrong? I personally would think the whole the earth was made in 2 days thing you state early in this thread would be wrong seeing as science can show the earth would have to form in billions upon billions of years.


oh and yes they did bake bricks in ancient Egypt in fact there is a dig going on down there right now of huge brick making factory.

as to did he guess on the rest of the stuff. possibly but i doubt it if i was to judge i would say this is vague metaphors he uses that his modern day followers have taken and forced to fit modern scientific features kinda like how nostradomus believers keep manipulating his writings to say he predicted things liek the world wars and floods and things.

With utmost regard,
Urthred

"Perhaps you've seen them only then you've just believed
And when they're fleeing then you feel you've been deceived
But in that feeling something ancient's been retrieved"
-Jack Hardy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2009, 01:46 PM
Post: #10
RE: how i got an atheist speechless
first, i would like to thank you for the time you give for replying to me and i hope you do it with the most objectivity that you can, that's what i try to do.

i agree with you when you talk about circular arguments...

about everything else:
1) this is not a man that lived two blocks away from congress library or the great library of Baghdad, this is a man living in the desert, among tribes where the strong governs the weak, where a man would wage war on his own brother just for fun... in short it's a jungle!!!!
2) if he had been wrong in anything Muslims would stop believing in him!!! because that's the theory that the Quran put:
4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
3) you claim there could have been forms of oral communication with traders and Christians... well Christians don't have the king and pharaoh thing. and didn't most hieroglyphic documents get destroyed? wasn't the hieroglyphic written language been long gone before the 7th century?

4) debates?? there aren't any Christians around Mecca!!!! where does he get his stories from?
5)if he was wrong when claiming that those verses talking about prophets are from God, then the Jews would have called him a liar when he arrived to Madina after that (if the stories were incompatible with what they had)

6) is this about just making speculations based on nothing?

7) you said it yourself, Ben Franklin got it wrong!!! however 1400 years after Mohammad says it, everything is true!!!! it's not about one subject. it's about a lot of subjects!!!(at least tens of subjects is what pops to mind).
this brings us back to the same point: if he is wrong once, just once, then he has proven himself to be other than what he claims... however 1400 years later he is still right!
8)the quran doesn't mention stuff that were familiar to people back then (Benjamin Franklin knew what an electron was because the science was advanced enough for him to get an idea about he subject) for example, how can the quran give detailed description of the stages of the development of embryos if we only discovered them few decades back?

9) the probability of getting any of those stuff right is 0%:
embryos, barriers between two seas (mohamad never saw the sea), etc...

10) how is creation of heaven and earth in 2 days a science thing? does it contradict anything related to what science has descovered?
it's a God thing!

argument related to other stuff: the Quran is still preserved since 1400 years, so no manipulation could have been done to anything to fit descriptions. you can go take a look at that book yourself but you don't have to bother because we all have the same single copy, as it was narrated and written back then.

my question to you: why would you claim they are vague metaphors if the scientists specialized in the fields that the Quran mentions calls them accurate?
i quote Dr. T. V. N. Persaud is Professor of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. There, he was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy for 16 years. He is well-known in his field. He is the author or editor of 22 textbooks and has published over 181 scientific papers. In 1991, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. When he was asked about the scientific miracles in the Quran which he has researched, he stated the following:

The way it was explained to me is that Muhammad was a very ordinary man. He could not read, didn’t know [how] to write. In fact, he was an illiterate. And we’re talking about twelve [actually about fourteen] hundred years ago. You have someone illiterate making profound pronouncements and statements and that are amazingly accurate about scientific nature. And I personally can’t see how this could be a mere chance. There are too many accuracies and, like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to these statements.
( http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm )

may your path be filled with light!
best regards,
diga
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)