1) You clearly got these points from anti-islam websites. You're so transparent it's not even funny.
2)
Today I learned that the Quran says that Joseph was sold by his brothers for "a few dirhams". The problem is that the dirham was not in use as a currency until about 700 years after Joseph was sold. Why does the Quran say Joseph was sold for a currency that didn't exist?
Firstly this is a pretty silly point to even be making. The Quran presents stories in a context/language for it's own people, it will typically use a relatable language/style.
You know what this is? it's the mythos aspect of scripture.
This is why it requires a basic bit of hikmah (wisdom) to actually get it.
For example
Genesis 1-2.....scientifically it is a load of nonsense
I simply understand how Gensis 1-2 are an aspect of mythos.
This is precisely why the israelites didn't write down the oral torah (ie the hikmah to understand the torah which would explain the real intent/meaning of such texts) because they know certain things are mythological truths.
When you share this with.....dumb people, they lose faith.
The Quran tells us about various prophets who were given a scripture AND the hikmah.
in otherwords, the scripture never existed on it's own, there was always a deeper wisdom behind it which the prophet's understood.
For me, a large part of accepting scripture is about UNDERSTANDING that it held value in it's primary intended purpose.
so basically, sure thing...
Dirhams didn't exist in that time. The egyptians didn't even use coins at that point.
However the story has to be relatable for the audienc.
3)
I also learned that the Quran tells us that King David made coats of chain mail, even though that type of armour wasn't invented until the Celts started making it 500 years after David died. Why would the Quran say David was manufacturing a type of armour that didn't exist during his lifetime?
good one
1 Samual 17:38
38 Then Saul clothed David with his armor; he put a bronze helmet on his head and clothed him with a coat of mail.
It's quite cute of you to talk about David whilst there's a host of 'bible historians' who deny David even existed.
in otherwords, not much is really known about him anyway so arguing on this point would be pointless.
like bro
@grateful servant pointed out
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
4)
I learned that the Egyptians of Joseph's time supposedly practiced crucifixion, even though there is no historical record of this. Why would the Quran say the Egyptians crucified people when there is no evidence of this?
again "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
for example, the general idea is the romans crucifiied people...a lot.
yet
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/12/08/this-bone-provides-the-only-skeletal-evidence-for-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world/
only one piece of real evidence exists (not including historical written records since we're comparing with egypt and over 1000 years prior).
So maybe the egyptians did practice crucifixion?
5)
I learned from the Quran that it was a Samaritan who led the children of Israel to form and worship a golden calf, even though the Samaritans weren't a people until several hundred years later. Why would the Quran credit the golden calf to a people who didn't even exist?
Surah 20
85 (Allah) said: "We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray."
The samaritans may not have been a 'people', but they call themselves by a term...
"Shamerim" which means
"Guardians/Keepers/Watchers (of the Torah)"
so basically it's bit like how Pakistan means 'pure land' or alternatively 'land of the pure'
does that mean if the word 'paak' (pure) was used in any context in the an old scripture, it had to be refer to actual pakistanis?
............
"Korah is represented as a wise man, chief of his family and as one of the Kohathites
who carried the Ark of the Covenant on their shoulders (Tan., ed. Buber, Ḳoraḥ, Supplement, 5; Num. R. xviii. 2)."
im pretty sure Korah was a priest which means this title 'Shamerim' could apply to him.
6)
I learned that Haman was actually a minister of the Pharoah during the time of Moses, and not, as the book of Esther tells us, a minister in the court of the Persian king Ahasuerus, a thousand years later. How could the Quran get this so mixed up?
i've done some reading up on this so when I found a possible answer I of course wanted to know how the christian side have put it to bed?
from your fav website.
"Figure 4: Hieroglyph entry for "hmn-h" and his profession "Vorsteherder Steinbruch arbeiter" meaning "the chief / overseer of the workers in the stone-quarries" and dates from the New Kingdom Period."
So there was a person with a name translated into hmn-h who was the Cheif of the workers in the stone-quarries at that time,
right?
So what's written about Haman in the Quran?
(3) Fir'aun (Pharaoh) said: "O chiefs! I know not that you have an ilah (a god) other than me. So kindle for me (a fire), O Haman, to bake (bricks out of) clay, and set up for me a Sarh (a lofty tower, or palace) in order that I may look at (or look for) the Ilah (God) of Musa (Moses); and verily, I think that he [Musa (Moses)] is one of the liars."
(سورة القصص, Al-Qasas, Chapter #28, Verse #38)
to me that's pretty striking.
about the book of Esther, is it a God inspired text? it actually isn't.
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/03/did-purim-reall.html
"One need look no further for the holiday's Babylonian roots than the names of its heroes: Mordecai is derived from the Babylonian god Marduk; as for Esther, Rabbi Nehemiah explains in tractate Megilla 13a as follows: "Hadassa was her original name; why then was she called Esther? Because Idol worshipers referred to her after the name of the planet Venus, or Ishtar."…"
I don't know where this haman figure appeared from in the book of Esther Maybe because the book of esther is a forgery with made up names they got the name haman from somewhere?
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_100808.shtml
What is more interesting, however, is that most credible biblical scholars consider the Book of Esther to be a fraud. For example, the Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, written by some of the leading biblical scholars in the world, states, “Various historical and chronological inaccuracies and improbabilities lead to the conclusion that the book is something less than dependable history and was written a long time after the events it describes.” Author H. Neil Richardson goes on to say the “book is the work of a skilled literary artist …”
The Book of Esther was originally believed to have been written by Mordecai. The book was then “modified” or “redacted,” words changed or rewritten, by a group of Jewish scribes known as the Great Assembly.
Even Mr. Netanyahu’s co-religionists disagree with the validity of the Book of Esther. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia we learn, “Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on an historical foundation … . The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of pure fiction.”
did you learn irony today?
