How Old Is The Earth

[mecca]

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

Are you kidding? Who would support suicide bombers? Why are you assuming a Muslim would have some sort of abnormal opinion towards the murder of innocents compared to anyone else?

 

[Thunderian]

Just as an aside, 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.

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.

I learned that the Egyptians of Joseph's time supposedly practiced crucifixion, even though there is no historical record of this.

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.

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.

So the Quran gets a bunch of historical details really wrong, but at least if doesn't call the king of Egypt by the title everyone else does until it's historically proper to do so.

 

[Thunderian]

Are you kidding? Who would support suicide bombers? Why are you assuming a Muslim would have some sort of abnormal opinion towards the murder of innocents compared to anyone else?

You should stroll on over and read what Kung Fu and others have to say on this thread, and on this one.

They make it pretty clear what their stance as Muslims is on the murder of innocents.

 

[a son of God]

Why are you assuming a Muslim would have some sort of abnormal opinion towards the murder of innocents compared to anyone else?

Good to know. The reason I asked is that nearly all the suicide bombers I have heard of are Muslims. They justify their acts by quoting from the Koran. I assume that is the same book you follow. Just curious if their interpretation of the Koran was wide spread. Thanks for your reply. It gives me hope.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I found another interview with two very brave girls held captive under threat of death in Iran for distributing Bibles. They were culturally Muslim before becoming Christians and their experiences and observations are worth noting...

 

[Kung Fu]

,

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.

I've done it with Mr. Grieves and Floss and I'm not going to do it a third time. It's starting to get ridiculous that people keep referencing a guy who has made up his own hadiths and or changed the Arabic wording in order for it to mean something completely different. Like I said if you want to discuss Islam with me you bring me the evidence of someone credible and not a proven liar and forgerer. I won't entertain "evidence" brought from Answering-Islam and or Wikiislam because like I said they have forged hadiths.

 

[Kung Fu]

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?

LOL! Talk about being confused. Reminds me of the Trinity talk we had a while back

Let me make this simple for you. The Bible uses the word "Pharaoh" to refer to the sovereign leader of Egypt at the time of Joseph(pbuh) which is absolutely false because historical and academic information shows us that Egypt at that time didn't refer to their sovereign leaders as "Pharaoh" but "king" whereas at the time of Moses(pbuh) they referred to their leaders as "Pharaoh". The Quran, however, uses the Arabic word for "king" to refer to the leader of Egypt during Joseph's time and the Arabic word "Pharaoh" to refer to the leader of Moses's(pbuh) time.

Also, it makes a huge difference when you're looking at historical accuracy but you're playing stupid, which you have admitted to before, and just don't want to accept it out of pride. For example, it would be incorrect to call King Henry the VIII a President just as it was incorrect to call the king of Egypt at the time of Joseph(pbuh) as Pharaoh.

 

[Kung Fu]

Good to know. The reason I asked is that nearly all the suicide bombers I have heard of are Muslims. They justify their acts by quoting from the Koran. I assume that is the same book you follow. Just curious if their interpretation of the Koran was wide spread. Thanks for your reply. It gives me hope.

All of them are Muslim because you get all your information from the media which only ever discusses so-called "Muslim" suicide bombers but you never hear them talk about the Tamil suicide bombers. Stop watching the TV and go actually read up on the situations going on in the world right now.

 

[Kung Fu]

Just as an aside, 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.

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.

I learned that the Egyptians of Joseph's time supposedly practiced crucifixion, even though there is no historical record of this.

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.

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.

So the Quran gets a bunch of historical details really wrong, but at least if doesn't call the king of Egypt by the title everyone else does until it's historically proper to do so.

Looks like you never get tired of me debunking you. Surely you can do better than this Zionist, right?

If the Quran was able to get such an important little detail such as the title of a sovereign leader of Egypt during it's different eras right I wonder what else it's right about

EDIT: All that information you got either most likely came from Answering-Islam or Wikiislam, right? I know you follow the Talmud and are able to lie to us gentiles but for once man to man tell us the truth for crying out loud.

Also, nice deflection by the way lol.

Still waiting for you to show me where in the Bible it uses the word "king" to refer to the sovereign of Egypt during the time of Joseph(pbuh)?

 

[Todd]

LOL! Talk about being confused. Reminds me of the Trinity talk we had a while back

Let me make this simple for you. The Bible uses the word "Pharaoh" to refer to the sovereign leader of Egypt at the time of Joseph(pbuh) which is absolutely false because historical and academic information shows us that Egypt at that time didn't refer to their sovereign leaders as "Pharaoh" but "king" whereas at the time of Moses(pbuh) they referred to their leaders as "Pharaoh". The Quran, however, uses the Arabic word for "king" to refer to the leader of Egypt during Joseph's time and the Arabic word "Pharaoh" to refer to the leader of Moses's(pbuh) time.

Also, it makes a huge difference when you're looking at historical accuracy but you're playing stupid, which you have admitted to before, and just don't want to accept it out of pride. For example, it would be incorrect to call King Henry the VIII a President just as it was incorrect to call the king of Egypt at the time of Joseph(pbuh) as Pharaoh.

Why is this even worth arguing about? We know the story of Joseph wasn't actually written during Joseph's time. Traditional authorship has been credited to Moses, but mordern scholars think it may have even been as late as 5 or 6 BC. So the fact that the story of Joseph was written either during or later than Moses time, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the author to refer to the king of Eygpt as "Pharoah". The audience of the book of Genesis would have understood the title of Pharoah as the king of Eygpt. So I'm not sure why the book of Geneisi using the term Pharoah instead of King is really that big an issue.

 

[Thunderian]

All that information you got either most likely came from Answering-Islam or Wikiislam, right?

It came straight from the Quran, and I linked to each passage. Anyone can follow the links and see for themselves what a mess that book is.

 

[Kung Fu]

It came straight from the Quran, and I linked to each passage. Anyone can follow the links and see for themselves what a mess that book is.

I don't got time right now but I can debunk everything you said just like how I usually do, which hopefully I will get too once I come back. Like I said you can lie to others but that won't fly with me, Zionist.

 

[grateful servant]

A thread asking How old is the earth and Christians be posting DWood and Iranian Ex Muslim videos. Lol, what's new?

 

[Thunderian]

I don't got time right now but I can debunk everything you said just like how I usually do, which hopefully I will get too once I come back. Like I said you can lie to others but that won't fly with me, Zionist.

You have yet to debunk a single thing I've said, and I'm sure you won't have any luck here, either. It's a case of the plain words of the Quran against the inescapable facts of history, and since your arguments consist of circular reasoning and insults, I'm not too worried. You'll just call me a Jew and abandon the thread like you always do.

 

[grateful servant]

...

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..

I just want to pop this in here for those whose hearts are pure and sincere for the truth ...

“We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth” [Fussilat 41:53]​

 

[grateful servant]

It's a case of the plain words of the Quran against the inescapable facts of history, .

Not quite. The plain words of the Quran are Arabic, not translated meanings and not interpreted to suit your whims and desires. The Quran never contradicts historical facts.

 

[John]

How do we know the stories in the Bible and Quran are as authentic as they were when they were first written however many thousands of years ago?
Think about it like this.... do any of you remember growing up playing the game where we would all sit in a circle and one person would whisper a word, or a story, to the person next to them? Then that person would whisper the word or story to the person Next to them and so on... well by the time the story got back to the person who originality started it it would be nothing even remotely similar to what he or she originally said.
This is how I lpok at religious texts, stories change over time, drastically, and I highly doubt what we read today in the Bible or Quran is even close to what it originally said.

 

[Plasticity]

You have yet to debunk a single thing I've said, and I'm sure you won't have any luck here, either. It's a case of the plain words of the Quran against the inescapable facts of history, and since your arguments consist of circular reasoning and insults, I'm not too worried. You'll just call me a Jew and abandon the thread like you always do.

I had no idea why KF was calling you a liar and snake in the beginning but I'm starting to see why now.

He has called out your bias and full on lies in the last Palestinian-Israeli thread which I was witness too. And even in this thread I can see what KF means. Every thread I've been on he's pretty much accurately refuted your, in lack of a better word, disingenuous posts.

KF, I hope you return. Your clear responses and straight shooting was very enjoyable to read. You're a one man army dude.

 

[Carolyn]

If we are in a simulated reality we could think we were here for billions of years and all of history could just be a back story. When you look at created enviroments for film production, storylines, backstories, experieneces, these are all from the imagnation of multiple people, usually starting with the author who created the story, then its produced by some one else, there are a million things that make somethign like that together, comparing it for example to the imagined world of westeros and surrounding areas, histories, heirarchies in the characters etc on a much much bigger scale that could be us and it could all have been created by multiple people working on it to create this reality, so really we may think we have been here for millions if not billions could all be sped up or even started at any point with the backstories and history all there and waiting, hell we could have all just popped into existence with this kind of thing, 100 years ago, 20, years ago, 20 hours ago and we would never have a clue so really to know how long we have existed for we would have to understand exactly what this reality is comprised off.

Then theres the singularity, but if we are in some computer generated holographic simulated reality we could never surpass the level of technology that allows our existence and reality, that be like trying to run the sims on windows 95 which does not work very well and its impossible for a reality to surpass its creation in terms of technological power? This could also be a reason for why carbon dating can only go back so far, maybe a glitch or some information they forgot to add?

 

[Carolyn]

or maybe beig able to know that might somehow give us the information to prove what reality really is!?