A challenge for all

  • Thread starter Thread starter ralphinal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those are circular arguments. The earlier part of the book ‘prophecied’ whats gonna happen on the latter part of the book. Thats not proof, sorry.
huh??? :confused: Actually, that is exactly the proof you need.

Sure, in the context of reading a book, that wouldn’t prove anything.

But in the context of history, the events that took place during the Old Testament must have been divinely inspired, because they parallel events that took place in the time of Christ.
 
… we are trying to prove the validity of the work without using anything in the work itself.
Well, since you do indeed wish to verify what is written in the Bible and the Qur’an with reliable scholastic sources which are independent and respected, then how about the following:

THE WORD “PHARAOH” IN THE QUR’AN

In the Old Testament, the Egyptian ruler during the period of Prophet Abraham (pbuh) and Prophet Joseph (pbuh) are named “Pharaoh”. However, this title was actually employed after the eras in which these two Prophets lived.

While addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh), the word “Al-Malik” in Arabic is used in the Qur’an: It refers to a ruler, king or sultan:

The King said, ‘Bring him to me straight away!’… (Qur’an, 12:50)

The ruler of Egypt in the time of the Prophet Moses (pbuh) is referred to as ‘Pharaoh’. This distinction in the Qur’an is not made in the Old and New Testaments nor by Jewish historians. In the Bible, the word “Pharaoh” is used, in every reference to an Egyptian monarch. On the other hand, the Qur’an is far more concise and accurate in the terminology it employs.

The use of the word ‘Pharaoh’ in Egyptian history belongs only to the late period. This particular title began to be employed in the 14th century BC, during the reign of Amenhotep IV. The Prophet Joseph (pbuh) lived at least 200 years before that time.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the word “Pharaoh” was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; BC 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (BC 945-730), after which this term of address became the title of the king. Further information on this subject comes from the Academic American Encyclopaedia, which states that the title of ‘Pharaoh’ began to be used in the New Kingdom.

Just to reiterate the point, it is not the case of the Bible mentioning the term ‘king of Egypt’ that is the issue here, but rather, it is the fact that the Bible refers to this king of Egypt as ‘Pharaoh’ in Genesis when relating the story of Prophet Joseph (pbuh).

This is simply historically inaccurate because the king of Egypt during Joseph’s time was not called ‘Pharaoh’.

This error is not found in the Qur’an whereas the Old Testament and other Jewish scriptures do indeed make this mistake.

The following are excerpts from various articles in Wikipedia:
  1. Pharaoh was a name for the office of kingship in the New Kingdom of ancient Egypt.
  2. The New Kingdom, sometimes referred to as the Egyptian Empire, is the period in ancient Egyptian history between the 16th century BC and the 11th century BC, covering the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt.
  3. Archaeological excavations of the remains of the Abydos mortuary temple of king Ahmose I in the 1990’s have uncovered thousands of fragmentary reliefs depicting this pharaoh’s battles against the Hyksos as well as the earliest known depiction of chariots in Egyptian warfare. This discovery affirms the general view that it was the Hyksos who first brought the chariot into Egypt and permits Joseph to have enjoyed a high position in office during the 15th Hyksos Dynasty as opposed to the later native Egyptian 18th Dynasty… The price of 20 Derham which was paid for Joseph’s slavery in Mesopotamia also affirms a relative date for Joseph in the 18th or 17th Century BC.
And according to MSN Encarta:

Pharaoh (Egyptian “great house”), name originally used by the ancient Egyptians for the palace of their king. Beginning in the 18th Dynasty (1550-1307 BC) it was applied by extension to the king himself.

And so then, there you have it – no less than four independent and respected sources i.e. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Academic American Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia and MSN Encarta, have all verified that it is simply not accurate to use the term ‘Pharaoh’ when referring to the king of Egypt before the 18th Dynasty.

We need to always remember the golden rule i.e. God NEVER makes mistakes of any kind.

That being the case, is there anyone here who would care to give a simple and unequivocal answer to the following question:

Around 1400 years ago when the Qur’an was revealed, who else apart from God Himself would possibly have known then about this inaccuracy of the Bible in using the word ‘Pharaoh’ when referring to the king of Egypt during the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh)?
 
I thought this might be hard, but it is interesting to me, anyway.

Hamba,
Didn’t you and Socrates discuss this already on another thread? It seems like there was the issue that by the time the Book of Genisis was written, Pharaoh was used for king of Egypt and that is why the sacred writer used it. I think the issue was raised about translations. It can be translated as King as well, but the Western world, rightly or wrongly, uses Pharaoh for Egypt’s king no matter the era.
 
It can be translated as King as well, but the Western world, rightly or wrongly, uses Pharaoh for Egypt’s king no matter the era.
It is not the Western world that is the issue here but rather, it is the accuracy of the Bible and all the writings of past Jewish historians that existed at the time the Qur’an was revealed that needs to be examined here.

Again I will ask:

**Around 1,400 years ago when the Qur’an was revealed, who else apart from God Himself would possibly have known then about this inaccuracy of the Bible in using the word ‘Pharaoh’ when referring to the king of Egypt during the time of Prophet Joseph and also Prophet Abraham (pbut)?

Since the Bible has obviously got it wrong, then how is it that the Qur’an is perfectly accurate when not referring to the king of Egypt as ‘Pharaoh’ at the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh)?**

If Christians and Jews (or anyone else for that matter) are unable to give unequivocal answers to such simple questions, then what would be the point in them asking for even more proof of the divine origin of the Qur’an?

When reading a book, it is important that we finish one chapter before jumping to a later chapter in order for us to really understand the subject that we are reading.
 
This was discussed here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3022302#post3022302

Hamba,
I see your point, but please see where we are coming from. The word Pharaoh was the word used when the story was first written. God did not tell Moses the story of Joseph, rather is was passed down orally through the Isrealites as they lived in Egypt. Besides, as Valke said in that post, just because the word was commonly used in later eras it does not mean that it was not used at all.

Again, the point of this thread is can you use a method outside of the Bible or Koran to prove it to be sacred? Not can you use either to prove themselves or can you use anything IN the books to disprove them.
 
I don’t believe that Jesus ever rose from the dead, he in my opinion got cured from the injuries as did Lazarus got cured from the near-dead.
Do you guys believe Jesus’ apostles were martyred because they believed He rose from the dead?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paarsurrey
I don’t believe that Jesus ever rose from the dead, he in my opinion got cured from the injuries as did Lazarus got cured from the near-dead
Do you guys believe Jesus’ apostles were martyred because they believed He rose from the dead?
Hi MarcoPolo

Is your question addressed to me? Then I have not understood your question. Please elaborate,

Thanks
 
Alright, we have a question. Can it be proven that the Bible is valid sacred text without quoting the Bible? Can the Koran be proven without quoting the Koran? Simply put, can we use some methodology to figure out which one is more likely correct? I think that we should try to keep the talk charitable. No anti- anything on this thread please.
God said to test Him and see for yourself. Islam’s allah however says don’t challenge its quran or you will get killed (by its people).
 
The only (singular) way of proving anything is “sacred” is by revelation from the “sacred source”, assuming the source is actually sacred.

Any other “method” is not “proof” at all, but only “persuasion”.

Some beings are VERY good at “persuasion”. Such as, … well you know.

The only way to have any chance of getting actual revelation from an actual sacred source is to appeal to for revelation.

This assumes that if you were to appeal to THE most good and THE most omnipotent (!?) source of sacredness, <insert “probably singular” pronoun here> would be able to overide any “lesser power” and see to it that you got what you sought.

Only prayer in petition to the actual God who is God for confirmation that He is God can establish that He is indeed the source of the sacred.

And armed with this, we can know what ( who!? ) His singular temporal “outlet” of authority is. And armed with that, we can confirm which texts are truly sacred, by simply asking Him (The Church who is the Body of Christ).

In other words, YES, You CAN confirm that the bible is a valid sacred text without using the bible to confirm itself as sacred.

But the singular way of doing so annoys very nearly everyone but a “good” Catholic.

👍 Well said.​

If something is thought to be of Divine origin, human reason is woefully, wretchedly, miserably insufficient to show that it is Divine. One might as well expect a goldfish to lecture on astronomy. In fact, human beings are far less unlike goldfish than God is unlike us - for He is both transcendent & supernatural. Unlike any of His creatures.

And because we are creatures, a Divine message has to be in a form suited to our weakness & poverty - so the Bible is able to be mistaken for a purely human production. So there is no way but faith to trace it back to its Author. There is nothing Divine about the Chosen People themselves, but only in His dealings with them - to be God belongs to God alone, not to His People.

Besides, ISTM to be the wrong approach for us to try to prove the validity of Divine gifts by human reason; because faith in Christ is not based on reason, not on human brilliance in any form whatsoever, but on the Divine Gift of a Divine Person joined with the gift of faith to recognise Him as Who He is 🙂 So it can’t be validated by reason - that would destroy it in the act of proving it. If it depends on the insight of a created intellect, it becomes a philosophy for the brilliant, & not a faith for the unlearned also; so it ceases to be the gift of God for the salvation of all.
 
Hi MarcoPolo

Is your question addressed to me? Then I have not understood your question. Please elaborate,

Thanks
Do Muslims understand that the apostles were willing to accept death because they believed in Christ?
 
Do Muslims understand that the apostles were willing to accept death because they believed in Christ?
Hi

The Apostles are not a issue for the Muslims. They deserted Jesus in the hour of need and ran away from the scene of Cross as per Bible that finishes their credence if any. Jesus also left them behind, when he departed from Galilee with his mother Mary to far off lands he did not take them alongwith him, so that finishes our interest in them as they were left behind.

I think you understand. The importance to Muslim is of Jesus and not others.

ThanksThanks
 
Hi

The Apostles are not a issue for the Muslims. They deserted Jesus in the hour of need and ran away from the scene of Cross as per Bible that finishes their credence if any. Jesus also left them behind, when he departed from Galilee with his mother Mary to far off lands he did not take them alongwith him, so that finishes our interest in them as they were left behind.

I think you understand. The importance to Muslim is of Jesus and not others.

ThanksThanks
It sounds like you’re suggesting that the Apostles didn’t die for their faith in Christ.
 
Do Muslims understand that the apostles were willing to accept death because they believed in Christ?
This point has been raised before, and never really answered. Paar points out that they deserted him, but he does not say that they came back!! From what I have seen, Muslims stop the story where they want it to end, not where it actually ends.

I keep thinking about the words of the High Priest in Acts. He mentions that if this new faith (Christianity) is of men, it would vanish, but if it is from God, they should be careful lest they end up fighting God.
 
This point has been raised before, and never really answered. Paar points out that they deserted him, but he does not say that they came back!! From what I have seen, Muslims stop the story where they want it to end, not where it actually ends.
It does seem that way and I realize the point about them coming back…but if the Muslim position is to ignore anyone who abandoned Jesus at any point, then they would presumably still recognize John’s testimony. But so far I see no evidence of that. 😊
 
Hi

We Muslims maintain:
  1. The apostles deserted Jesus at hour of need when he was put on Cross.
  2. Jesus did not take them along when he went to far off lands from Galilee perhaps he did not trust them though he took Mary with him.
  3. Jesus never mentioned about martyrdom of the apostles.
    Our prime interest is in JesusYeshuaIssa not in the apostles.
Did Jesus die on the Cross? A BBC documentary
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669658378154953060&q

Thanks
 
Hi

We Muslims maintain:
  1. The apostles deserted Jesus at hour of need when he was put on Cross.
  2. Jesus did not take them along when he went to far off lands from Galilee perhaps he did not trust them though he took Mary with him.
  3. Jesus never mentioned about martyrdom of the apostles.
    Our prime interest is in JesusYeshuaIssa not in the apostles.
Did Jesus die on the Cross? A BBC documentary
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669658378154953060&q

Thanks
I’ve mentioned this before, but there were Apostles in that far off land that you refer to (Thomas) and none of the churches there report Jesus having been there. Jesus went to heaven before the Apostles were killed, and the Gosples were, for the most part, written before that time too. John’s was written after that, but the actual deaths of the Apostles were not the story he was telling. he did include the prophasy about Peter’s execution.

I hav enot ahd a chance to view that link, but once I do I will respond.
 
paar,

I had a chance to watch the video link. INteresting. I find it somewhat problematic that there were no counter arguements shown. The Christians posted seemed to be of a group called the Jesus Seminar. These people deny that any miracles ever took place, including anything in the Bible (or the Koran, for that matter). They are Christian in name only, as they do not accept Jesus as God.

Now, about the claim that Jesus took his mother with him. Acts of the Apostles tells us that she was with the Apostles after Jesus acended into heaven on the day of Pentecost. So, according to this, he left her. Further, early Christian documents place her with John at Ephisis.
(1) A passage in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus [111] reads: “Wherefore also Nestorius, the instigator of the impious heresy, when he had come to the city of the Ephesians, where John the Theologian and the Virgin Mother of God St. Mary, estranging himself of his own accord from the gathering of the holy Fathers and Bishops. . .” Since St. John had lived in Ephesus and had been buried there [112], it has been inferred that the ellipsis of the synodal letter means either, “where John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived”, or, “where John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived and are buried”.
Some beleive that she stayed in Jerusalem. Either way, she lived with the early Church in the Middle East, not in India.
 
I find it interesting that the Muslims alone seem to be bent on hijacking this thread. I wonder why?
Alright, we have a question.
We?
Can it be proven that the Bible is valid sacred text without quoting the Bible?
That doesn’t make sense Ralph.

The Bible is a book with words in it. How can you prove it is either true, false, sacred or demonic if you can’t read it?
Can the Koran be proven without quoting the Koran?
Same thing. If you can’t look at it, how can you prove it is anything.
Simply put, can we use some methodology to figure out which one is more likely correct?
But you can’t quote it. So how do you do that? Do you use the Karnack method popularized by Johnny Carson?
I think that we should try to keep the talk charitable. No anti- anything on this thread please.
To prove the Bible is sacred, you need to examine what it says.

To prove the Quran is what the Muslims claim, you need to examine what it says and compare it to the Muslim claims.

Am I missing something? Are you trying to avoid “circular logic”?

To do so, you must confirm the words of the books in question with an outside source. Either historical, scientific or other verifiable facts.

Sincerely,

De Maria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top