How Old Is The Earth

[Mr.Grieves]

I didn't know the Quran was a picture book.

I'd presume, as a supposed reader of the Quran, you could identify the image above as the Prophet on his flying horse headed to heaven in the sky... not exactly a science-friendly parable in the Quran.

Instead of being a goof and never knowing anything perhaps you could actually provide some kind of content rather than posting a lot but never really saying anything.

You get less and less mature with every exchange, and I'm beginning to seriously doubt you're the adult you claim to be. From the 'alpha/cuck' talk- pop-culture nomenclature most common among young teenagers, to your 'No YOU!' style of argument, to the way you try to escalate every conversation/debate into some silly measuring of e-dicks all makes me feel (and honestly hope) you're some kid having a bit of a laugh.

Also, you should be the last person posting and talking about the Quran when you can't even tell the difference between a corrupted/forged hadith and an authentic one.

As you've adamantly insisted in the past when discussing issues like Islam condoning discretionary stonings, Hadiths aren't the Quran, and don't speak for it. I see we've changed our tune.

My advice to you would be to go and read the Quran and actually study how it came to be buddy boy.

And mine to you would be 'grow up'.

 

[Yahda]

I'll have to go with the millions or billions. This is random but I sometimes try to imagine life without time and space. Absolutely nothing.

I don't know why, but it's one of the scariest thoughts.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

I'll have to go with the millions or billions. This is random but I sometimes try to imagine life without time and space. Absolutely nothing.

I don't know why, but it's one of the scariest thoughts.

Even in the absence of time and space, it's supposed that a 'soup' of sub-atomic particles would remain, winking in and out of existence and trying to tear itself apart. It's a weird idea to wrap one's head around, but 'nothing' is just an abstraction; a word we use to represent the concept of total absence. There's no real evidence that an actual 'nothing' can exist in nature.

 

[Thunderian]

Absolute rubbish. The Bible uses the word "Pharaoh" both times when Egyption history tell us otherwise but since those academics and historians are not Christians it can't be true according to you. I repeat, the Bible uses the word "pharaoh" and not king. If the Bible is the word of God it certainly isn't doing a good job when it comes to the scientific and or historical front.

The Bible uses both the words Pharoah, which is the Egyptian word for the seat of government, and melek, which is the Hebrew word for king. Using a more modern word to denote a concept that predates that particular expression is really not the big deal you're making it out to be. If it is, please explain the Quran's use of the Arabic title al-Aziz in regards to Potiphar, a term that certainly would not have been in use in ancient Egypt. Does this mean the Quran is rubbish?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Kung Fu

With regard to David Wood etc I neither endorse him or reject him. I find him abrasive and sometimes unfeeling in his approach but others see him as a straight talker who doesn't 'beat around the bush'. Regardless of personality, the content of his observations are The real point. His knowledge of Islam is greater than mine and as always with any claim, I would suggest the examples are cross referenced against the cited documents.

People can and should make their own minds up, and not be swayed by the forcefulness of a debaters approach.

 

[Kung Fu]

The Bible uses both the words Pharoah, which is the Egyptian word for the seat of government, and melek, which is the Hebrew word for king. Using a more modern word to denote a concept that predates that particular expression is really not the big deal you're making it out to be. If it is, please explain the Quran's use of the Arabic title al-Aziz in regards to Potiphar, a term that certainly would not have been in use in ancient Egypt. Does this mean the Quran is rubbish?

Show me in your King James Bible where it uses the word "king" when addressing the sovereign leader of Egypt instead of the word "Pharaoh"?

 

[Kung Fu]

I'd presume, as a supposed reader of the Quran, you could identify the image above as the Prophet on his flying horse headed to heaven in the sky... not exactly a science-friendly parable in the Quran.


You get less and less mature with every exchange, and I'm beginning to seriously doubt you're the adult you claim to be. From the 'alpha/cuck' talk- pop-culture nomenclature most common among young teenagers, to your 'No YOU!' style of argument, to the way you try to escalate every conversation/debate into some silly measuring of e-dicks all makes me feel (and honestly hope) you're some kid having a bit of a laugh.

As you've adamantly insisted in the past when discussing issues like Islam condoning discretionary stonings, Hadiths aren't the Quran, and don't speak for it. I see we've changed our tune.

And mine to you would be 'grow up'.

Religion and therefore the history of Islam and or what's contained in the Quran isn't your strong suit so please stop posting about it like you think you know what you're talking about. Final note the story of the prophet and his flying beast isn't in the Quran, which again is why I tell you to stop talking about the Quran like you know anything about it lol.

 

[grateful servant]

The Bible uses both the words Pharoah, which is the Egyptian word for the seat of government, and melek, which is the Hebrew word for king. Using a more modern word to denote a concept that predates that particular expression is really not the big deal you're making it out to be. If it is, please explain the Quran's use of the Arabic title al-Aziz in regards to Potiphar, a term that certainly would not have been in use in ancient Egypt. Does this mean the Quran is rubbish?

Al-Aziz is an Arabic word in the Arabic Quran referring to a high ranking official or powerful man, a minister or such. Why wouldn't have such a title been used in ancient Egypt?

 

[Kung Fu]

Al-Aziz is an Arabic word in the Arabic Quran referring to a high ranking official or powerful man, a minister or such. Why wouldn't have such a title been used in ancient Egypt?

Was going to post exactly this after he answered my question.

 

[Thunderian]

Show me in your King James Bible where it uses the word "king" when addressing the sovereign leader of Egypt instead of the word "Pharaoh"?

Exodus 1:8 - Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

Now, can you explain why you permit the Quran to use anachronisms, but not the Bible?

 

[Thunderian]

Al-Aziz is an Arabic word in the Arabic Quran referring to a high ranking official or powerful man, a minister or such. Why wouldn't have such a title been used in ancient Egypt?

Because they didn't speak Arabic in ancient Egypt.

 

[polymoog]

Around 6,000 years old or so.

It's interesting to me that on this board, people believe what "modern science" tells us lol

i hear you and agree, but i wouldnt put all my faith in an old book as the source of all facts.

 

[grateful servant]

Because they didn't speak Arabic in ancient Egypt.

No duh.
It's the Arabic version of whatever the title was in the language they spoke then, sheesh. Kinda like Al-Malik is for the king in the story about Yusuf (Joseph) and Fir'aun is for the Pharoah in the story of Musa (Moses).

 

[Thunderian]

No duh.
It's the Arabic version of whatever the title was in the language they spoke then, sheesh. Kinda like Al-Malik is for the king in the story about Yusuf (Joseph) and Fir'aun is for the Pharoah in the story of Musa (Moses).

I'm not the stupid one here, OK?

Kung Fu's point was that we can't trust the Bible because it uses the term Pharoah for the ruler of Egypt before the term was in use. But you're saying the Arabic version of the same term is fine, even if it was never actually used in Egypt. What is the difference between the Bible using the term Pharoah -- when that is an actual Egyptian term, albeit a few hundred years too early to be in use, according to KF -- and the Quran using a term that was never used at all, but is the Arabic approximation of a similar title?

Do you see the point I'm making? Essentially, you are disagreeing with Kung Fu. Did you mean to do that?

 

[a son of God]

,

not legitimate Islamic websites and literally make up and forge hadiths

Interesting, can you please view the two videos and point out the errors? That would be very helpful. Which quotes from the Quran did this guy make up. Thanks in advance.

 

[grateful servant]

I'm not the stupid one here, OK?

Kung Fu's point was that we can't trust the Bible because it uses the term Pharoah for the ruler of Egypt before the term was in use. But you're saying the Arabic version of the same term is fine, even if it was never actually used in Egypt. What is the difference between the Bible using the term Pharoah -- when that is an actual Egyptian term, albeit a few hundred years too early to be in use, according to KF -- and the Quran using a term that was never used at all, but is the Arabic approximation of a similar title?

Do you see the point I'm making? Essentially, you are disagreeing with Kung Fu. Did you mean to do that?

Im not disagreeing with KF and you are trying to obfuscate the matter to draw attention away from the fact that the Bible refers to the ruler of Egypt in the time of Joseph as "Pharoah", while archeological discoveries show that the title was not used during that time - not ever. Therefore we can conclude that the Biblical story of Joseph was written down by scribes who were unaware of that historical fact. Whereas the Quranic version is in total agreement with the historical evidences in light of archeological discoveries. It may not mean much to you, but if a Book is to be considered 100% from God or inspired by God, then that detail becomes important.

As for "al-Aziz" (which translates as "minister/official" ), you are the one who brought that up, and there is nothing known that would stand to contradict it and there never will be because the Quran is 100% the Pure Word of Almighty God.

 

[a son of God]

Im not disagreeing with KF and you are trying to obfuscate the matter to draw attention away from the fact that the Bible refers to the ruler of Egypt in the time of Joseph as "Pharoah", while archeological discoveries show that the title was not used during that time - not ever. Therefore we can conclude that the Biblical story of Joseph was written down by scribes who were unaware of that historical fact. Whereas the Quranic version is in total agreement with the historical evidences in light of archeological discoveries. It may not mean much to you, but if a Book is to be considered 100% from God or inspired by God, then that detail becomes important.

As for "al-Aziz" (which translates as "minister/official" ), you are the one who brought that up, and there is nothing known that would stand to contradict it and there never will be because the Quran is 100% the Pure Word of Almighty God.

Check out this short video, has been verified by others

 

[Thunderian]

Im not disagreeing with KF and you are trying to obfuscate the matter to draw attention away from the fact that the Bible refers to the ruler of Egypt in the time of Joseph as "Pharoah", while archeological discoveries show that the title was not used during that time - not ever. Therefore we can conclude that the Biblical story of Joseph was written down by scribes who were unaware of that historical fact. Whereas the Quranic version is in total agreement with the historical evidences in light of archeological discoveries. It may not mean much to you, but if a Book is to be considered 100% from God or inspired by God, then that detail becomes important.

As for "al-Aziz" (which translates as "minister/official" ), you are the one who brought that up, and there is nothing known that would stand to contradict it and there never will be because the Quran is 100% the Pure Word of Almighty God.

So the Bible can't use a term -- Pharoah -- to refer to a king of Egypt during Joseph's time, even though the term itself is proper to use to mean the seat of government, and later became synonymous with the king of Egypt, but the Quran can use an Arabic term -- Al-‘Aziz -- to refer to someone who lived during the exact same time period, even though they didn't even speak Arabic in Egypt until thousands of years later? And the Bible is wrong and the Quran is right? Do you listen to yourself?

Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus. He was educated in the house of the Pharoah. Don't you think, of all people, he would know if the term was proper to use or not?

 

[a son of God]

the Bible refers to the ruler of Egypt in the time of Joseph as "Pharoah", while archeological discoveries show that the title was not used during that time - not ever

This site talks about the different titles of leaders of Egypt and has this listed

1,492 BCE - 1,479 BCE
Reign of Thutmose II, pharaoh of Egypt.

http://www.ancient.eu/pharaoh/

 

[a son of God]

Im not disagreeing with KF and you are trying to obfuscate the matter to draw attention away from the fact that the Bible refers to the ruler of Egypt in the time of Joseph as "Pharoah", while archeological discoveries show that the title was not used during that time - not ever. Therefore we can conclude that the Biblical story of Joseph was written down by scribes who were unaware of that historical fact. Whereas the Quranic version is in total agreement with the historical evidences in light of archeological discoveries. It may not mean much to you, but if a Book is to be considered 100% from God or inspired by God, then that detail becomes important.

As for "al-Aziz" (which translates as "minister/official" ), you are the one who brought that up, and there is nothing known that would stand to contradict it and there never will be because the Quran is 100% the Pure Word of Almighty God.

Grateful servant, you are a Muslim? if so, can you please share your view of whether the suicide bombers are misled or should they be admired? Curious