|
Who was the Pharaoh in the Quran and Bible? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123> |
| Author | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TG12345 
Senior Member 
Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Who was the Pharaoh in the Quran and Bible?Posted: 17 October 2014 at 4:49am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actually, if I were to believe that Islam has no errors, I would leave Christianity and become Muslim right away. Until I can be convinced this is the case, I see no reason to leave one religion with some errors in it for another.
A few months ago, I would have logically expected Muslims to leave Islam for this reason. Now, I see how hypocritical that would be because despite some of the errors that exist in the Bible, I'm remaining a Christian.
�Prophecy� is knowledge that others would not have access to either. Anne Martin made some inaccurate predictions, not unlike Muhammad, who made some inaccurate statements in his teachings, and the author of the Quran who wrote some inaccurate things in the book.
She made some inaccurate predictions according to the people on the website you cited but as the source I showed previously mentioned, she predicted someone�s death in a plane crash. Who else do you think knew he was going to die this way?
I am not making the claim that Muhammad was the author of the Quran, so why you bring that point up I don't know.
Muhammad (if you believe he was the Quran's author, or that God dictated it to him through Gabriel) wrote that during the time of Joseph (assuming he existed), Ancient Egyptian rulers were called kings, and during the time of Moses, they were Pharaohs.
I am curious at what time does Islam place Joseph as being in Egypt. How do we know this was at a time when there were kings, not Pharaohs?
How on earth would the existence of a non-Hebrew people group be "circumstantial evidence" for the Hebrews being in Egypt, and specifically being enslaved there and subject to two genocides of young boys, and then the people who made a miraculous escape?
Thanks for the explanation.
What makes you assume that the Hyskos would have promoted Joseph to a high ranking position, but not the Egyptians?
The thread was about the alleged slavery and escape of the Hebrews from Egypt, not about Joseph.
How does the story of the Hyskos help validate either the story of Joseph, or of the account of Hebrew slavery? The verse we are
looking at not only says that the Israelites were oppressed, but that Ramses II
(assuming you believe he was the Exodus Pharaoh) was the one who made the
people in Egypt into factions. 28:4 Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and
made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering
their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the
corrupters. If the
persecution of the Israelites was started by the Egyptian kings who threw out
the Hyskos, then the Egyptian people were divided into �factions� by them, not
Ramses II. In fact, your
own sources state that the Egyptians had been using Semitic slaves since the
mid-18th century! "There is textual evidence...that shows that
since the middle of the 18th century BCE Semitic slaves were employed by the
Egyptians - a practice that continued throughout the next 1,500 years. [...] One well-known piece of evidence from the New
Kingdom comes from the tomb of Rekhmire, one of the viziers of Tuthmosis III
(1504-1450 BCE). It is a scene of laborers making bricks for a temple in
Karnak and a text describing the workers as captives. There are a number
of inscriptions that confirm the continuation of the practice of bringing
captives from West Asia to Egypt as slaves." ("The Mystery of Israel
in Ancient Egypt", pp. 86-87). If Semites were
being used as slaves since the middle of the 18th century, then it
is not true that Ramses II divided the society into different factions.
I didn�t say he was the first one to do them. I�m saying though he wasn�t the one who made his society into factions. It existed in this form long before he came to power.
You ignored the examples I presented earlier about Woodrow Wilson and Hermann Pister, but I will bring the example of Pister up again.
It would be inaccurate and false to say that when he took over Buchenwald as Kommandant, he made the inmates there into groups. They were already in groups under the previous Kommandant, Pister continued the unjust system.
That Pister didn�t make the inmates into groups doesn�t make him any less guilty of keeping them in these groups and abusing them. Stating that Pharaoh didn�t make his people into groups also doesn�t make him any less guilty of keeping his people in these groups and abusing his slaves.
But neither one or the other �made� the people under his control into groups. The Quran is wrong on this point.
No, and there�s no reason to make that assumption.
The verse is not saying that Abraham accused his enemies of �making� his people into idol worshipers.
How do you know that �those before him� is a reference to previous Egyptian rulers, and that �habitual sin� meant making their society into factions?
There are different interpretations to this verse. Of the six tafsirs I have read of 69:9, only one states that �habitual sins� is a reference to injustice, and none of them state what you just did, that �those before him� is a reference to the Egyptian rulers prior to Pharaoh.
Tafsir Ibn Abbas (And Pharaoh and those before him) and Pharaoh and his army came to the sea and were drowned in it; it is also said this means: Pharaoh also uttered the words of idolatry as did the nations before him, (and the communities that were destroyed) and also the townships of Lot swallowed by the earth, (brought error) they uttered the words of idolatry,
According to tafsir Ibn Abbas, the �habitual sin� meant �words of idolatry�. There is nothing stating that �those before him� is a reference to previous Egyptian rulers.
Tafsir Al Jalalayn And Pharaoh and those of his followers (man qibalahu: a variant reading has man qablahu, that is to say, those disbelieving communities who came before him) and the Deviant [cities], that is, their inhabitants � these being the cities of the people of Lot � brought iniquity, [they committed] deeds that were iniquitous. According to tafsir Al Jalalayn, �habitual sin� does indeed mean iniquity, but it also doesn�t say that �those who came before him� were previous Egyptian Pharaohs. This could just as easily have been a reference to the �Ad.
Tafsir Ibn Qathir (And Fir`awn and those before him committed (sin)) This has been recited with a Kasrah under the letter Qaf (in the word Qabalahu, as Qiblahu), which changes the meaning to those who were with him in his time, and they were his followers who were disbelieving Coptic people. Others recited it with a Fathah over the letter Qaf (as the word Qablahu), which means those nations before him who were similar to him. Concerning Allah's statement, ﴿وَالْمُؤْتَفِكَـتِ﴾ (the overthrown cities) those nations that rejected their Messengers. ﴿بِالْخَاطِئَةِ﴾ (committed Al-Khati'ah.) Al-Khati'ah means their rejection of what Allah revealed. Ar-Rabi` said, ﴿بِالْخَاطِئَةِ﴾ (committed Al-Khati'ah.) "This means disobedience.'' Mujahid said, "They committed errors.'' Thus, Allah says, ﴿فَعَصَوْاْ رَسُولَ رَبِّهِمْ﴾ (And they disobeyed their Lord's Messenger, ) meaning they were all of the same type, they all denied the Messenger of Allah who was sent to them. As Allah says, ﴿كُلٌّ كَذَّبَ الرُّسُلَ فَحَقَّ وَعِيدِ﴾ (Everyone of them denied the Messengers, so My threat took effect.) So whoever denies a Messenger, then verily, he denies all of the Messengers. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1265&Itemid=125
According to Ibn Qathir, the verse isn�t even necessarily saying that �those who came before him� were people who lived before the Pharaoh, but it could be a reference to those who were with him. If it is meant in the past tense, it�s a reference to the previous nations. The �habitual sin�, according to the tafsir of this verse by Ibn Qathir meant not obeying the messengers of God� not making the society into factions.
Yusuf Ali states that �those before him� is a reference to the people of Noah, �Ad, Thamud, �cities of the Plain�, Midian, then the �people whose prophet was Moses�.
And Pharaoh, ... C5642. Pharaoh's Messenger was Moses. See the story in 7:103-137 and the notes there. Pharaoh was inordinately proud, and his fall was proportionately great: it gradually extended to his dynasty and his people. See Appendix V. ... وَمَن قَبْلَهُ ... ... and those before him, ... C5643. If we follow the sequence of peoples whose sins destroyed them, as mentioned in 7:59-158, we begin with Noah, then have the 'Ad and the Thamud, then the Cities of the Plain, then Midian, then the people whose prophet was Moses (who occupies a central place in the canvas), and then the Pagan Quraish, to whom came the last and greatest of the prophets, our holy Prophet Muhammad. This is the chronological sequence. Here there is no details, nor even complete mention. But Noah is alluded to last, and the 'Ad and the Thamud mentioned first, because the latter two belong to Arab tradition, and this is specially addressed to the Pagans of Makkah. Pharaoh is mentioned rather than Moses for the same reason, and any others are "those before Pharaoh". http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/069haqqah.htm
He did not define what �habitual sin� is a reference to in the verse, but as we can see, �those before� Moses who are alluded to, are not previous Egyptian rulers.
Maududi did not say that �those before� Pharaoh were previous Ancient Egyptians either.
[9-10] And the same great crime did Pharaoh and the people before him and the overturned settlements6 commit. They all disobeyed the Messenger of their Lord and He seized them with a terrible grip. 6The reference is to the towns and settlements of the people of the Prophet Lot, about which it has been said in Surah Hud: 82 and AI-Hijr: 74: "We turned them upside down. "
He also didn�t say that �the people before him� were other Ancient Egyptian rulers.
�The great crime� is linked to that committed by the Thamud and �Ad. Does the Quran claim that the Thamud had slaves? Was �the great crime� making a nation divided, or was it as Yusuf Ali stated, rejecting the Messengers?
Muhammad Asad did not comment on this verse either, except to say that �the cities that were overthrown� were those of the people of Lot.
Where do you get your basis for stating that 69:9 is discussing previous Egyptian rulers, or societal division?
The Quran doesn�t merely state that Pharaoh used slaves, it states he made his nation into factions. How can you �make something� that is already there?
Would it be true to say that ISIS �made� Syria into a country at war, or was it already like that before they appeared?
OK, thanks for
explaining. Killing off most
of the male population would be bad for any labour force. Doing it twice,
within a 20 something year period, would make no sense.
The
same atrocious act was apparently committed when Moses (peace be upon him) was
preaching to the Pharaoh. The tyrant threatened anyone who believed in
Moses with this terrible punishment. It was not a continuous
practice.
Sorry, you are correct. The Quran does not state that the Egyptians killed off �most of the male population� or tried to.
The first example points to the brutal conquest and enslavement of Egypt�s neighbours� not genocide. In fact, it describes killing only of those who refused to submit. This was an evil and murderous practice, no doubt. It did not however constitute genocide.
The second example is that of newborn infants stuffed into toilets or buried in the floor. We don�t know whether they were murdered or died of natural causes, like you stated. Assuming that the Ancient Egyptians were into committing infanticide is speculation.
We have Egyptian records describing the cruelty of the Pharaohs. There is no reason to assume they would describe some cruelties but not others.
Also, if Bethlehem was a small village and just a few kids were killed, there�s no reason why the historians couldn�t have overlooked it. The death of sons of the royal family would have been much more difficult to not notice than the deaths of a few children in a small village.
I don�t believe either of these necessarily took place, but there is no logical reason to assume one alleged atrocity happened and the other did not.
The Pharaoh certainly could very well have covered up his crimes, but there is no reason to assume he would have done that. We read accounts of Pharaohs bragging about foreign nations being enslaved and those who resisted subjugation being slaughtered. There was no shame exhibited about mistreating foreign peoples.
The Hyskos period was covered up because it was an embarrassment to the Egyptians that a foreign nation ruled over them, after having conquered them. Amenhotep IV tried to change the religion.
We
have no evidence of Ancient Egyptians exhibiting any guilt or embarrassment of
mistreating non-Egyptian enemies. If the
plausibility of some other elements is going to be a factor in determining
whether a described event is true or not, then the account in the Gospel of
Matthew is also �plausible�. Matthew 2
mentions the existence of Herod, and we have evidence he was real. Bethlehem
was in Judea. The West Bank in fact is still called by the settlers �Judea and
Samaria�. Herod was the king, and his headquarters was in Jerusalem. Of course, none
of this would constitute �proof� that the massacre of babies happened. If
the number of children massacred was little and they were from a poor village,
there is no reason why historians would have felt the need to mention it. You
also haven�t presented any good reason why the Egyptians, who enjoyed
subjugating non-Egyptians around them and bragging about it, would have hidden
the deaths of Hebrew babies. Likewise, that
Ancient Egyptians used slaves in no way is �proof� that Ramses II had Jewish
kids murdered� twice, in his lifetime. The fact that
other sources mention the alleged massacre makes little difference, since they
all contain historical mistakes, and were written centuries afterwards.
If the Apiru
were the Hebrews, then they were in �the Promised Land� throughout the reign of
the Pharaohs� and were making raids into Ancient Egypt and probably fighting
off raids from them, throughout. There was no
�promised land� for them to go back to after some alleged 40 years of wandering
in the desert� they were there the whole time. If the Apiru
were not the Hebrews, then their existence is in no way any �confirmation� of
the slavery of the Israelites in Ancient Egypt. You brought up two examples,
one of the Apiru, the other of the Hyskos, and claimed they could have been the
Hebrews. Clearly,
the view that either the Hyskos or the Apiru were the Israelites is false, as
we have seen.
Tafsir Ibn Abbas identifies the �land which we blessed� as Jordan and Palestine (21:81), �the land of Jerusalem, Palestine and Jordan� (21:71), and �the land of Jerusalem, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt- part of it with water and trees� (7:137)
Tafsir Al Jalalayn identifies it as Syria in all three of the verses.
Tafsir Ibn Qathir identifies it as �Greater Syria� (7:137), the �Sham region� (21:71) and does not comment on the location in 21:81.
Yusuf Ali states that 21:71 is reference to Syria, which includes Canaan or Palestine. 7:137 is also a reference to Palestine and Syria. 21:81 is a reference to Palestine and Syria, as well as allegedly parts of Arabia.
Maududi claims that 7:137 is a reference to Palestine. 21:71 is a reference to Syria and Palestine. The land mentioned in 21:81 is not specified.
Muhammad Asad�s tafsir claims the land is Palestine in 7:137, and does not comment in 21:71 and 21:81.
There is good reason to assume that �the land we have blessed� included Canaan.
Canaan, area variously defined in historical and biblical literature, but always centred on Palestine. Its original pre-Israelite inhabitants were called Canaanites. The names Canaan and Canaanite occur in cuneiform, Egyptian, and Phoenician writings from about the 15th century bc as well as in the Old Testament. In these sources, �Canaan� refers sometimes to an area encompassing all of Palestine and Syria, sometimes only to the land west of the Jordan River, and sometimes just to a strip of coastal land from Acre (ʿAkko) northward. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/91488/Canaan
The �Syria� of that time, as we know, included Palestine/Israel, and Canaan was in that region. Yusuf Ali pointed this out in his tafsir of the verse.
71. But We delivered him and (his nephew) Lut (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations. C2727. The land of Aram or Syria, which in its widest connotation includes Canaan or Palestine. Syria is a well-watered fertile land, with a Mediterranean sea-coast, on which the famous commercial cities of Tyre and Sidon were situated. Its population is very mixed, as it has been a bone of contention between all the great kingdoms and empires of Western Asia and Egypt, and European interest in it dates from the most ancient times. (R).
The �Holy Land� included Palestine, which coincidentally, was also Canaan.
If you don�t believe that the Holy Land was Canaan, then what was it?
The
claim that 600,000 men left Egypt is clearly false, and one of the many errors
in the Bible. In fact, if you
had read some of the sources I posted a few days after this response, you will
have seen that archaeological evidence points to the fact that the �newcomers�
who began expanding in Canaan were none but Canaanites themselves. Perhaps the
most memorable event of the Israelite conquest was the destruction of Jericho,
where Joshua famously brought down the walls with the mere blowing of a horn,
having marched around the city for 10 days. Excavating Jericho in the 1930s,
John Garstang (1948) believed he had uncovered evidence of a violent
destruction, thereby confirming the Biblical account. However, subsequent
excavations by Kathleen Kenyon (1979) turned up Mycenaean pottery within Garstang�s destruction layer, more
than a century after Joshua�s campaign is thought to have occurred� Although
there is evidence for the destruction of some sites at the end of the twelfth
and during the eleventh century BCE, the Egyptians and Sea Peoples, who were
present at the time, seem more likely culprits. In addition
to the problem of datable destruction layers, a number of scholars have pointed
to the evidence for cultural continuity, with little in dramatic changes in
material culture that might be expected with the sudden incursion of a new
people. For instance, the Bull Site in northern Mannaseh reflects an ongoing
Canaanite influence on religious practices, and the same may be said for the linguistic
evidence. (Smith 2002). As an alternative to the tale of violent conquest,
models suggesting a more peaceful infiltration (Alt 1925) and stressing social
theory (Mendelhall 1973; Gottwal 1979) have been advanced. Thus,
considering the evidence for cultural continuity during the Late Bronze
Age-Iron Age I transition, and the lack of evidence for securely dated
destruction layers, the literal truth of the Biblical narrative concerning the
conquest becomes increasingly difficult to support. Indeed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Amber
Silberman have reviewed a good part of the archaeological evidence from this
period and concluded: �the process we describe� is the opposite of what we
have in the Bible: the emergence of an early Israel was
the outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause� There was
no violent conquest of Canaan. The early Israelites were- irony or ironies-
themselves originally Canaanites!� (2001, 118) In other words,
there was no invasion or entrance of some outside people group from Egypt. The
�Israelites� were none but Canaanites who were always there to begin with, and
adopted a new religion. You
are simply picking and choosing sources. There is a considerable debate
on the Israelite presence in Canaan and three competing theories (the conquest
model, the peaceful migration model and the peasant revolt model). As a
Muslim, I am indifferent to each of these theories because the Quran does not
elaborate on the post-Exodus story. It only states that the Israelites
were forced to wander the desert for a long time, but it does not say what
happened afterwards, except that they eventually "inherited" the
land. All we can assume is that they eventually settled in the Holy Land.
The Quran states that the Israelites were forbidden to enter the Holy Land for 40 years� and as the tafsirs show us, the Holy Land included Palestine and the surrounding areas� which also is where Canaan was located.
Yet we know that �the settlements� that began appearing in the late 13th or 12th century were those of Canaanites who were already living in the area, and simply migrated from one part of Canaan to another.
I find it interesting that as a Muslim you are �indifferent�, because the Quran has the Israelites outside of the Holy Land up to 40 years after the time of Ramses II, but yet we see �cultural continuity� from the late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition. The Israelites were in the Holy Land the whole time.
Also, as John Bright wrote:
"...Israel's encounter with
the Edomites and Moabites...unless one declare the tradition
unhistorical , forbids a date for Israel's
arrival before the thirteenth century (when these two people first appear in
contemporary texts) and might be held rather to suggest a date in the twelfth,
since these areas do not seem to have an appreciable sedentary population
earlier. We can set no fixed date for the exodus, nor can we be sure in
the reign of which Pharaoh it took place. But a date rather well on in
the thirteenth century, perhaps late in the reign of Ramesses II, seems
plausible" ("A History of Israel, pp. 123-124). The �tradition� is based off the Old Testament, which contains many mistakes.
As
you yourself pointed out earlier, there are no earlier Egyptian records
mentioning the name �Israel� at all. If the absence of mention of Israel�s
presence in Canaan somehow is an indicator that they weren�t there prior to the
late 13th century, what does the absence of their presence in Egypt
say? The Israelites are mentioned as being part of Canaan, which Merneptah
conquered. So we have no proof then that he lied, as you earlier claimed he did. Neither of us know whether he claimed to have killed them all of, or not.
Are
there independent accounts of Menerptah�s battles with the Canaanites? What do you understand by �proto-Israelite� group?
Why not ignore and not mention them, like Ancient Egyptians did when the Israelites allegedly were slaves in Egypt? We have mention of �Apiru� slaves, but not one mention of �Israelite� slaves.
We have no evidence whatsoever that the Ancient Egyptians perpetrated even one act of infanticide, or that it was a state policy at any time in their history.
What
does Ancient Egyptian religion have to say about infanticide? Also, if you believe that the Merneptah Stele was describing the genocide of the Israelites and that �annihilating the seed� was a reference to the exaggeration of a mass murder of every one of the Israelites, then it would be evidence that they did not mind killing children, and also did not mind bragging about it. �Annihilating the seed� would obviously involve infanticide.
Yet
these same sources mentioned other acts of great cruelty.
The point is that the Ancient Egyptians proudly described themselves mistreating and hurting other people� and possibly bragged about �annihilating the seed� of a nation. There would be no reason for them to cover up killing a few babies. Unless it was
ignored because there were other, more horrific crimes happening at the time,
being committed both by the Romans and Herod. According to CARM, Bethlehem was
a small town with some 600 people in it, so there would have been probably a
small number of children who were that age. http://carm.org/why-isnt-there-other-evidence-massacre-babies I am not saying
that the massacre did happen- but it is just as �likely� to have happened as
Pharaoh�s alleged massacre of Israelite children. It
would be easier to cover up the deaths of a few children in a village, than the
deaths of three sons of a royal family. If we are going to state that because Josephus didn�t mention it, the massacre of babies in Bethlehem did not happen, what about the raising of the dead by Jesus? According to the Quran and the Bible, He did that. Yet neither Josephus nor any other scholar of that time mentions these things happening. There is also no mention by Josephus of the Jews trying to kill Jesus� remember, the Quran teaches they claimed to have killed Him. And as you yourself agreed, there was a crucifixion, though you believe not of Him.
Where are these things mentioned by Josephus? They would have been surely widely discussed among people. Going by the logic you presented, if the massacre of the infants by Herod did not happen because he didn�t mention it and neither did others of that time, the same would be true of the (in your belief) attempted crucifixion of Jesus, or Him raising people from the dead. After all, 4:157 quotes the Jews as bragging that they killed Him, even though they called Him �the messenger of God� and �the Messiah�. Jewish religious leaders celebrating that they killed a man who claimed to be Messiah and prophet would have been big news. Why no mention of this by Josephus?
You
are assuming way too much. Just because polytheism was the religion of
the majority does not mean there could be no monotheists. It is
well-known that the majority of pre-Islamic Arabs were polytheists as
well. But it is also known that there were minorities of Jews, Christians
and also some Hanifs among them. Were the monotheists ruling over the polytheists? In which pre-Islamic tribes were monotheistic Christians, Jews and Hanifs appointed by polytheistic rulers to rule over other polytheists?
BTW, wasn�t Joseph a prophet of God? Would he not have called his polytheistic bosses and subjects to come to Him? How well do you think that would have gone over for him?
What was the response of powerful polytheists to God�s prophets in the Quran?
I have shown you evidence of polytheism in the Hyskos society. You are making the claim that some of them could have been monotheists, and that a monotheist like Joseph could have had a powerful role there.
Provide
what evidence you have of a segment of the Hyskos practicing monotheism, or of
any monotheistic beliefs they may have had.
It�s practical for me, because following another religion would mean switching from some errors to another. Becoming an atheist wouldn�t make sense, since I believe God exists. Becoming a Deist likewise wouldn�t be sensible, because it would mean living like there is no God- if God is someone who is distant from you and has no expectations from you and who is unknowable, the implications of His existence would be the same as the implications of His nonexistence eternally and on the earth. The earth is not
a pendulum, but my point is that a hanging object can move, and does not have
to be motionless. Earlier, you
wrote: A hanging object
would imply that it does not move A pendulum is a
hanging object, yet it moves. You
are correct here, I see your point. Fair enough, I take back my assertion.
Correct.
True.
What other people in that time made such an inference?
It is possible he met seafaring merchants who told him this, and that he remembered it. Again, I am not claiming Muhammad wrote the Quran so whether he did or didn�t write this is irrelevant to me.
And he was also �privy� to the misinformation that Ramses II �made� the people of Egypt into factions, and he believed he was the only god his advisors had.
Refuted
above. Funnily
enough, the tafsirs that are not Scripture state that the 6 months that the
Quran�s author referred to as �gestation� was the minimum period of gestation,
while the Quran�s author says no such thing.
This
is what 7:137 states: And We caused the
people who had been oppressed to inherit the eastern regions of the land and
the western ones, which We had blessed. And the good word of your Lord was
fulfilled for the Children of Israel because of what they had patiently
endured. And We destroyed [all] that Pharaoh and his people were producing and
what they had been building. Nowhere
does it say that God destroyed what the Pharaoh and his people produced in the
land of Canaan. It just says He destroyed what they produced and built. Yusuf
Ali in his tafsir states that the �destroyed buildings� are the pyramids and
the Great Sphinx� which are found in Egypt, not Canaan. The splendid monuments-temples, palaces, tombs,
statues, columns, and stately structures of all kinds-were buried in the sands.
Even monuments like the Great Sphinx, which seem to defy the ages, were partly
buried in the sands, and owe their rescue to the comparatively recent
researches of archaeologists. As late as 1743 Richard Pococke in his Travels in
Egypt (p. 41), remarked: "Most of those pyramids are very much
ruined." (R). http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/007%20Araaf.htm Of
course, none of these were �destroyed� by God, but that�s beside the point.
Stating that these buildings that God allegedly destroyed were in Canaan and
not Egypt is an understandable attempt to explain away an error in the Quran. Also,
when did according to Fatoohi and D�Argazelli, the �militant conquests� in the
Holy Land take place? Who carried them out? Earlier,
you claimed that they gave the example of settlements that they dated to 1174
BC as �evidence� of the Israelites in Canaan. "The fact that the Israelites entered into the holy
land forty years after teh exodus, which occurred in 1212 BCE, means that we
can date their entry into the holy land to exactly 1172 BCE. [...] http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31276&PN=2 Are
they claiming these people were the ones who carried out the �militant
conquests�? If not, who?
We
know this is a reference to the holy land in Canaan and not Egypt because of
other verses in which God refers to the land he had blessed and which He gave to
Abraham (peace be upon him): This
is what 7:137 states: And We caused the
people who had been oppressed to inherit the eastern regions of the land and
the western ones, which We had blessed. And the good word of your Lord was
fulfilled for the Children of Israel because of what they had patiently
endured. And We destroyed [all] that Pharaoh and his people were producing and
what they had been building. Nowhere
does it say that God destroyed what the Pharaoh and his people produced in the
land of Canaan. It just says He destroyed what they produced and built. Yusuf
Ali in his tafsir states that the �destroyed buildings� are the pyramids and
the Great Sphinx� which are found in Egypt, not Canaan. The splendid monuments-temples, palaces, tombs,
statues, columns, and stately structures of all kinds-were buried in the sands.
Even monuments like the Great Sphinx, which seem to defy the ages, were partly
buried in the sands, and owe their rescue to the comparatively recent
researches of archaeologists. As late as 1743 Richard Pococke in his Travels in
Egypt (p. 41), remarked: "Most of those pyramids are very much
ruined." (R). http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/007%20Araaf.htm Of
course, none of these were �destroyed� by God, but that�s beside the point.
Stating that these buildings that God allegedly destroyed were in Canaan and
not Egypt is an understandable attempt to explain away an error in the Quran. Also,
when did according to Fatoohi and D�Argazelli, the �militant conquests� in the
Holy Land take place? Who carried them out? Earlier,
you claimed that they gave the example of settlements that they dated to 1174
BC as �evidence� of the Israelites in Canaan. "The fact that the Israelites entered into the holy
land forty years after teh exodus, which occurred in 1212 BCE, means that we
can date their entry into the holy land to exactly 1172 BCE. [...] http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31276&PN=2 Are
they claiming these people were the ones who carried out the �militant
conquests�? If not, who?
We
know this is a reference to the holy land in Canaan and not Egypt because of
other verses in which God refers to the land he had blessed and which He gave to
Abraham (peace be upon him): Yet Yusuf Ali
stated that �the Holy Land� was Palestine or Canaan. So did many other tafsir
scholars. Where
did Maududi state that what was destroyed were Egyptian buildings and produce
in Canaan specifically, as you allege? I see him stating that the Israelites
were the inheritors of Palestine, not Egypt. Where did he write that Egyptian
buildings and produce in Canaan were destroyed, but not those in Egypt? That
is a theory, nothing more. None of the 6 tafsir scholars we have studied
claimed this to be the case. Yusuf Ali gave examples of buildings that were in
Egypt. So does Islamic-Awareness. According
to Yusuf Ali, the monuments that were �destroyed� were in Ancient Egypt. This
opinion is also stated by the �Islamic-Awareness� article about Ramses II, who
give Pi-Ramses as an example of Pharaoh�s buildings that were �destroyed�. Apart from the
Great Temple at Abu Simbel, the city of Pr-Ramesses founded
by Ramesses II must stand out as one of the most ambitious construction efforts the world
has ever known. Previously Pr-Ramesses had been
variously placed at Tell er-Retabeh, Pelusium, Tanis and Tehel in Lower Egypt.[64]
However, archaeological excavations by the Egyptian scholars Labib Habachi and
Mahmoud Hamza identified modern day city Khatana-Qantir as the prime candidate
[Figure 10].[65] Subsequently due to the joint cooperation of the
Egyptian Antiquities Organisation, the Austrian mission headed by Manfred
Bietak of the university of Vienna and the German mission headed by Edgar Pusch
of the Pelizaeus Museum, modern archaeological investigations also converge on
the city of Qantir/Tell el-Dab�a[66] which is in agreement with the
descriptions of Pr-Ramesses gathered
from the literary evidence and other primary and secondary sources from that
period. Uphill noted the following nine
key features of Pr-Ramesses
from said sources including: a city containing monuments naming Pr-Ramesses, a central position for
royal residence and governance, access route to Asia for the armies, suitably
large area for correspondingly large population, suitable for the core
functions of the Army such as headquarters etc., monuments of Ramesses II,
relevant deities present, scale of site and monuments adequate and containing a
river port.[67] In the timeline of the ancient near east, the
construction of Pr-Ramesses is
certainly unprecedented as Uphill informs us, Per Ramesses was probably the
vastest and most costly royal residence ever erected by the hand of man. As can
now be seen its known palace and official centre covered an area of at least
four square miles, and its temples were in scale with this, a colossal
assemblage forming perhaps the largest collection of chapels built in the
pre-classical world by a single ruler at one time.[68] With the use of a caesium
magnetometer, the first geophysical measurements of Pr-Ramesses took place in 1996.[69] Using the data
gathered from the recent magnetometer inspections, the latest projections have
shown the city centre/royal residence comprised at least 10 square kms, around
3.5 square kms more than had been previously estimated. It is hoped that
continued magnetic investigation will eventually lead to a map of Pr-Ramesses covering at a minimum the
city centre/royal residence.[70] With all the focus on the city
centre/royal residence, one should also not forget to consider the large
suburban zone, which, when factored into the calculations, shows the ancient
city of Pr-Ramesses comprised
at least 30 square kms.[71] Sometimes numbers alone do not convey
the sheer scale of the construction. If we consider the area of Pr-Ramesses in comparison to other
celebrated cities in the ancient near east such as the famous ancient
Mesopotamian cities of Khorsabad, Nimrud, Nineveh and Babylon, the area bounded
by Pr-Ramesses easily eclipses
them all.[72] Commenting on such a gigantic feat of human
engineering Uphill further remarks, The unique feature about Per
Ramesses is that it is the only city of imperial size in the ancient near east,
rivalling Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes in splendour, known to have been
entirely planned, built and fully completed under one King.[73] Pr-Ramesses, which once had magnificent splendour, now lies in ruins. Most likely,
the destruction of this magnificent city is alluded to in the Qur'an 7:137 and
God knows best: And We made a people, considered
weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands
whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled
for the Children of Israel , because they had patience and constancy, and We
levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his
people erected (with such pride) [mā kāna yaṣnaʿu firʿawna wa qawhumū wa mā
kānū yaʿrishūn]. [Qur'an 7:137] God says that He levelled to the
ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected.
It is interesting this verse is tied to the period of weakness of the Children
of Israel which they endured with patience and steadfastness; the time when
they were under Pharaoh, toiling for him. From the discussion, it is
undoubtedly clear that Ramesses II fits the description of the Pharaoh of the awtād. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mosespharaoh.html The
verse doesn�t say where the buildings that were destroyed were located. How did
God �destroy� Pharaoh�s buildings in Canaan (if you believe this is what the
verse is referring to, though it does not give a location), and when? The
invasion of a foreign nation? Where does the Quran say that Ramses II invaded
another country? Weren�t the Israelites already in Egypt when he enslaved them?
To
be honest, I don�t know what to make of a lot of what is even in the New
Testament anymore. So
if Bimson is wrong, what is the use of quoting him as an authority to make a
point? Also,
aren�t D�Arganzelli and Fatoohi basing their findings on what the Quran says?
Why else would they claim 1174 BC as the time the Israelites entered Canaan,
instead of what the other scholars were saying about this happening in 1200 BC
or earlier? They clearly sided with one opinion, not the other. You don�t
believe their faith had anything to do with it?
1200
BC would have been several decades before the 40 years that went by after the
death of Ramses II. Again,
he was alone in his supreme power. There were others, but they were less
powerful and important than him. He was �alone, without equal� in the level of
power he had. There is no contradiction.
So far, so good.
Except that the painted wooden chest of Tutankhamun doesn�t say he was �alone�,
simply that he was �without equal�.
That
is an interesting theory. However, if Pharaoh wanted to say he was the absolute
and supreme sovereign, he could have just used the title �Lord�, like he did in
79:24. 79:21-24 But Pharaoh denied
and disobeyed. Then he turned his
back, striving. And he gathered
[his people] and called out And said, "I am your most exalted lord." If he wanted to say that Egypt is his, he could have
said: 43:51 And Pharaoh called
out among his people; he said, "O
my people, does not the kingdom of Egypt belong to me, and these rivers flowing
beneath me; then do you not see? According
to 79:24 and 43:51, Pharaoh stated that he is the owner of Egypt, and that he
is it�s �most exalted Lord� - which would mean only he would be accepted as
leader. He said all these things already that he allegedly was really saying
when he stated he knew of no god for his people but him. Secondly,
are you aware of evidence of Ancient Egyptians using the word �god� in a
non-religious way, but a political way? Find
me one piece of evidence from Ancient Egypt in which a Pharaoh is described
�the only god�, or any Ancient Egyptian text which comes even remotely close to
stating there is no god but Pharaoh, as allegedly Ramses II believed his
followers believed.
The
Quran does have the Pharaoh quoted as saying he is unaware of his people having
any god but him. The
source you provided tries to claim that �god� meant not a deity but someone in
complete control. The
only problem with this is that elsewhere, Pharaoh used the word �most exalted Lord�
to describe his position, and stated that he is the owner of Egypt. I am
also unaware any Ancient Egyptian usage of the word �god� in a non-religious
way. If you can find such evidence and present it, I look forward to seeing it
and discussing it with you. Also,
earlier in the debate, you claimed that 28:38 and 7:127 showed that the
religion of the Ancient Egyptians was �contradictory�, now you are saying that
�god� in 28:38 did not mean deity. Which is it? If
Allah was supreme in their minds, He was alone by Himself in His supremacy. There
were some differences between in how the Ancient Egyptians saw Pharaoh and how
the pagan Arabs saw God, but what they had in common was that they both
believed that Pharaoh and Allah were alone in the supreme power they held and
that they were without equal, which would follow from that. Despite this, they
believed in the existence of other gods. Then
using him as an example makes no sense. Rekhmere wrote that Pharaoh was �alone,
without equal� but not that he was the only god. He also never wrote that
Pharaoh told his subjects they had no god but him, as Ramses II allegedly did. Are
you sure that all things repetitious are �nonsense�? Let�s
look at 59:23 in the Quran. He is Allah , other
than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the
Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the
Superior. Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him. If
God is �the Perfection�, it is obvious that He is also �the Superior�, since
�perfection� would mean being superior to anything else. The
Quran does not say that the Egyptians had no other gods, but it states that
Ramses II said he was unaware of his people having any god but him. Clearly,
this was not something an Egyptian Pharaoh would ever say, since he knew, as
the Quran itself admits, that there were other gods also. The
statement that by �god� Pharaoh meant something other than deity is I believe
an attempt to cover up an obvious error, unless you can show me evidence that
the Ancient Egyptians used the word �god� in a non-religious sense. Nope.
The Quran is in error here.
True. Living
by morals �that pretty much everyone agrees on� is not the best idea, if you
really think about it. In 1930s Germany, �pretty much everyone� agreed that
Jews were evil and should be mistreated. In Ancient Greece, �pretty much
everyone� agreed that sickly babies should be left out to die. In my country,
more or less �pretty much everyone� I know who is not a Christian or Muslim
(where I live, the majority) believes that abortion is a �right�. If you want
to base your morality on what �pretty much everyone agrees on�, go ahead.
Killing an unborn child is not seen as the opposite of being �kind�. Neither is
sleeping around, which is another thing most people I know who are not
Christians or Muslims don�t have a problem with. I�d
rather not take that route, but thanks for the advice anyways.
Anything is better than believing in a
religion that is clearly wrong. Really?
Even atheism?
OK Fair
enough. Why
would you leave Islam, in favour of a �religion� where you don�t even know who
God is? The
Egyptians believed their Pharaohs became gods, and became fully assimilated
with Osiris and Re. That
still doesn�t mean they didn�t believe in any gods aside from their king. They
believed in a pantheon of imaginary deities, while believing that the Pharaoh
was the most powerful one of them all. And
the Quran never said that. The
Quran stated that Pharaoh said he was unaware of his people having any god but
him. Obviously, he said no such thing. You
haven�t provided evidence that the Ancient Egyptians used �god� as a
non-religious term. You also haven�t provided evidence that Ramses II �made� the
people of Egypt �into factions�. Your
explanations were faulty. It
is not accurate. It avoids some of the Bible�s mistakes, and inserts other
ones. There is as much
�circumstantial evidence� for the slaughter of Israelite babies by Pharaoh was
there is for their slaughter by Herod. The Quran claims
Pharaoh believed he was the only his people had. We know that is false. They
worshiped him alongside a multitude of other fake gods. It claims he
�made the people into factions�. We know that also is false. The Egyptian
society was divided long before he assumed power. The claim that
there was destruction of his buildings is not backed up by any historical
evidence whatsoever, as is the claim he drowned or that he had Israelite
slaves. The claim that
the Israelites came to the Promised Land from Egypt some 40 years after he
allegedly drowned is also not true. The settlements found in the area are of
Canaanites, not a foreign group of peoples. Responded to above. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member 
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 October 2014 at 1:23pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually, it's a lot more complicated. If the Quran and the Bible both have errors, then neither one of us would be logically justified in holding on to our respective faiths. The very fact that you are unwilling to accept Islam because of the "errors" shows that you know that there cannot be errors in the scripture of the "true religion". Therefore, your belief in Christianity is not justified either.
So, if you were able to prove the "errors", would you logically expect Muslims to remain Muslims? Or would you think that in spite of the "errors", Islam could still be right about what it says about Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) and Jesus (peace be upon him)?
Again, we are not talking about "prophecy". We are talking about historical knowledge that no one would have known, let alone a 7th-century Arab merchant. By the way, this so-called "psychic" does not seem all that impressive to me. Just because some ABC news article thinks that Annette Martin was a gifted psychic does not mean she was. The media tends to exaggerate for the purposes of getting ratings. Like most "psychics", Annette Martin would charge for sessions, during which she would ask an inordinate amount of questions, obviously trying to get some information out of the person. If she was a true "psychic", why would she ask all those questions? Interestingly, some people claim that she made inaccurate predictions: http://www.yelp.com/biz/martin-annette-psychic-consltnt-campbell
You missed the point again. Of course Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not the author. But that's what non-Muslims always try to insinuate. I am saying that if he was the author (or if there was some other human author), then he would have likely made the same mistake as the Bible's authors made about the title "Pharaoh". Yet, the Quran did not repeat the Bible's mistake. Therefore, the Quran's author knew something that no one else would have known, at least not until Egyptian hieroglyphics could be deciphered, which wasn't until 1000 years later with the discovery of the Rosetta stone.
No, I said some scholars hold that view. I also said that it was possible that the Hyksos were similar to the Hebrews, given the similarity in the names they used, which would provide circumstantial evidence for the Hebrews in Egypt.
As Fatoohi And Al-Dargazelli point out, there is evidence in the Quran to suggest that Joseph (peace be upon him) lived in Egypt during the Hyksos period (pp. 38-40). For example, they point out that both the Bible and the Quran say that Joseph was promoted to a high-ranking position, something which would have been unlikely if the Egyptians had been in power. The Quran states: "So the king said: "Bring him unto me; I will take him specially to serve about my own person." Therefore when he had spoken to him, he said: "Be assured this day, thou art, before our own presence, with rank firmly established, and fidelity fully proved!" (Surah Yusuf, 12:54)
It doesn't validate the Exodus story, but it does validate the story of Joseph (peace be upon him), which is where the story of the Exodus really begins because it was the beginning of the Israelite experience in Egypt.
Again, that is just an assumption. The Pharaoh, whoever he was, did indeed do all those things. That doesn't mean he was the first one to do them. That is a non-sequitur. The Quran also says that Abraham's people had taken idols for worship: "And he said: "For you, ye have taken (for worship) idols besides Allah, out of mutual love and regard between yourselves in this life; but on the Day of Judgment ye shall disown each other and curse each other: and your abode will be the Fire, and ye shall have none to help."" (Surah Al-Ankaboott, 29:25) Does that mean that only they had taken idols and not those people who came before them? Of course not. Also, the Quran states elsewhere that Pharaoh and "those before him" committed "habitual sins": "And Pharaoh, and those before him, and the Cities Overthrown, committed habitual Sin." (Surah Al-Haaqqa, 69:9) So obviously, Pharaoh was not the first Egyptian ruler to commit "habitual sin".
And the Quran says that the Pharaoh did those things. You are conflating that to mean that he was the first one to do them, which is just an assumption.
No where is it stated that the Egyptians killed off "most of the male population". The Quran states that they killed their sons, specifically the newborns, which is why Moses' mother had to put him in the river in the first place. If all males were being killed off, how did Aaron (peace be upon him) survive? The same atrocious act was apparently committed when Moses (peace be upon him) was preaching to the Pharaoh. The tyrant threatened anyone who believed in Moses with this terrible punishment. It was not a continuous practice.
As far as I know, there are no accounts of infanticide, but in addition to records about slavery, there are records about Egyptian wars against foreign nations and their violent subjugation. For example, a "scarab" describing the "wild bull hunt" of Amenhotep III refers to the Pharaoh as the "smiter of nomads". Now, of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that Amenhotep III killed children. It just serves as proof of his propensity for violence against weaker nations. Another extant inscription, found on the tomb of the Egyptian admiral Ahmose, describes the Pharaoh Neb-Pethy-Re's conquests of various nations and the mass slaughter of all who resisted: "After his Majesty had slain the nomads of Asia, he sailed south, toward Khent-hen-nefer (to the south of the second cataract), to destroy the Nubians. He made a great slaughter among them. I carried away spoils from there: two living men and three hands; I was rewarded once again with gold, and two women were given to me. His Majesty then sailed upstream (northwards), his heart rejoicing in valour and victory, because he had conquered those of the south and those of the north. Then Aata headed southwards (to Egypt), his fate brought his downfall. The gods of Upper Egypt grasped him. His Majesty found him at the waters of Tinet-taa and took him as a living captive, while all his people were as plunder. Then I took for myself, two young soldiers as captives, from the boat of Aata. I was given five persons and I was given a portion of land - five arouras (1 aroura = 2700 m�) - in my town. It was done in the same way for the whole crew. Then that enemy Teti-an (an Egyptian name) came; he had gathered around him of the malcontents. His Majesty slew him, and his troops were as if they had never existed (meaning annihilated). I was given three persons, and five arouras of land in my town. Then I transported, by boat, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Djeser-Ka-Re, justified, when he travelled south to Kush, to enlarge the borders of Egypt. His Majesty then smote this Nubianin the middle of his army, and they were taken in shackles, so they could not escape, those who fled were knocked aside, as if they had never existed." Another intriguing discovery are the graves of infants found in the city of Kahun. While there is no indication that these were Hebrew children that had been murdered, the graves provide possible proof of infanticide in Ancient Egypt. As Barbara Watterson explains, quoting the discoverer Flinders Petrie: "Many new-born infants were found buried in the floors of the rooms...In short, unlucky babies seem to have been conveniently put out of the way by stuffing them into a toilet case or clothes box and digging a hole in the floor for them...I fear these discoveries do not reflect much credit on the manners and customs of the small officials of the 12th dynasty" ("Women in Ancient Egypt"). It could also be that these babies actually died of natural causes and were buried under the houses due to the superstition that burying the placenta would bring the dead infant back as the mother's next child. But it is strange that all of the babies were never more than a few months old and were buried in groups of two or three in a box.
Then you have no reason to remain a Christian. Now, there is good reason to deny the veracity of the Gospel of Matthew, for the reasons I have already given. There is no doubt that Herod was at least capable of committing such an atrocity, but if he had indeed done it, then Jewish sources from the time, especially Josephus, would have mentioned it. In contrast, just because we don't have Egyptian records stating that the Pharaohs killed Israelite children, does not mean that the story is "made up". Would Herod have gone out of his way to make sure that his slaughter of children be recorded? Probably not. He would have wanted to cover it up as much as he could. But since he was only a figure-head of the Romans, his power would have been limited. For this same reason, being a figure-head, he would have needed the permission of the Roman emperor before embarking on such a barbaric atrocity. So, when he wanted to execute his sons for "treason", he needed the emperor's permission, as Josephus stated. In contrast, the Pharaohs would have been able to do whatever they wanted and if they felt the need to cover up their crimes, they certainly could have. There is a precedent in Egyptian history of covering up evidence of the Hyksos period as well as Amenhotep IV's attempted "reform" of the Egyptian religion.
I have already explained why the story of Herod cannot be true. Of course Herod was real. And we also know that he was a tyrant. But, none of that would explain why no source from that time, even those which were anti-Herod, failed to mention what would easily be Herod's most atrocious crime.
That's a circular argument. You are assuming they have "mistakes" based on a lack of corroboration from Egyptian sources and then using that as "proof" that what they say about massacres "makes little difference".
I said no such thing. I said that some scholars hold this view and that there is debate on the issue. I also said that given the propensity of the Egyptians to enslave foreigners, it is not at all unlikely that the Hebrews were among them.
The Israelites were scared to enter the "Holy Land", not Canaan. The former was in the latter, as Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli point out in reference to verses 7:137, 21:71 and 21:81 (p. 152). Here is what the verses say: "And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride)." (Surah Al-Araf, 7:137) "But We delivered him [Abraham] and (his nephew) Lut (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations." (Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:71) "(It was Our power that made) the violent (unruly) wind flow (tamely) for Solomon, to his order, to the land which We had blessed: for We do know all things." (Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:81) Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli state: "These verses do not justify equating the 'holy land' with 'Canaan/Palestine,' but they show the former as part of the latter..." So when the command was given to enter the "holy land", the Israelites were probably already in Canaan. I don't know if the Bible made this distinction, but the Quran certainly did. Moreover, the Bible claims that the Israelites had 600,000 men when they left Egypt. Such a formidable force would have been the largest in the world and would have dwarfed any other army, including that of the Canaanites, so why would the Israelites have been scared? This is a major inconsistency in the Biblical version. But as usual, the Quran does not suffer from the same inconsistency.
You are simply picking and choosing sources. There is a considerable debate on the Israelite presence in Canaan and three competing theories (the conquest model, the peaceful migration model and the peasant revolt model). As a Muslim, I am indifferent to each of these theories because the Quran does not elaborate on the post-Exodus story. It only states that the Israelites were forced to wander the desert for a long time, but it does not say what happened afterwards, except that they eventually "inherited" the land. All we can assume is that they eventually settled in the Holy Land. As John Bright notes regarding the post-Exodus events: "...Israel's encounter with the Edomites and Moabites...unless one declare the tradition unhistorical , forbids a date for Israel's arrival before the thirteenth century (when these two people first appear in contemporary texts) and might be held rather to suggest a date in the twelfth, since these areas do not seem to have an appreciable sedentary population earlier. We can set no fixed date for the exodus, nor can we be sure in the reign of which Pharaoh it took place. But a date rather well on in the thirteenth century, perhaps late in the reign of Ramesses II, seems plausible" ("A History of Israel, pp. 123-124).
You missed the point. The fact that Egyptian records fail to mention "Israel" prior to Merneptah's reign, despite the fact that the Egyptians were routinely going into Canaan even before his reign, lends strong credence to the fact that Israel was not present in Canaan, at least not before the late 13th century. But since the Merneptah stele mentions "Israel", it implies that such a group had existed for a long time already and the Egyptians were familiar with them. How could that be if this was the first mention of Egyptian contact with "Israel" in Canaan?
The claim that when Merneptah said "seed", he actually meant "grain" is also just an assumption. Saying that one view is an "assumption" only to counter it with another assumption does not disprove the former.
Actually, as I already stated, there is good reason to doubt that he actually battled "Israel". See Fatoohi and al-Dargazelli's point that there exist no independent accounts of such a battle.
And many believe the opposite. Others believe that the "Israel" mentioned in the stele represents some "pre-Mosaic" group of people. As Bright states (emphasis in the original): "It is certainly possible that Merneptah's 'conquest' of 'Israel' in Canaan actually occurred prior to the major wave of settlements in the central hill country in the early Iron I period. This would suggest that a 'pre-Mosaic' or 'proto-Israelite' group was flourishing in Canaan to the extent that it could muster significant resistance against the Egyptian military, all prior to significant settlement of the land" ("The History of Israel", p. 472).
Why not? The more victories, the better. It certainly would not be something worth bragging about if he had defeated an "impressive slew of enemies" in Canaan but failed against one particular group which didn't even have a permanent settlement and which was not as "impressive" as the other groups!
Actually, they would be "shy" about such things. Infanticide was clearly not a common occurrence in Egypt, if it even happened at all in other instances. Apparently, it was against the Egyptian religion to do such things, so if one particular Pharaoh crossed that line, it is not at all unlikely that the records would have been suppressed as an obvious embarrassment which would bring shame upon the empire.
There is no "compelling" evidence for Herod's massacre because Jewish and Christian sources from the time fail to mention the event. This is not the same as with Pharaoh's massacres, where Egyptian sources fail to mention the events.
It also says that it was not continuous.
You already answered your own question. Slavery and genocide are two different things.
Josephus mentioned that Herod killed his own adult sons because he felt they were a threat to him. Why would he mention that but not the killing of infants, even if it was a "small number"? Herod killed 3 of his sons. That gets mentioned. Herod kills several infants. That doesn't get mentioned. That makes no sense.
As I have been saying all this time, there is "circumstantial evidence" for many aspects of the Exodus story. The Hyksos are one such piece of evidence, especially given the similarities with the Israelites. I am pretty much convinced that the Hyksos were the rulers of Egypt in the time of Joseph (peace be upon him).
You are assuming way too much. Just because polytheism was the religion of the majority does not mean there could be no monotheists. It is well-known that the majority of pre-Islamic Arabs were polytheists as well. But it is also known that there were minorities of Jews, Christians and also some Hanifs among them. If Joseph existed, and he lived in Egypt for most of his life as an influential member of the ruling party, it could only have been during the Hyksos period. Nationalist Egyptians would not have allowed a foreigner to hold such a high rank in their country. And since he was a monotheist, it stands to reason that at least a small number of people would have converted. The Quran states that a small number of Egyptians converted during Moses' time, so it's possible the same also happened during Joseph's time.
How is it the "only practical option"? Perhaps it might be the only "option" for you, but it is certainly not "practical". What's "practical" about following a religion that you know is wrong in so many ways? If it was "practical", then following any of the "alternatives" would also be equally "practical", yet you clearly don't feel that way.
That's because I was picturing an object simply hanging by a rope. It would not move until some outside force was applied to it. As it stands, your pendulum analogy is irrelevant because it does not apply to the earth. The earth does not "hang" like a pendulum. It is suspended in space due to gravity and it rotates on its own axis and revolves around the sun due to the latter's gravitational pull. To say that the earth "hangs upon nothing" is not an accurate description.
If it is "incorrect technically", it is still incorrect. End of story.
Exactly, so what he "knew" was also known by many other people, at least those who had ever looked up at the sky on a starry night, which was probably everyone on earth.
The earth does not "hang upon nothing". It revolves around the sun. Moreover, even if we go by your interpretation, it would actually be the same as Paul's observation of stars. Anyone who ever looked up at the sky would see that all of the celestial bodies "hang upon nothing", and simply make the inference that the earth too "hangs upon nothing".
It was known to some learned Greeks, like Aristotle. It was not something that was readily observable. Moreover, you are simply assuming that: 1. Muhammad (peace be upon him) necessarily "dealt with merchants who had been at sea", 2. These sea-faring merchants just happened to tell him about this phenomenon during one of their business transactions, 3. Muhammad (peace be upon him) retained this scintillating conversation and brought it up later on in the Quran for no apparent reason, especially given that he had never witnessed the phenomenon himself and neither did any of his followers. Moreover, even if this was the case, the fact remains that he was privy to historical information that no one else would have known (i.e. knowing that the term "Pharaoh" was only used after a specific time in Egyptian history).
Dealt with above.
Yeah, I know you got this information from the tafsirs- you know, the same ones that I said are human endeavors and are not guaranteed to be without errors. The tafsirs are not scripture. You need to understand that. Moreover, if you read the verse carefully, you would know that they are talking about the destruction of Egyptian influence in Canaan, not in Egypt. As Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli note: "Parts of the holy land were originally under the control of Egyptian vassals hence the fall of that land into the hands of the Israelites is described as an inheritance by the Israelites of their Egyptian enemies. The ending of verse 7.137 refers to Pharaoh and his people's buildings in the holy land not Egypt. Obviously, Israel's takeover of the holy land resulted in the destruction of the buildings of Pharaoh and his people there, not in Egypt. This destruction might refer to militant conquests of parts of the holy land" (p. 156). This can be discerned by the phrase "lands whereon We sent down Our blessings". We know this is a reference to the holy land in Canaan and not Egypt because of other verses in which God refers to the land he had blessed and which He gave to Abraham (peace be upon him): "But We delivered him and (his nephew) Lut (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations" (Sural Al-Anbiya, 21:71)
Here is what Maududi wrote in a footnote to this verse: "That is, "The Israelites were made the inheritors of Palestine". Some commentators infer from this that the Israelites were made the masters of Egypt. But we hesitate to accept this version for there is neither any direct reference to it in the Qur'an nor is there any historical evidence to support it. (Sec E.N. 57 of XVIII and E.N. 45 of XXVI)." So, there is no reason to believe that the verse was referring specifically to Egypt but rather to Egyptian control of Canaan. The Israelites "inherited" the land as Egyptian power began to wane. We know the Egyptians were routinely going into Canaan and bringing back slaves. Eventually, that status quo changed.
That is possible, especially during the period of the plagues, but the verse was specifically referring to Egyptian influence Canaan, not Egypt.
There are no major Egyptian monuments still standing in Canaan, unlike in Egypt where the pyramids and the Sphinx still stand. But artifacts have been found by archaeologists attesting to the Egyptian presence and its eventual decline in Canaan. As the "Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt" states: "Egyptian presence in Canaan is attested by many small artifact, such as scarabs and vessels. Monuments were also erected in Canaan by Egyptian monarchs and administrators. For example, a fragment of a stela of Tuthmose III, or Amenhotep II, mentioning a defeat of the army of the kingdom of Mitanni (in northern Syria), was found at Tell Kinroth overlooking the Sea of Galilee. [...] Egyptian military activity in Canaan during the 19th dynasty is attested not only in inscriptions in Egypt, but also in Egyptian monuments in Canaan. Stelae of Seti I, Ramesses II and Merneptah have all been found there" (pp. 188-189). It also explains that Egyptian influence declined in the "Levant" by the time of the 20th Dynasty.
Not quite. The papyrus describes natural disasters, not a "calamity" that was brought as a result of a foreign nation's invasion. You can "doubt" as much as you want. The fact remains that the New Testament authors clearly believed in it, and so did Jesus (peace be upon him). If even the highest authority in Christendom believes in it, then where do you really have left to go? And how can you still refer to yourself as a "Christian" and still keep a straight face? If the New Testament authors made a mistake about Jesus' belief in the Exodus, then there is no telling what else they got wrong about him.
That's because he was basing it on the Biblical account found in 1 Kings 6:1. In an effort to harmonize 1 Kings with archaeology, he has no choice but to argue for a 15th-century date. But the argument that the evidence of the destruction of Canaanite settlements in the 15th century points to Israelite activity makes little sense for a couple of reasons. First, it was right around this time that the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt and pursued into Canaan. It is hard to believe that the Israelites would have been responsible for the destruction instead of Egypt, which was at the height of its power. In fact, as previously mentioned, there are many Egyptian artifacts in Canaan pointing to Egyptian activity during that time, such as the military victory at Tell Kinroth during the reign of Tuthmose III. In fact, we have a surviving account of the campaign against the Mittanis in the temple at Karnak. We also have an account of Tuthmoses' campaign against the city of "Joppa", which is the modern city of Jaffa in Israel. Hence, it was the Egyptians who were responsible for the destruction in Canaan. If Israel was also active during that time and responsible for the destruction, why don't Egyptian records mention it? Why is the Merneptah stele the earliest to mention it? Wouldn't Egypt and Israel have been competitors in Canaan? Furthermore, the Merneptah stele indicates that "Israel" was not yet settled into major cities like the other Canaanite nations such as Gezer. If Bimson is correct, that would mean that the Israelites were not living in city-states for more than 200 years! How could such a tent-dwelling people become so powerful as to destroy so many Canaanite cities? Finally, as Bright has pointed out, the theory espoused by Bimson has generally been abandoned by scholars: "The Bible, to be sure, explicitly states (1 Kings 6:1) that it was four hundred and eighty years from the exodus to the fourth year of Solomon (ca. 958). This would seem to fix the exodus in the fifteenth century and thus to support the view that the conquest took place in the Amarna period. But this view has now been rather generally abandoned, chiefly because it is difficult to harmonize with other evidence bearing on the problem..." ("A History of Israel", p. 123).
Yeah, I know it's "disputed". There are all sorts of theories, all of which have some strengths and weaknesses. 1200 BCE would be right at the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 12th century, so I don't see what the problem is. You are talking about a difference of at most a couple of decades.
What are you basing this on? Why would he be referred to as "alone" if there were other gods as well (and there were of course), even if those gods "didn't measure up to him"? It wouldn't make sense for the Egyptians to say that while simultaneously acknowledging other gods. It would be like the Greeks saying that Zeus was "alone" and "without equal", even though they believed in other gods as well. You could perhaps make the argument that the phrase "without equal" means that the other gods "didn't measure up", but to use the word "alone" signifies that there were no others, even though there were. I think we need to take another look at the Quranic verses in question because I think you are once again misinterpreting what they are actually saying and then persuading yourself that there is an "error". But first, let us examine a few more Egyptian inscriptions. 1. Relief depicting Ramesses II with his mother - In this inscription, Ramesses II and his mother make offerings to Osiris. It states: "1) Osiris, [Lord] of Rosetau, the Great God, Lord of heaven. (2) Lord of the Two Lands, User-Maat-Re Setep-en-Re, (3) Lord of crowns Ramesses, beloved of Amun, god and ruler of Heliopolis. (4) The lady (?) of the Two Lands Tuya." 2. Painted wooden chest of Tutankhamun - This chest contains an interesting description of Tutankhamum, which is akin to the inscription about Ramesses II as "alone" and "without equal". It states: "The good god, the Son of Amon, the Valiant one, without his equal, A Possessor of strength who tramples hundreds of thousands, who makes them into a pile of corpses." 3. Letter to Amenhotep IV - In this letter, Amenhotep IV is described by phrases commonly used for all Pharaohs, such as "king of Upper and Lower Egypt" and "lord of the two lands". In addition, he was also referred to as "the god, ruler of Thebes". Now let's look at the Quranic verses which you have erroneously declared to be in "error" along with some others which will help alleviate your confusion: "Said the chiefs of Pharaoh's people: "Wilt thou leave Moses and his people, to spread mischief in the land, and to abandon thee and thy gods?" He said: "Their male children will we slay; (only) their females will we save alive; and we have over them (power) irresistible."" (Surah Al-Araf, 7:127) Regarding this verse, Mufti Shafi Usmani commented: "The above statement of Pharaoh's people, 'Even when he abandons you and your gods' makes us understand that Pharaoh himself used to worship other gods, even though he claimed to be the god of his people" ("Maariful Quran, Volume 4, p. 22). Interestingly, Ibn Kathir deduced from this verse that the Pharaoh commanded his people to worship cows as their gods. Whether this is true or not, we can see that the Quran never stated that the Pharaoh was the "only god". It also stated that they had other gods. So, why would Pharaoh say that he knew of no other "god" for his people? Let' see: "(Moses) said: "Lord of the East and the West, and all between! if ye only had sense!" (Pharaoh) said: "If thou dost put forward any god other than me, I will certainly put thee in prison!"" (Surah Al-Shu'araa, 26:28-29) In these verses, we can see that the Pharaoh threatened Moses (peace be upon him) with prison for putting forward "any god other than [him]", but only after Moses referred to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) as the "Lord of the East and the West, and all between". We saw earlier how the Pharaohs had titles like "lord of the two lands", "king of upper and lower Egypt", "the god, ruler of Thebes" and "god and ruler of Heliopolis". This is important as we see from the following verse: "And Pharaoh proclaimed among his people, saying: "O my people! Does not the dominion of Egypt belong to me, (witness) these streams flowing underneath my (palace)? What! see ye not then?" (Surah Az-Zukhruf, 43:51) So, the Pharaoh considered himself the ruler of the land, claiming that Egypt belonged to him. He didn't say that Egypt belonged to the gods. He said it belonged to him. That is why he said what he said in verse 26:29. But what about verse 28:38? "Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!"" (Surah Al-Qasas, 28:38) The answer is that the Pharaoh was not claiming himself as the sole deity in the Egyptian pantheon, but as the sovereign ruler and god of the land of Egypt, a fact testified by Egyptian records (as already seen). As Maududi states: "By this Pharaoh did not, and could not, mean that he was the creator of his people and the earth and the heavens, for such a thing be uttered only by a madman. Likewise; he also did not mean that they had no other deity besides him for the Egyptians worshiped many gods, and the Pharaoh himself had been made the incarnation of the sun god. The Qur'an testifies that the Pharaoh himself worshiped many gods: "The chiefs of Pharaoh's people said, `Will you leave Moses and his followers free to spread disorder in the land, and to discard you and your deities'?" (Al-A`raf: 127) Therefore, inevitably, the Pharaoh had not used the word "god" here for himself as a creator and deity, but as an absolute and supreme sovereign. What he meant was this: "I am the owner of this land of Egypt: I alone will rule here: My law will be the law of the land; I alone shall be accepted as the fountainhead of all commands and prohibitions here. None else is entitled to give commands in this country."
In the case of Amenophis IV, he was the "only god" that the Egyptians would worship. He was their god. The gods were his. I still don't see what the problem is. Moreover, the fact that the Pharaoh was known as the "son of Re" implies that he was at least less powerful than Re. But he was still considered the sovereign "god" and ruler of the land of Egypt, as the earthly manifestation of Re.
And the Quran never said that. That is your own unique interpretation, which as we have seen in the past, is always due to you making generalizations based on faulty research and misinterpretations.
They believed He was the supreme deity, but they did not believe that He was the "only" deity worthy of worship. He was not "alone by Himself" as far as they were concerned.
It is quite relevant, since you are trying to compare the Arabs' belief in Allah as the supreme deity and their worship of multiple gods, to the Egyptian belief in many gods but the Pharaoh as the "principal god". The Pharaoh was not only worshiped by the Egyptians. He also worshiped himself. And he made requests of the other gods, something Allah never did, even according to the pagan Arabs.
Yeah, I know that. I never denied it. The Quran also never denied that the Egyptians had other gods.
Not at all. You are not making any sense. To say that Pharaoh was "alone by himself" meant that he was the "only supreme god" is nonsensical. To be "supreme" would already imply that there is only one. By definition, you can't have more than one "supreme" deity, because it would imply that they are equal to each other. Therefore, to say that he is the "only" supreme god is repetitious. It's like saying he is the "supreme" supreme god, which makes no sense.
I have shown that the Quran never said that the Egyptians did not have other gods. It says very clearly that there were other gods as well. As history shows us, you jump to conclusions based on your own authority, only to be proven wrong time and time again.
Not at all. The error in your reasoning remains. And of course, the (actual) errors in the Bible remain, regardless of whether the Quran has "errors" or not.
Why not? What difference does it make? You are currently following a religion that cannot possibly be true, given its reliance on an error-filled book. Does it really make a difference what religion you follow, especially if they all have errors?
You can live by the morals that pretty much everyone agrees on. No one disagrees that being kind to people is a good thing, regardless of what religion (or no religion) they follow. Anything is better than believing in a religion that is clearly wrong. By the way, let me just make it clear that I don't care what you choose to do or believe. I also don't care if you choose to lie to yourself and remain a Christian. I am simply showing the nonsensical reasoning and contradictions in your approach.
No, I would not. And yes, deism would be the only logical choice for me. Christianity is not even on my list and neither is any other religion. The only difference is that most of my research has been on Christianity, I know for certain, that it is false. I can't necessarily say that about the other religions, since I have not researched them in the same detail.
And the Quran never said that.
Perhaps if you didn't jump to conclusions based on your own hasty research and ignorance, you would see that the story is indeed quite believable.
All of these misconceptions have been explained above. Your conclusions are erroneous, not the verses in question.
I would say that unlike the Bible's Book of Exodus, the Quran's account is accurate and agrees with established history.
All dealt with above. No need to repeat the same things ad nauseum. Edited by islamispeace - 14 October 2014 at 8:08am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 September 2014 at 4:49am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would
mean that the Quran has errors, like the Bible does. Nothing more, nothing
less. It would be up to you and other Muslims to decide what to do with this
knowledge. I�m not
even saying you are wrong. I just wish to show Muslims about your faith what
you have shown me about mine. Both Muhammad and Annette have had knowledge which others didn�t. It doesn�t constitute necessary proof of prophecy. By �historical knowledge� what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the passages in the Quran that make the distinction between �king� and �Pharaoh�? I thought Muhammad was not the Quran�s author.
When you mentioned them initially, you said the Hyskos could have been the Hebrews, or their descendants.
What difference does that
make? We know that the Egyptians used Semitic slaves, so the enslavement
of Israelites is not at all an impossibility. Just because there are no
records specifically mentioning "Israelites" or "Hebrews"
does not mean automatically mean that the story is false. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31276&PN=1
Also, which verse are you referring to when you said the Hyskos could have been the rulers referred to in the story of Joseph? I read chapter 12, and it must be a verse outside of the chapter or I missed something� which is more than likely so please show me what you are referring to. Thanks.
I don�t see how the existence of the Hyskos in any way helps validate the Exodus story.
The verse we are looking at not only says that the Israelites were oppressed, but that Ramses II (assuming you believe he was the Exodus Pharaoh) was the one who made the people in Egypt into factions.
28:4
Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself
in the land and made its people into factions,
oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and
keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters. If the persecution of the Israelites was started by the Egyptian kings who threw out the Hyskos, then the Egyptian people were divided into �factions� by them, not Ramses II.
In fact, your own sources state that the Egyptians had been using Semitic slaves since the mid-18th century!
"There is textual evidence...that shows that since the middle of the 18th century BCE Semitic slaves were employed by the Egyptians - a practice that continued throughout the next 1,500 years. [...] One well-known piece of evidence from the New Kingdom comes from the tomb of Rekhmire, one of the viziers of Tuthmosis III (1504-1450 BCE). It is a scene of laborers making bricks for a temple in Karnak and a text describing the workers as captives. There are a number of inscriptions that confirm the continuation of the practice of bringing captives from West Asia to Egypt as slaves." ("The Mystery of Israel in Ancient Egypt", pp. 86-87). If Semites were being used as slaves since the middle of the 18th century, then it is not true that Ramses II divided the society into different factions.
We know also from sources I have already shown that Seti I employed slavery, so Ramses II merely continued an unjust practice of ruling over a society that already was divided into factions. He wasn�t the one who divided the Egyptian people- they had been divided centuries ago into different classes.
It would be like stating that President Woodrow Wilson divided the American society into factions, and persecuted a segment of them. American society was already divided into racial factions long before he became President. He used the racist Jim Crow laws to oppress black people, but he wasn�t the one who made American society into factions. Others did so long before him.
For another example, imagine a history book stating that Hermann Pister, the SS Commandant who took over the Buchenwald concentration camp in 1942, �made its people into factions�. The camp had been running and murdering people since 1937, and there were divisions between the guards and the inmates, and even among the inmates themselves ever since its foundation. This particular war criminal wasn�t the one who �made its people into factions�, he merely continued the existing order, and made a hellish situation even worse.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1984266/Hermann-Pister
The Quran clearly teaches that the Pharaoh who allegedly died in the Sea, divided Ancient Egyptians into sects.
Yet we know that when Ramses II when he became Pharaoh, put himself in charge of an already divided society. He merely continued this division, not created it.
The Quran�s account has yet another error in it.
OK, thanks for explaining. Killing off most of the male population would be bad for any labour force. Doing it twice, within a 20 something year period, would make no sense. There are no independent historical accounts (not written by religious people) of Ancient Egyptians engaging in mass killings of children or attempting genocide. There are many accounts of them engaging in slavery, but nothing like this.
I believe the story of the mass murder of the boys is made up, like it was in the Gospel of Matthew. If the plausibility of some other elements is going to be a factor in determining whether a described event is true or not, then the account in the Gospel of Matthew is also �plausible�.
Matthew 2 mentions the existence of Herod, and we have evidence he was real. Bethlehem was in Judea. The West Bank in fact is still called by the settlers �Judea and Samaria�. Herod was the king, and his headquarters was in Jerusalem.
Of course, none of this would constitute �proof� that the massacre of babies happened.
Likewise, that Ancient Egyptians used slaves in no way is �proof� that Ramses II had Jewish kids murdered� twice, in his lifetime. The fact that other sources mention the alleged massacre makes little difference, since they all contain historical mistakes, and were written centuries afterwards.
If the Apiru were the Hebrews, then they were in �the Promised Land� throughout the reign of the Pharaohs� and were making raids into Ancient Egypt and probably fighting off raids from them, throughout.
There was no �promised land� for them to go back to after some alleged 40 years of wandering in the desert� they were there the whole time.
If the Apiru were not the Hebrews, then their existence is in no way any �confirmation� of the slavery of the Israelites in Ancient Egypt. You brought up two examples, one of the Apiru, the other of the Hyskos, and claimed they could have been the Hebrews.
As we have seen, the Hyskos were thrown out of Egypt before there ever was such a thing as a Pharaoh. The Apiru was a distinction for a soco-economic, not ethnic, group. They also happened to not live in Egypt, but outside its borders, including in Canaan- which the Israelites allegedly couldn�t enter because they were too scared to obey God and had to spend 40 years wandering before they could enter.
In fact, if you had read some of the sources I posted a few days after this response, you will have seen that archaeological evidence points to the fact that the �newcomers� who began expanding in Canaan were none but Canaanites themselves.
Perhaps the most memorable event of the Israelite conquest was the destruction of Jericho, where Joshua famously brought down the walls with the mere blowing of a horn, having marched around the city for 10 days. Excavating Jericho in the 1930s, John Garstang (1948) believed he had uncovered evidence of a violent destruction, thereby confirming the Biblical account. However, subsequent excavations by Kathleen Kenyon (1979) turned up Mycenaean pottery within Garstang�s destruction layer, more than a century after Joshua�s campaign is thought to have occurred� Although there is evidence for the destruction of some sites at the end of the twelfth and during the eleventh century BCE, the Egyptians and Sea Peoples, who were present at the time, seem more likely culprits. In addition to the problem of datable destruction layers, a number of scholars have pointed to the evidence for cultural continuity, with little in dramatic changes in material culture that might be expected with the sudden incursion of a new people. For instance, the Bull Site in northern Mannaseh reflects an ongoing Canaanite influence on religious practices, and the same may be said for the linguistic evidence. (Smith 2002). As an alternative to the tale of violent conquest, models suggesting a more peaceful infiltration (Alt 1925) and stressing social theory (Mendelhall 1973; Gottwal 1979) have been advanced. Thus, considering the evidence for cultural continuity during the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I transition, and the lack of evidence for securely dated destruction layers, the literal truth of the Biblical narrative concerning the conquest becomes increasingly difficult to support. Indeed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Amber Silberman have reviewed a good part of the archaeological evidence from this period and concluded: �the process we describe� is the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of an early Israel was the outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause� There was no violent conquest of Canaan. The early Israelites were- irony or ironies- themselves originally Canaanites!� (2001, 118) In other
words, there was no invasion or entrance of some outside people group from
Egypt. The �Israelites� were none but Canaanites who were always there to begin
with, and adopted a new religion. Well, if
the Egyptians were routinely going into Canaan (and they were) and coming
across Israelites, that would mean that the Israelites were already in the
Promised Land. According to the Bible�s and Quran�s account, they were in Egypt
as slaves, and Canaan was occupied by other people groups whom God allegedly
wanted them to fight before entering.
The claim that Merneptah �over-exaggerated� is an assumption, since there is more than one possible meaning to what he meant when he said �seed�.
Ethnicity in Ancient Israel � Some remarks on Menerptah�s Stele Other scholars maintained that Israel refers both to a territory and a population, like G. Ahlstr�m who stressed it when he wrote:�To the Egyptian scribe, Israel was a territory with a people that lived not in cities but in the countryside, i.e. they were perhaps settled in that part of the land where there were almost no cities, the central highlands. [�] one cannot deduce from the Merneptah stele that Israel was a tribe, a tribal league or confederation, [�] even if this could have been the case�.
No further information could be obtained from the grammatical fea-tures, �Israel� although in plural being connected both with a feminineconstruction in singular (�is laid waste�) as if it might have been a land and with a masculine construction also in singular (�his seed�) as if it might have been population. Of great interest is also the term �his seed�, which as the Hebrew can be understand as �grain�,�descendants�, or even�semen�.
The possession of grain could be a proof for a sedentary Israel, but the expression makes up a propagandistic clich� for Egyptian devastating the enemies even in some clashes when the battles were waged with the invaders within the Egyptian territory
http://www.academia.edu/3102049/Ethnicity_in_Early_Israel._Some_Remarks_on_Merneptahs_Stele
Also, even if Menerptah was saying that he destroyed all the Israelites but really didn�t, it still doesn�t mean that he didn�t battle against them in Canaan.
Most scholars believe that a group called Israelites already existed in Canaan when Menerptah launched his campaign, even if they didn�t have their own state.
There would be no reason for Menerptah to make up battles that didn�t happen at all. He already bragged about defeating a whole impressive slew of enemies, why would he need to make up more?
I am curious to see if there are any other historians who claim that Menerptah �never met� the Israelites.
The first accounts that appear of these alleged genocides did so after some 600 years, from books that contained historically inaccurate information.
Slavery and genocide are two different things, as are tyranny and genocide. The �circumstantial evidence� for both Herod�s and Ramses� genocides are equally compelling.
A
massacre of babies would have not have been a continuous practice as it would
deplete the main source of labor. Yet the Quran alleges that the Egyptians did so twice.
It
is also possible that the Egyptians simply covered up the Pharaoh's barbarism.
Unless it was ignored because there were other, more horrific crimes happening at the time, being committed both by the Romans and Herod. According to CARM, Bethlehem was a small town with some 600 people in it, so there would have been probably a small number of children who were that age. http://carm.org/why-isnt-there-other-evidence-massacre-babies I am not saying that the massacre did happen- but it is just as �likely� to have happened as Pharaoh�s alleged massacre of Israelite children.
Then why did you mention them in the first place?
Who were the Hysko monotheists? Historical sources I read mentions they were polytheists. I think that the assumption that Joseph ruled alongside Hysko monotheists is just that.
No, they both do.
It is the only practical option in light of the alternatives.
The earth is not a pendulum, but my point is that a hanging object can move, and does not have to be motionless. Earlier, you wrote: A hanging object would imply that it does not move
A pendulum is a hanging object, yet it moves.
To say �the earth hangs over nothing�, even if incorrect technically, is not bad of a description of how it looks like. I don�t think something that others would have known that the earth is suspended in outer space. There were no telescopes or space travel back then.
Perhaps that wasn�t the best example to use. Others would not have known though how the earth looks like in outer space.
He didn�t have had to see this for himself, but if he dealt with merchants who had been at sea, they could have told him this. This knowledge was already known to the Ancient Greeks, centuries earlier.
There is
a higher possibility I think, that Muhammad learned about water properties from
a merchant who had been at sea, than for a Pharaoh to have done something that
was completely unheard of in the history of Ancient Egyptians, and launch two
attempted genocides within a timespan of a few decades. Or that Ramses II was
the one who made class divisions in a society that has had them for centuries
if not millennia before he was even born. I didn�t say that all of his buildings were allegedly destroyed, but a significant number. I get that from the tafsirs- you know, the same ones you pointed out to show that the Quran was talking about the minimum period of gestation.
Maududi translates the verse as stating that God destroyed �all� that the Pharaoh and his men constructed, though I�m not saying 7:137 states this.
However,
from the tafsirs, it is safe to assume there was allegedly some massive
destruction of his buildings.
Historians attribute them to Ramses II. Show me any evidence you have that would prove they were in fact rebuilt� or that his buildings were destroyed.
It shows there was no massive destruction of his buildings. He left more behind him than did any other Pharaoh.
Yet we have Egyptian documents about them conquering and enslaving other nations. So they clearly weren�t too shy in listing calamities they brought upon others.
The Ipuwer papyrus shows us also something else that is quite significant- namely, that the Ancient Egyptians did also record calamities that befell them.
The lack
of any mention of Ramses IIs alleged drowning or destruction of what he and his
men built by any Egyptian source is another helps factor that helpss cast the Exodus events into doubt. We�ll probably find even more examples of how I am a walking contradiction by the time we finish our debates. So far you found two. Keep analyzing and don�t lose count.
Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli forgot to point out that according to Bimson, the Israelites were already in Canaan as early as the 15 century BC. He claims they fled hundreds of years earlier, and began building these particular settlements in a part of Canaan around 1170. He also, like many other historians, accepts the Menerptah Stele as stating that the Pharaoh encountered the Israelites in Canaan, so they were obviously there already as early as the thirteenth century.
It is well known that the earliest reference to Israel outside the Bible comes from the late 13th century BC. This occurs in the final stanza of a hymn celebrating the victories of the pharaoh Merenptah (or Merneptah), inscribed on what has become known as the 'Israel stela', dating from Merenptah's fifth year, i.e. 1207 BC in the low chronology now preferred for Egypt's 19th Dynasty. It is the relative dating of this reference to Israel and the earliest Iron I settlements which vitiates the above theories of Israel's origins. Until recently the beginning of the Iron Age has been very loosely defined. It has commonly been assigned a date of around 1200 BC, in recognition that this is merely a handy, round number, and that some Iron I settlements may have appeared earlier and some later. Hence Lemche, discussing the appearance of Iron I villages, is able to say: 'The date of all this activity perhaps falls towards the close of the 13th century; many are in any case from the beginning of the 12th century'.[120] Coote and Whitelam remark: 'Israel originated during the third and fourth quarters of the thirteenth century [p.13] with the shift in land use and settlement patterns of the Palestinian highland and dry land margin.[121] Finkelstein also assigns the beginning of sedentarization in the highlands to the late 13th century BC, though he admits that the data for this are 'few and inconclusive'.[122] However, it has emerged from B. G. Wood's recent, magisterial study of the LBA/Iron I transition that the beginning of Iron I should actually be dated close to 1170 BC, and not loosely to around 1200 BC as previously supposed.[123] This means that we have irrefutable evidence for the existence of Israel some 30-40 years before the earliest Iron I settlements which supposedly mark the beginning of Israel's formation. Coote and Whitelam may be hoping to head off such a criticism when they suggest that Merenptah's inscription 'may not refer to... any social group directly ancestral to monarchic Israel'.[124] This fantastic statement is clearly special pleading. The evidence of Merenptah's stela cannot be disposed of simply because it does not fit a particular theory of Israelite origins; instead, the theory must be adapted to fit the evidence.[125] In summary, it is clear from Merenptah's inscription that Israel's origins must be sought before the beginning of Iron I. Other evidence from within the OT itself points to the same conclusion. Kitchen has repeatedly put forward arguments demonstrating that the form of the Sinai covenant must go back to the second millennium BC,[126] and several scholars have argued for the pre-monarchic origins of much early Hebrew poetry, effectively demonstrating the great antiquity of the historical traditions which it embodies.[127] The traditions of Israel's early history cannot be cavalierly relegated to an exilic or other late date in the way that Lemche, Coote and Whitelam and others have stated.
Conclusion: scope for an alternative viewBoth internal and external evidence requires that we treat with greater respect Israel's traditions concerning her origins and early history. This in turn requires that we look for a historical, archaeological and cultural context in which the traditions concerning the exodus, wilderness wanderings and conquest can retain their integrity. Many evangelical scholars have long believed that the 13th century BC provides such a context. As we noted earlier in this article, it now seems very unlikely that it does. Is there an alternative? I have argued in detail elsewhere[128] for a return to the 15th-century date implied by the OT's internal chronology (1 Ki. 6:1; Jdg. 11:26). Some of the reasons for rejecting this date (such as the alleged gap in occupation in Transjordan) have disappeared and others are not so strong as has sometimes been supposed. One major difficulty for the 15th-century date has been the apparent absence of evidence for a violent conquest at the end of that century. In response, I have tried to show that the missing evidence is probably provided by the fall of Canaan's fortified cities at the close of the MBA.[129] This event has traditionally been dated between 1550 and 1500 BC and attributed to Egyptian campaigns. Arguments against the traditional view are now emerging, lending plausibility to my suggestion that these cities were actually destroyed about a hundred years later, and that their destroyers were the incoming Israelites.[130] It will be a good while before enough evidence is available for a final verdict (insofar as final verdicts are ever reached in such matters!), but this approach currently seems to be a promising one. Several of the arguments put forward by the proponents of alternative views actually complement this theory. As noted above, Finkelstein draws attention to the collapse of Canaan's urban culture at the end of the MBA, and to evidence for a significant semi-nomadic population during the LBA. He suggests that the change should be explained in terms of the nomadization of a large proportion of the previously urban population. An alternative hypothesis would be that invaders slaughtered or dispersed a large part of the MBA urban population, and subsequently lived in the land as semi-nomads. For a variety of political and economic reasons, settlement may not have been an attractive option for the newcomers, until, that is, the socio-economic complexion of the country was changed once again by the decline of Canaan's remaining city-states at the end of the LBA. I am suggesting, of course, that the invaders were the Israelites, who certainly arrived in Canaan as tent-dwellers and remained such for an uncertain period after entering the land.[131] This view allows them to be a well-established part of the Canaanite scene by the time of Merenptah, though not archaeologically 'visible' until their sedentarization a few decades later, at the beginning of Iron I. Obviously, much more would need to be said to fill out and defend this picture, and this is not the place to do it. I am simply trying to show that the biblical traditions are not incompatible with some of the new understandings of Canaan's archaeological, social and economic history. Whether more evangelical scholars will find this approach attractive remains to be seen. What is certain is that a major rethink is required among defenders of the biblical traditions concerning Israel's origins. The old synthesis of the Baltimore School cannot be kept alive by tinkering with a few details. The real need is for a completely new synthesis which takes account of the best of recent analyses of archaeological and other evidence while refuting the worst. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html
As I have shown previously, but will show again, the �Israelite settlers� from Iron Age I were identical to the Canaanites, the people they allegedly came to fight. If there was any �incursion�, it was not in either the 13th or 12th century from the Israelites.
Perhaps the most memorable event of the Israelite conquest was the destruction of Jericho, where Joshua famously brought down the walls with the mere blowing of a horn, having marched around the city for 10 days. Excavating Jericho in the 1930s, John Garstang (1948) believed he had uncovered evidence of a violent destruction, thereby confirming the Biblical account. However, subsequent excavations by Kathleen Kenyon (1979) turned up Mycenaean pottery within Garstang�s destruction layer, more than a century after Joshua�s campaign is thought to have occurred� Although there is evidence for the destruction of some sites at the end of the twelfth and during the eleventh century BCE, the Egyptians and Sea Peoples, who were present at the time, seem more likely culprits. In addition to the problem of datable destruction layers, a number of scholars have pointed to the evidence for cultural continuity, with little in dramatic changes in material culture that might be expected with the sudden incursion of a new people. For instance, the Bull Site in northern Mannaseh reflects an ongoing Canaanite influence on religious practices, and the same may be said for the linguistic evidence. (Smith 2002). As an alternative to the tale of violent conquest, models suggesting a more peaceful infiltration (Alt 1925) and stressing social theory (Mendelhall 1973; Gottwal 1979) have been advanced. Thus, considering the evidence for cultural continuity during the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I transition, and the lack of evidence for securely dated destruction layers, the literal truth of the Biblical narrative concerning the conquest becomes increasingly difficult to support. Indeed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Amber Silberman have reviewed a good part of the archaeological evidence from this period and concluded: �the process we describe� is the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of an early Israel was the outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause� There was no violent conquest of Canaan. The early Israelites were- irony or ironies- themselves originally Canaanites!� (2001, 118) Ancient Canaan and Israel New Perspectives- Jonathan M. Golden, 60-61)
There is nothing in the archaeological record to suggest that the settlers came from outside the land of Israel, as stated in the Biblical tradition. The material culture of the settlers appears to have developed from a pastoralist stage, when the people pursued a seminomadic way of life within a tribal system. Though archaeologists have not succeeded in uncovering remains of this initial stage, it seems to be reflected in the site plan of the settlements of the later sedentary stage.
The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, Ammon Ben-Tor, 296
Also, the statement that the Early Iron Age began in the third quarter of the 12th century is disputed by other historians, who claim it began in 1200 BCE, which is when they say the Israelites began building the settlements (oh, the irony of this, especially after having recently been to the West Bank) if not earlier, in the thirteenth century. I�ve cited them already, so I see little need to do it again but of course I can if you would like. Not at
all. He was alone by himself in his alleged divine power, and without equal,
since the other fake gods didn�t measure up to him. That didn�t make him the
only god, though.
The Pharaoh was the principal god, but not the only god. Amenhopis IV, as you noted, tried to remove the other gods in favour of Aten. Ramses II didn�t do this. He kept the other gods around, but believed he was the most powerful one of them.
As already noted, Paser�s tomb has engravings of him worshiping gods other than Ramses II and his Dad, Seti I.
In his poem about Seti I, Paser wrote that Maat was his mother. Maat, as I am sure you know, was one of the Egyptian goddesses. So this guy did not believe that Ramses II was the only god.
Prehotep, another one of Ramses II�s viziers, also was buried with artwork that depicted him being in the company of his imaginary mini-god friends, who were other than Ramses II.
The Egyptian people did not only worship the Pharaohs, but the other gods also.
Upholder of Maat:
Remember that the viziers were hired not only to do the Pharaoh�s bidding, but also to look after the gods. They clearly believed the Pharaoh was supreme among the gods, but not that he was the only one.
The association of government and maat reached even the lower levels of government. Viziers who dispensed justice in the name of the king wore a pendant in the form of the goddess Maat, which both alluded to their association with the goddess and their inspiration to act justly. One of the clearest indication of the association of the king and the goddess Maat was the ritual of her presentation to the other gods. The Ancient Gods Speak, A Guide to Egyptian Religion, Donald B. Redford, p 189 In addition, various liturgies on papyri and other mythological tractates are preserved, which enable us to imagine what the official hieroglyphic texts narrate. Thus, our material concerning ancient Egyptian festivals has a very biased point of view. Most of what remains concerns the religious festivals connected to the major gods and goddesses of Egypt, including the Pharaoh. The Ancient Gods Speak, A Guide to Egyptian Religion, Donald B. Redford, p 131
No, this does not confirm at all the first quote.
If the Egyptians believed the other gods were subservient to the Pharaoh, there is no way he would have said to his chiefs �No god do I know for you but myself�. He knew very well that his chiefs were worshiping and �serving� other gods, in addition to him. He was so impressed with their �piety� that when they were buried, their tombs contained engravings of them worshiping these deities.
According to their religion, was Allah alone in His supremacy? If not, who shared it with Him?
They also never said that He could make
requests of the other gods or that He worshiped Himself. How is that relevant to the discussion? Another
interesting feature of the Egyptian religion can be seen in another surviving
inscription left by Rekhmere, where he described the Pharaoh in the following
manner: Yet Rekhmere worshiped the Pharaoh as well as the other gods, and called on other Egyptians to do the same.
The prayer for the offerings to be recited by the passersby
A boon which the king gives, and Amen-Re�, and Atum, Shu and Tefenis, Geb and Nut, Osiris, Horus, Mekhantenyerty, Setekh, Isis, Nephthys and Thoth, the deputy of Re: (45) invocation offerings�, all good things without end: to go up to heaven; to penetrate the netherworld in the midst of the unrestling stars, may (?) they offer offerings of food, placed upon the leaves of the weary of heart, for the soul of the prince and the overseer of the city, [Rekhmere] justified.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/368/1/Gardiner_The_Autobiography_Rekhmere_1925.pdf
Rekhmere told the people to mention the �boon� that the king gives them� and is also given by a whole bunch of gods that followed.
Clearly, this was not a man who believed his Pharaoh was the only god.
Not at all. Pharaoh was �alone by himself� as being the only supreme
god, and he was �without equal� because all the other gods were inferior to
him. The Egyptians believed this, as well as believing in the existence of
other, inferior gods. They supplicated to these gods as well as to the king, as
Rekhmere�s �prayer� shows. Sure it did. The Egyptians believed he was alone by himself in his glory� but not that there were no other gods.
Ramses II, whose viziers were buried in tombs with depictions of them
worshiping other deities- did not believe he was the only god that his people
had. He knew they were a polytheistic lot, who held him above all of their
other fake gods. It would have made no sense for him to tell them that he knew they had no god but him.
You have not proven that the Pharaoh was the only god that the Egyptian people had, or that Ramses II believed that to be the case. You have shown that the Pharaoh was the supreme god, but that isn�t the only thing that the Quran is saying. The Quran says he believed himself to be the only god that his people had. As history shows us, that is clearly false.
The error in the Quran about Ancient Egyptian religion remains. LOL. No thanks. If I �believe in God� and don�t follow any particular religion, there are no standards or morals for me to live by. I might as well become an atheist. I refuse to do that. If you want to become a Deist, go ahead.
Sounds like that is your second choice after Islam. Out of curiousity,
if you were to be convinced that the Quran contains some errors, would you
remain a Muslim? As
a god, the King became the son of Re, the sun god, and he
was a manifestation of Horus, the falcon god, as
well as the son of Osiris. Also, from the Middle Kingdom, there was increasing
emphasis placed on his relationship with Amun-Re, and he was described
as the son of Amun, the king of the gods. Thus,
the king became an intermediary between mankind and the divine, responsible for
sustaining the balance of the universe through maintaining ma'at, or divine order.
Upon his death, the ancient Egyptians believed that he became fully divine and
assimilated with Osiris and Re." [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/royalcults.htm#ixzz3DbldVkxC] The Egyptians believed their Pharaohs became gods, and became fully assimilated with Osiris and Re. That still doesn�t mean they didn�t believe in any gods aside from their king. They believed in a pantheon of imaginary deities, while believing that the Pharaoh was the most powerful one of them all.
Not only that, but as the Pharaoh, he wouldn't really be doing much
work. So, it is not at all unlikely that he could have pursued the
Israelites even with his arthritis. If he wasn�t a fictional character who believed he was the only god his subjects had, and who �made the people� who already were divided for centuries before he was born �into factions�, perhaps the story would be a bit more believable. Yet we know that Ramses II wasn�t the one who divided his people into groups. We also know that he did not believe that he was the only god that his people had.
Like the Bible�s Book of Exodus, the Quran�s account of Moses and the Pharaoh and the Israelites is inaccurate at best.
None of the objections you have raised prove that the Quranic version is
erroneous. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to back up the
story and the alleged "errors" are simply the result of
misinterpretation. There is as much �circumstantial evidence� for the slaughter of Israelite babies by Pharaoh was there is for their slaughter by Herod. The Quran claims Pharaoh believed he was the only his people had. We know that is false. They worshiped him alongside a multitude of other fake gods. It claims he �made the people into factions�. We know that also is false. The Egyptian society was divided long before he assumed power. The claim that there was destruction of his buildings is not backed up by any historical evidence whatsoever, as is the claim he drowned or that he had Israelite slaves. The claim that the Israelites came to the Promised Land from Egypt some 40 years after he allegedly drowned is also not true. The settlements found in the area are of Canaanites, not a foreign group of peoples. Edited by TG12345 - 26 September 2014 at 5:02am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 September 2014 at 7:49am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Salaam Alaikum and thanks for the response. My answer may take a few weeks, thanks in advance for your patience.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
islamispeace
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 September 2014 at 9:38pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
But that is not the point I am making. Of course everyone is "free" to do and believe whatever and however they want. My point is that your claims about "errors" in the Quran are meaningless since you continue to believe in the Bible in spite of the errors. So even if there were "errors" in the Quran, what would be your point? What would that mean with regard to Christianity?
Oh I will certainly respond to your threads. And I will continue to point out the holes in your logic. My point is that as long as you continue to believe in the Bible, your threads on "errors" in the Quran or Hadiths are pointless, as they certainly don't vindicate Christianity. It is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
We are not talking about prophecies. We are talking about historical knowledge that no one in Muhammad's position would have known.
I don't see how this changes anything. The Hyksos may have been polytheists (and the Quran actually says that the people of Joseph's time were polytheists) and they may have been cruel to the Egyptians, but that does not change the fact that they shared many features with the Israelites. It remains a distinct possibility that they were the rulers referred to in the story of Joseph (peace be upon him).
That is an assumption, nothing more. The Quran does not say when the Israelites were enslaved. According to Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman, the persecution of the Israelites began after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt: "Then there arose a great nationalistic movement which overthrew the power of this dynasty [the Hyksos] and exiled 250,000 or so of the Amalekites. As a result of this, a very bigoted dynasty of Copts [Egyptians] came into power and uprooted everything connected with the Amalekites. Then started that persecution of the Israelites which has been mentioned in connection with the story of the Prophet Moses" ("The Meaning and Explanation of the Glorious Quran", Vol 5., p. 13). Also, just because Ramesses' forefathers also had slaves, that does not necessarily mean that the Israelites were among them. In short, we have no idea exactly when the enslavement began and under whom.
I explained why. When the Pharaoh told his chiefs to kill the male children to punish the Israelites for believing in Moses (peace be upon him), despite the fact that he did the same thing at the time of Moses' birth, it implies that the practice was not continuous. If they were already doing it, then why would the Pharaoh have told them to do it to punish the Israelites? Besides, it would not be good for their slave labor force if they were killing off most of the male population. It would have been used as a terror tactic to keep them from rebelling.
That is still not the same as the story of Herod's massacre. That story is not mentioned outside of the Gospel of Matthew. The story of the Exodus, with variations, is mentioned in multiple sources. We may not have evidence from the Egyptian records which confirm all of the specific details of the Exodus story, such as a massacre of male infants, but we do have circumstantial evidence for other parts of the story. Such evidence does not exist for the story of Herod's massacre.
That's true, but my point is that unlike the Herod story which is mentioned by just one Christian source and no others (including other Christian sources), the Exodus story is mentioned by many sources spanning centuries and certain elements of the story are certainly plausible, based on evidence from Egyptian records. The only plausible explanation for the story of Herod's massacre is that the author of Matthew confused Herod's actual murders of his sons as the murder of all male children in Bethlehem or that he simply made up the event.
Again, this doesn't change anything. The point I am making is that the events of the Exodus are at least plausible. Using the Egyptian sources, it is possible to circumstantially confirm the Exodus stories. Whether the Apiru were the Hebrews is a matter of debate, but due to the similarities, if people like the Apiru could have been enslaved, then it is not unlikely that other non-Egyptians like the Israelites were also enslaved.
The Merneptah stele is the earliest surviving source to mention "Israel". That implies that the title was in use before that time. The Egyptians were routinely going into Canaan even before Merneptah. Are you telling me that they never came across any Israelites prior to Merneptah? Of course not. But one thing is certain. The Merneptah stele is clearly an over-exaggeration. It claims that Israel's seed has been annihilated, which of course cannot be true since the Israelites not only survived but multiplied and prospered. Hence, some scholars are of the opinion that the stele could simply be a made-up propaganda account. As Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli state: "Pritchard...has noted that the claim that the offpsring of Israel has been exterminated is a typical brag of power at that period, but it could also be completely made up. The wording used to describe Israel's defeat in particular may have sprung from Merneptah's will to take revenge on those who defeated and caused the death of his father. The conclusion that seems more likely for us is that while Merneptah campaigned in Canaan, he never met the Israelites. Interestingly, Mernaptah's claim of a battle with the Israelites is without independent evidence" ("The Mystery of Israel in Ancient Egypt", p. 166).
Yes, but when even Christian and Jewish sources from the time fail to mention something as serious as a massacre of Jewish children, it is hard to believe that it actually happened. Such an event would have immediately reminded them of Pharaoh's massacres, so why would they fail to mention it? If we had evidence that Herod had actually ordered the killing of children in his territory, that would be "circumstantial evidence" in favor of the gospel story, yet we don't even have that. The only thing that comes close is the historically-verifiable report from Josephus that Herod had his sons murdered because he saw them as a threat.
But there is circumstantial evidence of Egyptian enslavement of Semites. A massacre of babies would have not have been a continuous practice as it would deplete the main source of labor. It is also possible that the Egyptians simply covered up the Pharaoh's barbarism. As for Herod's massacre, there is absolutely no way that it could have happened without Jewish and Christian sources reporting on it. Josephus would not have hesitated to mention Herod's crimes.
I never said they were. My point was that just because the Hyksos practiced polytheism (which the Quran confirms about the people of Joseph's time), it does not mean that they were all polytheists. With someone like Joseph (peace be upon him) in Egypt, it would not be surprising if there were some monotheists, especially after Joseph became an influential member of the monarchy.
I disagree. The only narrative that has errors is the one from the Bible.
I would add that, as a result, there is no rational reason to remain a Christian (or a Jew).
The earth is not a pendulum, is it? Like a pendulum, a "hanging object" would be connected to a "frictionless point" and would simply swing back and forth. That is not how the earth moves. It rotates on it axis and revolves around the sun due to the latter's gravitational pull. That is not my idea of a "hanging object".
What exactly did he know that anyone else who ever did something as simply as lift their head at night to look upon the stars wouldn't have known? All Paul said was that the stars have different "splendors". So what?
Paul certainly did not have "supernatural knowledge" about the stars. Any one from that time would have know that some stars are brighter than others. In contrast, you have failed to prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had prior knowledge about freshwater and saltwater. He would have gone on his merchant trips for business purposes, not to observe natural phenomena. It is highly unlikely that he just happened to learn that freshwater and saltwater have density differences and kept it in the back of his mind, only to bring it up later.
And where exactly does it say that all of Pharaoh's buildings were destroyed? And how do you know that many of these buildings weren't simply rebuilt or renovated after him?
Yes, I know this already. I don't see how this supports your argument.
The Ipuwer papyrus mentions a calamity that fell on Egypt, not a calamity that Egypt brought on others.
He has already shown you the truth (about the Bible), yet you are still clinging to your faith. Based on your reasoning about "errors" in the Quran, logic dictates that you would reject the Bible. So yes, you are a walking contradiction (in more ways than one).
To give an exact date of "1250 BC" when the Israelites entered Canaan is absurd. Most historians would instead give a range of dates. Also, some scholars date the Israelites' settlement in Canaan in the 12th century BC. As Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli state: "The fact that the Israelites entered into the holy land forty years after teh exodus, which occurred in 1212 BCE, means that we can date their entry into the holy land to exactly 1172 BCE. [...] Significantly, this dating fits well with the archaeological discovery of the 'proliferation of small sites in the highlands regions' of Palestine in the 12th century. Scholars almost unanimously agree that 'this wave of settlement is to be association in some sense with Israel's arrival or emergence in Canaan...' Bimson not only stresses that the settlement in the hill country could not have been a 13th-century but a 12th-century phenomenon, he goes further to state that 'it is quite probable that it did not begin until the second quarter of the century...' This matches perfectly well our dating of the entry of the Israelite [sic] to the holy land to 40 years after Ramesses II's death!" ("The Mystery of Israel in Ancient Israel", p. 158).
Of course there is. The phrase "alone by himself" and "without equal" mean exactly that. The other interesting feature of Egyptian religion was that the Pharaohs could actually worship their "divine" selves. Islamic-Awareness notes that a relief in temple of Abu Simbel shows Ramesses II "worshiping" himself: "An interesting relief in the Great Temple of Abu Simbel shows the "Lord of Two Lands �Usermare-setpenre�" (= Ramesses II) offering to "Ramesses-meryamun" (= Ramesses II). Obviously, Ramesses II is worshipping Ramesses II here. However, we also note that the worshipper and the one who is worshipped have two different names and that these names are pronomen and nomen of Ramesses II, respectively. A closer look at the iconography reveals that the worshipper and he who is worshipped are not identical. He, to whom the offering is made, is adorned with a sun-disk and has a curved horn around his ear, depicting his divinity. Therefore, Ramesses II is not simply worshipping himself, but his divine self." [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mosespharaoh.html] In other places, Ramesses II is already referred to as "the God". Moreover, in the Quran, the Pharaoh threatened Moses (peace be upon him) with imprisonment if he "put any god other than [him]: "(Pharaoh) said: "If thou dost put forward any god other than me, I will certainly put thee in prison!"" (Surah As-Shu'araa, 26:29) This makes sense since he was considered to be divine and his subjects literally worshiped him. The idea of the Pharaoh being the principal god of the Egyptians is also supported by other evidence. While the Egyptians believed in other gods, it was the Pharaoh's job to worship them, but it was the people's job to worship the Pharaoh. This sort of religious system can be seen, for example, in the reign of Amenophis IV, who tried to make some changes in the Egyptian religion. As Lawrence Boadt explains: "...he [Amenophis IV] changed his own name to Akhenaton, 'The Glory of Aton.' Unfortunately, the pharaoh's reign was too short to bring his reform to success and the religion proved too cold and esoteric to be popular. It centered on the power of the sun disc and its life-giving rays, but in practice it focused on the cult of the pharaoh himself. He worshiped the Aton; the people were to worship him" ("Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction", p. 158). So, the idea that the Pharaoh was the "only god" actually makes sense and has a verifiable precedence in the Egyptian religion. While Amenophis IV's attempted "reform" failed because of the removal of the pantheon in favor of "Aton", the practice of worshiping the Pharaoh clearly remained. And as we saw already, Ramesses II is shown in hieroglyphics as making offerings to the gods and also worshiping himself, while also being referred to by the people as "the God".
Which would confirm the Quran's quote of the Pharaoh saying to his chiefs: "Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! No god do I know for you but myself..." It would also confirm the chiefs' statement to Pharaoh: "And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: "Do you leave Musa and his people to make mischief in the land and to forsake you and your gods?""
The pagan Arabs did indeed believe that Allah was the supreme God, while the others were subservient. However, unlike the Egyptians, they never said that He was "alone by Himself". They also never said that He could make requests of the other gods or that He worshiped Himself. Another interesting feature of the Egyptian religion can be seen in another surviving inscription left by Rekhmere, where he described the Pharaoh in the following manner: "I [saw] his person in his (real) form, Rēʿ the lord of heaven, the king of the two lands when he rises, the solar disk when he shows himself, at whose places are Land and Red Land, their chieftains inclining themselves to him, all Egyptians, all men of family, all the common fold...... ..... lassoing him who attacks him or disputing with him..." [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/egyptiangods.html] Notice that Rekhmere referred to the Pharaoh's "real form", as the sun god Re.
Not at all. To say that the Pharaoh was "alone by himself" and "without equal" would indicate that he was the "only" god. Yet at the same time, the Egyptians believed in other gods. That sounds like a contradiction to me.
No, it didn't. It specifically mentioned the other gods as well. Hence, it correctly described these two main beliefs, and also correctly described the Pharaoh as exalting himself as the Egyptians' "god", something which is confirmed from the Egyptian records. It would not make sense to refer to the Pharaoh as "alone by himself" when he was one god among many.
I certainly will. But my point is that you don't seem to have learned your lesson. You immediately jump on an alleged "error" and bring it up time and time again, only to find out later that in spite of your near "certainty" that there was an error, there really wasn't. In other words, I would think that you would be more cautious.
Or you could start your own religion. Or what about Chrislam?  Anyway, even if you are not "prepared" to become an atheist or a deist, the fact remains that you are still following a religion that you know is wrong on many points. If anything, what you should do is to remain neutral. Don't follow any particular religion yet still believe in God. That would at least make more sense to me.
I disagree. There was clearly a Pharaonic cult that had vast influence in Egypt. We have already seen the examples of Amenophis IV, Tuthmoses III and Ramesses II. Another interesting thing about this cult was how the Pharaohs were viewed by their subjects: "The cult of the king was one of the most prominent features of ancient Egyptian religion. The Egyptian ruler, because of his status as a ntr, or god, received both a cult during his life and after his death. He (or she) acquired and maintained his divinity as a result of specific kingship rituals, of which, the coronation was clearly the most important. In this ceremony, the king was transformed into a god by means of his union with the royal ka, or soul. All previous kings of Egypt had possessed the royal ka, and at his or her coronation, the king became divine as "one with the royal ka when his human form was overtaken by his immortal element, which flows through his whole being and dwells in it". As a god, the King became the son of Re, the sun god, and he was a manifestation of Horus, the falcon god, as well as the son of Osiris. Also, from the Middle Kingdom, there was increasing emphasis placed on his relationship with Amun-Re, and he was described as the son of Amun, the king of the gods. Thus, the king became an intermediary between mankind and
the divine, responsible for sustaining the balance of the
universe through maintaining ma'at,
or divine order. Upon his death, the ancient
Egyptians believed that he became fully divine and
assimilated with Osiris and Re." [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/royalcults.htm#ixzz3DbldVkxC]
Not
only that, but as the Pharaoh, he wouldn't really be doing much work.
So, it is not at all unlikely that he could have pursued the Israelites
even with his arthritis.
None
of the objections you have raised prove that the Quranic version is
erroneous. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to back up the
story and the alleged "errors" are simply the result of
misinterpretation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 September 2014 at 9:54pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I will reply to your response at the latest after the 24th of this month, with a small possibility that it may be a bit sooner.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 September 2014 at 9:52pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not all scholarly sources agree with what Encyclopaedia Britannica states, that the Israelites entered Canaan in 1250 BC.
Some state that they appeared from 1200 BC onwards, and others that they appeared earlier in 1300 BC. However Israel may have originally came into existence, there are some archaeological facts which have been linked with its establishment in its historical homeland. The first is the striking increase in the number of settlements in the highland zone of western Palestine from the late thirteenth century onwards, whereas previously their number had been small. This phenomenon has been associated with the settling down of the Israelites. (The Israelites, B.S.J Isserlin, p 59) Recently, the results of comprehensive archaeological surveys of Israel and to a lesser extent Jordan, combined with discoveries in new excavations in the western hill country in particular, have led to yet another view of the Israelite origins. On the basis of a detailed regional study by I. Finkelstein has proposed that the original heartland of historical Israel was the Ephraim-Manasseh region in western Palestine, where almost 70 percent of all early Israelite settlement sites are located. Other early foci were in Gilead and in the Jordan Valley (where some sites may have been occupied only seasonally). In western Palestine, an Israelite presence (whose antecedents will occupy us shortly) becomes tangible in the late thirteenth or early twelfth century in part of Manasseh and especially in the section of Ephraim extending from the eastern desert fringe to the central hill spine. (The Israelites, B.S.J Isserlin, p 63 Abstract This article discusses issues connected with the emergence and maintenance of cultural identities in multiethnic contexts. Migrations have been shunned during the past few decades as an explanatory tool in the emergence of new cultural entities. It is argued in this article that �migrations� are effective forces of cultural change but they have to be well documented and carefully investigated. The formation of ethnic identity is a complex but dynamic process that does not take place in a vacuum. It sometimes involves �foundational� events, such as key migration, encapsulated in the �social memory�: the trek across the Sinai desert for the Israelites or the move westward along the Wadi-el-Malik for the Shuwa-Arabs to the Lake Chad Basin in West Africa. However, it is more often structured according opposite cultural �archetypes.� The case studies marshaled in this discussion, one archaeological, from the Late Bronze-Iron Age I emergence of Isrealites in highland Canaan (ca. 1300�1100 B.C.), and the other ethnoarchaeological, concerning the Shuwa-Arab settlements of northern Cameroon, both offer distinct histories with striking parallelisms. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278416501903903
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03889.html Aso, in spite of what the Bible says, there was probably no genocidal conquest of Canaan. It seems that the Israelites didn't come at all from Egypt or anywhere else, but instead were just Canaanites who took on a different set of beliefs and a different culture. Perhaps the most memorable event of the Israelite conquest was the destruction of Jericho, where Joshua famously brought down the walls with the mere blowing of a horn, having marched around the city for 10 days. Excavating Jericho in the 1930s, John Garstang (1948) believed he had uncovered evidence of a violent destruction, thereby confirming the Biblical account. However, subsequent excavations by Kathleen Kenyon (1979) turned up Mycenaean pottery within Garstang�s destruction layer, more than a century after Joshua�s campaign is thought to have occurred� Although there is evidence for the destruction of some sites at the end of the twelfth and during the eleventh century BCE, the Egyptians and Sea Peoples, who were present at the time, seem more likely culprits. In addition to the problem of datable destruction layers, a number of scholars have pointed to the evidence for cultural continuity, with little in dramatic changes in material culture that might be expected with the sudden incursion of a new people. For instance, the Bull Site in northern Mannaseh reflects an ongoing Canaanite influence on religious practices, and the same may be said for the linguistic evidence. (Smith 2002). As an alternative to the tale of violent conquest, models suggesting a more peaceful infiltration (Alt 1925) and stressing social theory (Mendelhall 1973; Gottwal 1979) have been advanced. Thus, considering the evidence for cultural continuity during the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I transition, and the lack of evidence for securely dated destruction layers, the literal truth of the Biblical narrative concerning the conquest becomes increasingly difficult to support. Indeed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Amber Silberman have reviewed a good part of the archaeological evidence from this period and concluded: �the process we describe� is the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of an early Israel was the outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause� There was no violent conquest of Canaan. The early Israelites were- irony or ironies- themselves originally Canaanites!� (2001, 118) Ancient Canaan and Israel New Perspectives- Jonathan M. Golden, 60-61) Both the authors of the Bible and Quran messed up here, I think... big time. Edited by TG12345 - 15 September 2014 at 9:44pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TG12345
Senior Member
Male Joined: 16 December 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1146 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 September 2014 at 10:47pm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking forward to the response, will possibly take me a long time to reply so no need for you to rush, unless of course you want to.
Edited by TG12345 - 07 September 2014 at 10:56pm |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
TG12345 wrote: