Dawood Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Its talking about Joshua and there where plenty of prophets after Moshe. I know that in the late 1800's jews where being persicuted and killed because of thier religion in syria, iraq, yemen, and a few other countries. It got so bad in yemen that israel ran a rescue mission to save the yeminite jews. The jews that left the other countries where forbiden to take anything with them but the shirts on thier back and could not sell thier property or businesses. Its kind of unknown to the western world... Joshua? Where are the books of Joshua? So, No Jesus, No Muhammad (peace be upon them) But, let me get this straight, there were plenty prophets, but Jesus and Muhammad werent prophets? Who were the prophets after Moses ?(peace be upon him)\ This is new to me. What about the Messiah? Who is the Messiah according to Judaism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth bruce, you are a spineless coward. Didn't your mother ever tell you if you have nothing good to say then don't say anything. now, shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Joshua? Where are the books of Joshua? So, No Jesus, No Muhammad (peace be upon them) But, let me get this straight, there were plenty prophets, but Jesus and Muhammad werent prophets? Who were the prophets after Moses ?(peace be upon him)\ This is new to me. What about the Messiah? Who is the Messiah according to Judaism? Right after the torah. Its the first book of navi (prophets). So i guess the koran cut that and kituvim (writtings) out....weird... Jesus and Muhammad came after the end of the prophets. After the first temple was destroyed there where no more prophets. as for a list of the prophets: click here The Messia hasnt come yet, so we dont know who he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Those to whom We gave the Scripture (jews and Christians) recognise him (Muhammad or the Ka'bah at Makkah) as they recongise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it - [i.e. the qualities of Muhammad which are written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)]. (Al-Baqarah 2:146) The people of the Scripture (jews) ask you to cause a book to descend upon them from heaven. Indeed they asked Mûsa (Moses) for even greater than that, when they said: "Show us Allâh in public," but they were struck with thunder clap and lightning for their wickedness. Then they worshipped the calf even after clear proofs, evidences, and signs had come to them. (Even) so We forgave them. And We gave Mûsa (Moses) a clear proof of authority. (An-Nisa 4:153) And argue not with the people of the Scripture (jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islâmic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong, and say (to them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilâh (God) and your Ilâh (God) is One (i.e. Allâh), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)." (Al-'Ankabut 29:46) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Hey was Moses that guy involved in the exodus? You know the exodus that never happend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth hey dawood i didnt want to start a whole thread about this so i thought id just ask you in here. why do you believe you are entitled to a polygamous lifestyle with numerous wives yet you would be livid if one of your wives (or a woman close to you such as a sister) had multiple husbands? why is it you think you are entitled to numerous women but they must all be faithful to just you? what is it about you that leads you to believe that multiple women should devote their lives to you only, without recieving this same love and commitment in return from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Hey was Moses that guy involved in the exodus? You know the exodus that never happend actually there is resounding evidence to prove it did. I watched whole pbs program on it. edit:and i have no idea what your getting at dawo od. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth There is resounding evidence that proves through moses "god" had a personnal little war with an egyptian pharaoh? well actually there is not. Archeology in the past 30 years has reduced the historical probability of the Exodus from slim to none. There is not a lick of proof of the destination of Exodus. Even though we should have extensive amounts of evidence of an invasion of Hebrews into Canaan, we have none. No proof for the Exodus itself. We have evidence of nomads crossing the desert, but nothing of 2 million (or 20,000 if you prefer the variant reading) wandering about this area. We have no proof, no archeological fact, not a single historical writing that the beginning of the Exodus occurred—the Ten Plagues. Using the very familiar “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” Christians often claim that the reason there is no evidence is that the Egyptians would not record these events as embarrassing, or as a cover-up for their incompetence. The problem is—these events would have too large of an impact--politically, militarily, economically and socially, to have covered them up. Have you ever read the story of the Plagues and thought about the results in the society? Egypt would have been wiped off the map! The Ten Plagues could not have happened as recorded in the book of Exodus. First of all, the length of time between plagues is not recorded. Did this happen over one year? Did it happen over a period of years? Depending on the convenience of the apologists, opinions differ. The impression given is that this happened in a short period of time. We have seven days between the first and second plague. There is the implication that within the same harvest time some grain is not wiped up, and subsequently it is wiped out. On the other hands, animals keep re-appearing, after having been allegedly killed off on previous plagues, which would imply this was over longer periods of time. If it happened in a short time, as we will see, all Egyptians would be dead. If over a longer period of time, more archeological evidence and writing would have happened and didn’t. Either proposition is difficult. Secondly, there is a question as to how far-reaching these plagues were. When it says “every” is that just exaggeration for “quite a bit”? Were they localized? The problem with this proposition is that God intended this to be a demonstration of His glory. A local sickness, killing a few cows, or a bad summer storm would not be remarkable. If the Christian wants this tale to be the jumping-off point for the establishment of Israel, it would have to be more than a few bugs. To say, “This was so grand that God provided a way for 2 Million people to exit Exodus” and then follow up with “but it wasn’t all that as recorded in the book” is to want one’s cake and eat it too! Finally, there are substantial reasons to determine these stories are allegories—never happened. For purposes of this particular blog, I am addressing those Christians that hold these were historical facts, and asking them to think about the implications. Water to Blood The Nile, every stream, every river, every pond, even water stored in vessels turns to blood. 7:19. (All verses from Exodus.) First of all this would mean the loss of drinking water. The Bible notes this problem. 7:24. How does one transport the water from rivers and streams inland? The effort must be made to dig new wells, then transport it. This could not be done in any short time at all. We still have images of victims of Hurricane Katrina, and the water problem of New Orleans. This is in an industrialized nation, with motor vehicles, planes, boats, and organizations specifically designed to respond to these types of needs. We have stored water, and could transport water from other locations. ALL of the water in Egypt turned to blood. They had no reserves. There would be a loss of life due to dehydration. Secondly, while there would be alternative drinking sources (milk, juice, even wine) concentration would be placed on re-obtaining water itself. This would bring any industry to a halt, as people would be concentrating on the water problem, and not the work at hand. But most important would be the loss of marine life. The fish (and other sea creatures) died. 7:21. Later, this will have in impact as to a food source. Environmental water systems, such as rivers, ponds and streams, have a necessary balance. By wiping out all of the fish, this balance would be irrevocably upset. It is not as if the blood turned back to water, and fish all of a sudden re-appeared. They were gone. It would take decades, if ever, for marine life to replenish and re-habit the rivers. Birds that relied upon the fish for food would migrate or die. Crocodiles that relied upon the birds and fish for food would look to alternative sources. Every creature, dependant on marine life, would find alternatives, leave, or die. Arguably, this would be enough to cripple Egypt. And we are on the first one! Frogs, flies, boils and darkness While none of these plagues would be necessarily deadly; they would bring the economy of Egypt to a halt. There would be no building projects. No working in the fields. No fishing (as if there were fish), no transportation, no commerce, no trading. Interspersed among the other plagues, the fact that the nation was immobilized would result in only a few deaths, but would be crippling to its economy. Anyone caught in the August 2003 blackout of North East America is familiar with how industry can come to an immediate halt. Again, even in an industrialized nation, a little thing like no electricity caused entire states to come to a standstill, and caused a ripple effect across America, regarding transportation and industry. Imagine the results in 15th Century BCE Egypt! Death of Livestock The beginning of the terrible plagues. Every Egyptian cow, horse, donkey, oxen, camel and sheep are killed. This would cause devastating problems in a variety of areas. In transportation, every thing would have to be done on foot. Any heavy lifting or tilling of the ground would come to a standstill. The bodies would have to be buried (under dead frog carcasses, if they were still around). But most importantly would be the loss of meat. While the Egyptians could live on grains, fruits and stores, animals would be necessary for protein input. (Don’t forget, we already lost all our fish.) Wild game would be the only option, and would start to be hunted with a vengeance. There are no babies to grow into the next generation of animals, no cycle of life happening. The Egyptians would be forced to turn to outside sources to obtain new animals—both fully grown, as well as young to replenish the stock. At this point, we would see a huge influx of Egyptian goods being traded to outside countries for their animals. An outpouring of gold, weapons, pottery, farm goods, rope, anything to replace these animals. While there would already be some trafficking of animals, nothing on the scale to provide animals for all of Egypt! Traders would be desperately attempting to get animals from neighboring countries, to sell to the Egyptians for ten times the price. This is not a matter of weeks, or months, but rather years to attempt to replace a portion of these animals. Imagine being an Egyptian farmer in the interior of Egypt, and you just lost 10 sheep. How do you replace them? By the time you walk to the border, every other person has arrived before you, bartering for sheep. The price is exorbitant; more than you can ever afford. Within a day or two, there are no longer any sheep even for sale. But you hear a rumor of more sheep coming in. So you wait a week. As more traders come in, more people arrive, and the princely sums paid the first days appear to be bargains now. Another week, another week. Every sheep is snatched up if even a bleat is heard. Egyptians start traveling farther to cut-off the traders. After a few months, you realize that you will not be able to afford sheep this year. No more coming in, all have been bought. You go back and hope for next year. Or the year after that, maybe. But you probably won’t live that long—look what is coming next. Hail Wipes out many of the animals that were just obtained from other countries, some servants, and much of the crops. 9:25. Again, the prices of animals would skyrocket from already unobtainable prices. Traders already completely depleted would see repeat customers begging for more. Other nations could not help salivating at the ripe plum Egypt had become for capture. Extremely diminished, if any cavalry. No chariots to speak of. People desperate. Rioting over a caught sparrow. All efforts concentrating on survival, not production. And for the animals that are left, what do you feed them? People have no meat, and now have no grain to eat. Stealing would be rampant. Any laws would break down at this point, and enforcement would be impossible. Stores would be rampaged and emptied. The officials indicate how bad this is by claiming that Egypt is destroyed. 10:7 Now the traders would be aware that it was grain that was in high demand. All the animal auction tents would be immediately converted to grain auction tents. The prices would go up. And people would starve. Locusts A killer. Every single plant is gone; nothing green is left. 10:15. (Note: this would have done within the same harvest as the hail. 10:12) The few animals left would have nothing to eat. They would die. What would the people eat? There is no marine life. No wild animals now. No cattle, sheep, or even pigeons. But more importantly, no grain. No fruits. No vegetables. The only food source possible would be from outside sources or roots dug up. The riches of Egypt, gold statutes, gold plates, weapons, anything of value would literally pour out of Egypt. Due to the amounts that could be charged for just a handful of wheat, the poor would die. The rich would soon be the poor. Those in the interior of Egypt would not have access to the trading from other countries. They would be limited by transportation. Traders at the exterior of Egypt could not get stores from nearby countries fast enough to keep people from starving. We would see a mass migration away from Egypt at this point—people leaving to go into any other country just to eat grass and live. Reflect where we are at. There was a lack of water for a period, causing dehydration. Then frogs, gnats and boils, causing sickness, and limiting commerce. A loss of animals, causing a loss of food source, and significant transportation problems. Any animals replaced are killed. All vegetation wiped out. No food, sickness about, weakness within the people the social structure, the economy, the military and economy. Tenth Plague The firstborn of every family dies. Including the firstborn of the livestock. (Where do these animals keep coming from? And to the point of having firstborns?) Every single home in Egypt has someone die. 12:30. This would be completely demoralizing. We have had mass deaths already from sickness and starvation. An additional death in every household. The nation would crumble. Frankly, taken literally, I would not see how there would be that many people even alive in Egypt at this point, as it was. Oddly, the book records that the Hebrews asked the Egyptians for gold, silver and clothing, and since the Egyptians were favored toward the Hebrews, they just gave it up. 12:35-36. After reading what the plagues were doing, does this make any sense at all? Army wiped out Although technically not a plague, it is an important event that happened immediately on the heels of these national tragedies, that would further demonstrate how Egypt would no longer be in existence if the Plagues happened as recorded. Pharaoh pursues the Hebrews with all of his army, all the chariots and horsemen (where DO those horses keep coming from?), and his captains. 14:9. And they are wiped out. 14:28. At this point, there is no military defense to a crippled nation. Remember, the Philistines were right next door, and were so warlike not even YHWH wanted to take them on. 13:17. And to top this all off, the Egyptians lose a slave labor force. Can anyone take this literally? We have massive death, economic ruin, military exterminated, society destroyed, and yet what do we see when reviewing the Egyptian history? Nothing. Not a thing. Not a blip, not a burp, not even a hiccup. No massive graves. Egyptian goods stay in Egypt. The military remains a powerful force. Marine life, harvest, livestock all remain as they were. Even assuming the Egyptians desired to eliminate the history by not recording it, the effects would be evident. If God did it to demonstrate his Glory, then he immediately removed all traces of it happening. Removed all the bodies. Replaced all the animals. Took the gold/silver from the traders and replaced it in Egyptian coffers. Restored the military. Re-established the society. Is that what Christians are saying happened? A miracle that, once recorded in people’s minds, all effects were miraculously removed? OR, is it more likely this is a story. A legend. In stories and legends, we don’t have to worry about the effects. We can introduce animals, or remove animals as necessary. We can “wipe out an entire crop” and not worry about what the actual results of such actions would be. It is a story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth that's the bible ,man.. The bible was translated from Aramaic to Hebrew, from Hebrew to Latin, from latin to greek, and from greek to English. Do you think anyone can make sense of the bible after all of that?? And where are the original Bible manuscripts in Aramaic? They keep finding new so called "scriptures" that change the whole foundation of their religion Like the dead sea scrolls and now the book of Judas. That's exactly why I'm not a christian. (among other reasons) But if the bible as it is today were the true word of God you would at least think that the language that Jesus spoke would still exist. Jesus was a prophet and a messenger of God and he was revealed scripture from God, but the scripture revealed to him is definately not the bible of today. Jesus didn't speak english. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth hey dawood i didnt want to start a whole thread about this so i thought id just ask you in here. why do you believe you are entitled to a polygamous lifestyle with numerous wives yet you would be livid if one of your wives (or a woman close to you such as a sister) had multiple husbands? why is it you think you are entitled to numerous women but they must all be faithful to just you? what is it about you that leads you to believe that multiple women should devote their lives to you only' date=' without recieving this same love and commitment in return from you?[/quote'] Islam's Position on Polygamy Muslims are often accused of being promiscuous because polygamy is legal in Islam. Islam did not introduce polygamy. Unrestricted polygamy was practiced in most human societies throughout the world in every age. Islam regulated polygamy by limiting the number of wives and establishing responsibility in its practice. Monogamy of the West inherited from Greece and Rome where men were restricted by law to one wife but were free to have as many mistresses among the majority slave population as they wished. In the West today, most married men have extramarital relations with mistresses, girlfriends and prostitutes. Consequently the Western claim to monogamy is false. Monogamy illogical. If a man wishes to have a second wife whom he takes care of and whose children carry his name and he provides for he is considered a criminal, bigamist, who may be sentenced to years in jail. However, if he has numerous mistresses and illegitimate children his relation is considered legal. Men created polygamous because of a need in human society. There is normally a surplus of women in most human societies.1 The surplus is a result of men dying in wars, violent crimes and women outliving men.2 The upsurge in homosexuality further increases the problem. If systems do not cater to the need of surplus women it will result in corruption in society. Example, Germany after World War II, when suggestions to legalize polygamy were rejected by the Church. Resulting in the legalization of prostitution. German prostitutes are considered as workers like any other profession. They receive health benefits and pay taxes like any other citizen. Furthermore, the rate of marriage has been steadily declining as each succeeding generation finds the institution of marriage more and more irrelevant. Western anthropologists argue that polygamy is a genetic trait by which the strongest genes of the generation are passed on. Example, the lion king, the strongest of the pack, monopolizes the females thereby insuring that the next generation of lion cubs will be his offspring. Institutional polygamy prevents the spread of diseases like Herpes and AIDS. Such venereal diseases spread in promiscuous societies where extra-marital affairs abound. Polygamy protects the interests of women and children in society. Men, in Western society make the laws. They prefer to keep polygamy illegal because it absolves them of responsibility. Legalized polygamy would require them to spend on their additional wives and their offspring. Monogamy allows them to enjoy extra-marital affairs without economic consequence. Only a minority will practice polygamy in Muslim society. In spite of polygamy being legal in Muslim countries, only 10-15% of Muslims in these countries practice polygamy. Although the majority of men would like to have more than one wife, they cannot afford the expense of maintaining more than one family. Even those who are financially capable of looking after additional families are often reluctant due to the psychological burdens of handling more than one wife. The family problems and marital disputes are multiplied in plural marriages. Conditions have been added for polygamy in many Muslim countries. For example, in Egypt, the permission of the first wife must first be obtained. This and similar conditions are a result of colonial domination. No woman in her right mind will give her husband permission to take a second wife. Such a condition, in fact, negates the permission given by God in the Qur'an. Others have accepted polygamy on condition that it not be for “lust”. That is, if the wife is ill, or unable to bear children, or unable to fulfill the husband's sexual needs, etc., taking a second wife is acceptable. Otherwise it becomes “lust” on the husband's part and is consequently not acceptable. The reality is that “lust” was involved in the marriage of the first wife. Why is it acceptable in the case of the first and not the second? As has already been pointed out, men are polygamous by nature. To try to curb it by such conditions will only lead to corruption in society. Feminists may object to this male right by insisting that women should also be able to practice polygamy. However, a woman marrying four husbands would only increase the problem of surplus women. Furthermore, no child would accept his or her mother identifying the father by the “eeny meeny miney mo” method. The question which remains is, “If God is good and wishes good for His creatures, why did he legislate something which would be harmful to most women?” Divine legislation looks at the society as a whole seeking to maximize benefit. If a certain legislation benefits the majority of the society and causes some emotional harm to a minority, the general welfare of society is given precedence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth Haha this guy doesnt know what he's talking about. This guy obviously did little reaserch. read these: http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Exodus.asp http://aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth And where are the original Bible manuscripts in Aramaic? They keep finding new so called "scriptures" that change the whole foundation of their religion Like the dead sea scrolls no they werent in aramaic i thought we went through this already. Aramaic is a fusion of hebrew and babylonian. They dead sea scrolls are facinating I highly suggest that if you have time you read them and some of thier history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B10N1X Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth i dont believe in monogamy but i dont believe in Polygamy either um it's hard to explain what i believe but i know monogamy was created by man for the same exact reason Monogamy allows them to enjoy extra-marital affairs without economic consequence. this is what i don't quite get Feminists may object to this male right by insisting that women should also be able to practice polygamy. However, a woman marrying four husbands would only increase the problem of surplus women.\\\ okay how is that possible i mean its one woman for 4 men..i would not be stupid enough to even marry 4 men just being involved and not married to one is enough now i can understand if the woman is a slut and just loves sex but if she is up to mothering children for 4 different men then why not she has four different incomes coming in to support those children and if the men are aware of her actions and are still stupid enough for getting involved shouldn't they be held accountable and be forced to pay child support for their own kids the ones that will be DNA tested since we do have the technology to do so this day in age wouldn't that get rid of the eeny meeny miney mo problem all together wouldn't the female be doing the man and her creator a favor by producing children male or female ..... Adam and Eve worked side by side in The Garden of Eden and so did their children they instilled a lifestyle that would keep harmony in their tribe that lifestyle would eventually makes its way into the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth((Christ Michael)). maybe i didn't read it right but what i did understand i still find questionable i still dont approve that men should dominate women and i don't feel it should be the other way around i see a future where we are considerd one now that whole equal rights feminist shyt i cant totally buy either becasue i see feminist has vengeful and sometimes hateful man haters who have inconsistencies in their message i don't believe a woman should be looked down on by other women because she decides to stay home and mother children and take care of her husband a woman who wants to take care of her husband should be respected as well by her husband and the rest of society so yea anyways maybe i am getting it wrong but this is how i feel If anyone else has problem with my lack of punctuation and grammar and decide not to read what i write then good for you cause you probably wont like what i say anyways.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth The relationship between a man and his 2-3 or 4 wives in Islam is not one of domination or the women being subjugated to his whims . The relationship is based on equality and fairness between wives. It is based on mercy and mutual respect. All parties have to be mature and God- fearing individuals in order for it to work properly. The prophet Muhammad said "the best of you are the ones who are best to their families". Polygamy is not for everyone. It works for some people and it doesn't work out for others. I tried it when I was a new muslim, with 2 new muslim sisters. It didn't work out well for us. I'd be willing to try it again under the right circumstances becuase In my view, men are naturally inclined to having more women than one. It's that simple. Nevermind all of the societal benefits like solving the surplus women problem etc. Men, by nature like to be with more women than 1. Not every man, I guess. But for the most part, men want more than 1 woman, but just aren't man enough to admit it sometimes. Muslims understand this nature and instead of supressing it, There are guidelines that need to be followed so none of the wives rights are taken away from them. The man should be equal in spending, equal in how he treats them, equal in the time he spends with them. And it is a severe threat by God for the one who does injustice to any of his wives. If anyone denies the fact that the majority men like more women than 1, then you are denying the truth and you don't have to go any further than channel zero to confirm that. women on the other hand are not as promiscuos as men (by nature) Women are usually promiscuous for different reasons. Usually to get a man. Women don't usually sleep around unless they are trying to get that mans attention and keep him. Men, on the other hand. Sex is the motivating factor and once he gets that, he's hit the mark. Women use sex as a tool to get men's attention and affection. Normal women don't want several men at a time. They want a good man to live happily ever after with. It's funny that people take issue with polygamy , but nobody has a problem with promiscuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeedependency Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth supposing the exodus isn't hugely fabricated, why would pharaoh pursue the jews after moses totally fucked egypt up, evidently by the will of god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth The Quran on the topic Pharoah and Exodus. And (remember) when We delivered you from Fir'aun's (pharaoh) people, who were afflicting you with a horrible torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and therein was a mighty trial from your Lord. (Al-Baqarah 2:49) And (remember) when We separated the sea for you and saved you and drowned Fir'aun's (pharaoh) people while you were looking (at them, when the sea-water covered them). (Al-Baqarah 2:50) One of the most intriguing predictions made by the Quran concerns a Pharoh of Egypt, called Merneptah, who was theson of Rameses 2. According to historical records, this king was drowned in pursuit of Moses in the Red Sea. When the Quran was revealed, the only other mention of Pharoah was in the Bible, the sole reference to his drowning being in the Book of Exodus: And the waters returned, and covered the Chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharoah that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. (Exodus, 14:28) Amazingly, when this was all the world knew about the drowning of Pharoah, the Quran produced this astounding revelation: We shall save you in your body this day, so that you may become a sign to those after you. (10:92) How extraordinary this verse must have appeared when it was revealed. At that time no one knew that the Pharoah's body was really intact, and it was nearly 1400 years before this fact came to light. It was a Professor Loret who, in 1898, was the first person to find the mummified remains of the Pharoah who lived in Moses' day. For 3000 years the corpse had remained wrapped in a sheet in the tomb of the Nercopolis at Thebes where Loret had found it, until July 8, 1907, when Elliot Smith uncovered it and subjected it to proper scientific examination. In 1912 he published a book, entitled The Royal Mummies. His research had proved that the mummy discovered by Loret was indeed that of the Pharoah who "knew Moses, resisted his pleas, pursued him as he took flight, lost his life in the process. His earthly remains were saved by the will of God from destruction to become a sign to man, as is written in the Quran." (Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Quran and Science, p. 241). In 1975, Dr Bucaille, made a detailed examination of the Phaoah's mummy, which by then had been taken to Cairo. His findings led him to write in astonishment and acclaim: "Those who seek among modern data for proof of the Holy Scriptures will find a magnificent illustration of the verses of the Quran dealing with the Pharoah's body by visiting the Royal Mummies Room of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo." (Ibid, p.241.) As early as the seventh century A.D., the Quran had asserted that the Pharoah's body was preserved as a sign for man, but it was only in the 19th century that the body's discovery gave concrete proof of this prediction. here's a picture of the pharoahs body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B10N1X Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth i read somewhere in the past in some tribes marriages only lasted a year and at the end of the year the woman and the man could decide wether they wanted to stay in the marriage or not ...... i think they should bring this back into effect here in the USA.. people are bad at choosing mates thats what i think at least most of them .... some of them do pretty good jobs but who knows if anyone is really happy in marriage and obviously many are not so thats why the one year rule might work out for every one ........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth how equal is it if the woman cant have more than 1 husband? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B10N1X Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth how equal is it if the woman cant have more than 1 husband? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 15, 2006 Author Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth what I meant by equal was that a man has to be equal between his wives. I wasn't trying to claim equality between men and women. Men and women aren't the same. They have different emotional needs, different physical needs. What I was saying is that a man has to be equitable in all his affairs between his wives. I don't beleive in this modern day so called " equality of the sexes" although I believe women have as many rights as men. I just disagree with men acting like women and women acting like men. There should be a clear distinction between a man and a woman and their roles in society and family should be clear. In no way do I think women should be held in unhappy marriages or forced marriages. That's totally unproductive and repressive. Polygamy works when all parties involved are in agreement and are seeking the pleasure of Allah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeedependency Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth the above mummified pharaoh was found in a tomb? also: [Mary Nell] cites Ron's discovery of a wheel hub that he brought to the surface in the late 1970s as proof. The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C. Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity regardless, the above pharaoh predates this supposed chariot wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 15, 2006 Author Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth where did you get this story about a wheel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B10N1X Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth marriage should be a spiritual commitment between two bodies, minds and souls they must become one and together love their creator and produce other human children of "God" so they to can love it........if a man could not commit to me on those levels he is not worthy of being my husband and that's how i see it but this materialistic idea of marriage today makes me want to vomit and the more of my friends i see get married for all the wrong reasons makes me not want to get married at all and if one day i decide hey i cant deal with this anymore i can just pack up and leave. i hate how the system is so involved with our mating habits i mean it makes little sense to me but when i think of how cruel people can be then it makes total sense and i can understand but i can never fully agree with it because it shouldn't be necessary i believe we are evolving spiritually as a human race but as long as we are set in our old ways we cannot make the transition a more peaceful one and i guess this is how its destined to be......... dawood i dont judge you....or your views and beliefs im not to aware of what they are at one time i was involved with a Muslim he was okay at first but his father hated me he didn't even know me but he hated me becasue his son had a wife chosen for him so i was a threat and so he called me names and i was only 15 this guy was in his 40's now not even one month later this guy and i are having an argument over how we would raise children that i never said would be his i just mentioned i would not raise my children believing in religion and he insisted that OUR children be Muslim like him so i told him to get the hell away from me becasue the tone he took with me on that subject was unacceptable....so even though i have had my experiences i could easily be hateful.. i can see in other perspectives and that makes me an understanding person so i dont want you to think im attacking you because im not ..im just stating how i feel about marriage ......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeedependency Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth oh yeah, sorry. the chariot wheel thing was in something mar posted in response to bruce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth supposing the exodus isn't hugely fabricated' date=' why would pharaoh pursue the jews after moses totally fucked egypt up, evidently by the will of god?[/quote'] well if you were a king of the most powerful country in your known world would you let a group of rag tag slaves go no matter how much they messed you and your country up? Id guess not. Especially if your kid was killed because of them. Revenge and dignity drives even the most sensible to do some very foolish things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeedependency Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth i definitely wouldn't be like "ah, look... the sea just parted for the jews. after them!" nothing ominous about the parting of a sea, especially considering moses performed various deadly miracles and left my kingdom in ruin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeedependency Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth i'm not saying there was no exodus, by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth The bible was translated from Aramaic to Hebrew, from Hebrew to Latin, from latin to greek, and from greek to English. latin to greek, huh... i'm not saying there was no exodus, by the way. It was definately a Bob Marley album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.