The Exodus in the Quran: A Response to a Reddit Reviewer


The Exodus in the Quran: A Response to a Reddit Reviewer

Originally posted on the Quran and Bible Blog

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

“Thus do We relate to thee some stories of what happened before: for We have sent thee a Message from Our own Presence.”

 – The Quran, Surah Taha, 20:99

            This article is a response to a recent review that was posted on Reddit of the three-part series “The Exodus from Egypt”.[1] As stated in the “About the Blog” page, I welcome constructive criticism and an opportunity to learn more. It is frankly refreshing to read an objective response from someone who does not have an axe to grind and who is not blinded by anti-Islamic bigotry. The reviewer makes some fair arguments, but I feel that they can be refuted.

            The reviewer comments that I made “some decent points” but he/she does criticize the “apologetic perspective of the blog and how it differs from academic scholarship”. This is a fair point, and of course, I have never claimed that the blog can serve as a substitute for “academic scholarship”, nor have I tried to hide the purpose of the blog, which is to provide the Islamic perspective on such issues.

            The reviewer then remarked that:

“…historians generally regard early primary sources as more informative than much later secondary sources.”

Of course, this is true. Sources from the time of an event would generally be considered more reliable than secondary sources that were not directly linked to the event. With regards to the Exodus, we do not have any primary sources. The Bible is the earliest source, but as the reviewer pointed out, it is not a primary source, having been compiled into its final form about 1000 years before the Quran was revealed, which would mean that it was compiled almost 800 years after the events of the Exodus.

            The reviewer then stated that:

“[t]he biblical narratives in the Pentateuchal history are over a thousand years older than the Quran, which itself is a derivative work of not only the Hebrew Bible but also Jewish-Christian midrash.”

This is a strange remark given his earlier comment that primary sources are preferred by historians, but the Bible is not a primary source as he even admitted.

            As for the claim that the Quran is “a derivative work of” the Bible and Jewish-Christian midrash, this may be the secular opinion to explain the similarities between the Quran and those sources, but Muslims would argue that the Quran simply confirms the stories of the previous prophets that it regards as true, while rejecting the rest.

            In response to my comment that the Quran provides a more coherent version of the events of the Exodus, the reviewer attempted to brush it off. He/she stated that:

“…this is what is expected in a later derivative work that interprets earlier sources, just as a gospel harmony smooths contradictions between older, primary sources (the four canonical gospels)…”

First, notice the contradiction between this comment and the earlier one about “primary sources”. The reviewer admitted that the “canonical gospels” were contradictory, and so, a “harmony” was written to “smooth” out the contradictions. But this would show that primary sources are not always reliable (note that the gospels are not “primary” sources anyway, since we don’t know who the authors even were). So, the absence of a primary source for the Exodus, while unfortunate, is not necessarily a major issue.

            Second, it is a cop-out to say that the Quran simply “smoothed out the contradictions” of the Biblical version of the Exodus and that is why the Quranic account is more coherent than the Biblical one. First, why were there such obvious contradictions in the Biblical account and why weren’t they “smoothed out”? Second, while such obvious contradictions could certainly be removed in a later work, what about the historical errors? A later source would only be expected to correct the historical errors if the author was somehow knowledgeable about the true historical context of the story. For example, how would the author of the Quran have known not to use the Egyptian term “pharaoh” for the king of Egypt in the times of Abraham or Joseph (while it uses the term when referring to the king in Moses’ time), since that term was not used by the Egyptians for the king until the New Kingdom period?[2]

            As a second example, why did the author of the Quran refer to the Israelites during the Exodus as a “small band”, whereas the Bible claims that there were 600,000 men (which would mean around 2 million people total)? The Bible even claims that the main reason for the beginning of the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt was because their population had grown out of control.[3] What motive would the Quran’s author have had to change this part of the story?

            A third example is the Quran’s failure to repeat the Biblical anachronism in Exodus 13:17-18. This passage states that the Israelites did not leave Egypt through “the road through the Philistine country”. However, the Philistines did not occupy Canaan and the surrounding areas until much later. It seems that every time the Biblical account made a historical error or anachronism, the Quran did not repeat it. This seems strange for a work that is simply brushed off as “a derivative work”. The author of the Quran seemed to be more knowledgeable than a 7th-century Arab should have been.

            The next critique from the reviewer was in regard to the identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. In Part III of the Exodus series, I had concluded that the best candidate for the Pharaoh was Ramesses II.[4] One of the main reasons was that the Quran identifies a king who ruled for a long period of time. However, the reviewer criticized this identification, while stating:

“…no discussion however on how the mummy of Ramesses II is that of an old man who suffered from crippling arthritis and not of a chariot-capable warrior who died from drowning.”

This is a fair criticism. CT scans of the mummy of Ramesses II have shown several conditions associated with advanced old age. As Zahi Hawass and Sahar Saleem state:

“[t]he marked attrition of the dental arc, spine, and joints (especially hips and shoulders) all indicate geriatric diseases found in individuals over seventy years of age. The suggested age of death coincides with the historically known age of about eighty-seven to ninety-two years.”[5]

They also state that:

“Ramesses II was probably crippled with arthritis and walked with a hunched back for at least several years of his life. He also suffered from painfully poor dental health. However, there were no definite CT findings to suggest the cause of death.”[6]

So, if Ramesses II was an extremely old man at the time of the Exodus, it seems strange that he was the one who led his army in pursuit of the runaway Israelites. This may be a legitimate crack in the identification of Ramesses with the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

            However, it is possible that the assumption of picturing Ramesses as “a chariot-capable warrior” is just not warranted. Perhaps we are just letting popular imagery influence our assumptions. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason to assume that the Pharaoh had to have led his army while riding a chariot or that he was a young man in his prime. If the Pharaoh was an elderly man as the Quran seems to suggest, he could have just traveled by some other means. There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians used different ways to travel. These included riding animals such as donkeys and horses,[7] as well as carriages and wagons, though as Heidi Kopp observes regarding the latter, there is “no depiction [that] shows them as means of transport for people”.[8]

Kopp - Riding donkeys Egypt

Figure 1 – Donkeys were used for travelling in ancient Egypt. This depiction is from the 5th Dynasty period (Source: Heidi Kopp, “Desert travel and transport in ancient Egypt. An overview based on epigraphic, pictorial and archaeological evidence”, in Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, eds. Frank Forster and Heiko Reimer [Germany: Heinrich-Barth-Institut, 2013], pp. 117).

            A carrying chair, also known as a palanquin, was another possible way to travel.[9] Certainly, chariots would have been more mobile and fast, but if the Pharaoh was not capable of riding on a chariot, he had other means to pursue the Israelites.

Kopp - Carrying Chair Egypt

Figure 2 – A carrying chair or palanquin from the 6th Dynasty period (Source: Kopp, op. cit., p. 117)

            Finally, the reviewer suggested that the Quran may not give “more accurate information” but rather that:

“…as a later secondary work, two originally distinct pharaohs were conflated into a single figure for simpler storytelling.”

But as discussed above, this line of argumentation conveniently brushes aside the evidence of the Quran’s undeniable accuracy by denigrating the Quran to the status of “a later secondary work”. This approach is both lazy and unfair. Whether secondary or not, the Quran demonstrates an amazing level of accuracy and coherence which are not found in the Bible. One could also argue that for the sake of “simpler storytelling”, the author of the Quran could have opted to repeat the story as it was popularly known, instead of changing some details.  


[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/djnclw/ive_been_looking_into_islam_lately_and_came/f48sqkm/

[2] https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/04/the-pharaoh-in-genesis-how-the-quran-and-ahadith-correct-the-bible/

[3] This contradicts Exodus 1:15, which states that only 2 midwives were given the task of killing male infants as a form of population control.

[4] https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/the-exodus-from-egypt-part-iii/

[5] Zahi A. Hawass and Sahar Saleem, Scanning the Pharaohs: CT Imaging of the New Kingdom Royal Mummies, ed. Sue N. Saleem (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2016), p. 161.

[6] Ibid., p. 166.

[7] Heidi Kopp, “Desert travel and transport in ancient Egypt. An overview based on epigraphic, pictorial and archaeological evidence”, in Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, eds. Frank Forster and Heiko Reimer (Germany: Heinrich-Barth-Institut, 2013), pp. 113-116.

[8] Ibid., p. 113.

[9] Ibid., p. 116.



Categories: Bible, Christianity, History, Islam, Judaism, Qur'an

Tags: , , , , , , ,

60 replies

  1. The Quran is the least reliable among other sources, regarding the Exodus, by secular standards.

    That the Quran doesn’t repeat historical errors made by the Bible and other sources, is not evidence that the Quran gets things right. First, the Quran is not even as detailed as the Bible in its story, nor does it tell things in chronological order. Second, it’s unlikely that the common people in Muhammad’s time knew the story in much detail as is told in the Bible. So for the Quran to miss some stuff in the Bible makes sense.

    I don’t see how the whole series points to the Quran knowing what really happened.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “The Quran is the least reliable among other sources, regarding the Exodus, by secular standards.”

      Yes, because secular historians rely on the “earliest” sources, but I already showed why “early” doesn’t always mean “best”.

      “That the Quran doesn’t repeat historical errors made by the Bible and other sources, is not evidence that the Quran gets things right. First, the Quran is not even as detailed as the Bible in its story, nor does it tell things in chronological order.”

      Not being more detailed does not automatically mean there would be no repetition of errors. Like most skeptics, you are resorting to a non-sequitur instead of an evidence-based approach.

      Look at it this way. The title of the Egyptian king “pharaoh” would be a very minor detail. There was no reason for the author of the Quran to use this term selectively. In 7th-century Arabia, it would have been assumed that all Egyptian kings were known as “pharaoh”, but Egyptian history shows otherwise. It would have been a very easy detail to overlook.

      ” Second, it’s unlikely that the common people in Muhammad’s time knew the story in much detail as is told in the Bible. So for the Quran to miss some stuff in the Bible makes sense.”

      This is another non-sequitur. There were many Jews and Christians, especially in Medina.

      Like

      • Earliest sources tend to be best sources. Obviously. Late sources are almost inevitably worst sources, except when they rely on earlier sources or…of course, divine revelation. I’m talking about secular standards, which don’t allow for divine sources (for good reasons though).

        “Not being more detailed does not automatically mean there would be no repetition of errors.” But it DOES mean that it’s unlikely that errors would be repeated, ESPECIALLY when those errors are part of the details in the earlier sources.

        That the author of the Quran didn’t use pharaoh as the title of the Egyptian king at the time of Moses is not evidence that he knew he wasn’t supposed to use that. First, he didn’t refer to pharaoh as “the King” so many times for us to make that conclusion. Second, the author didn’t receive the tales as they are told in the Bible (nor did he copy directly from the Bible). He just wrote what he heard in his own words. If he was familiar with exactly how the Bible rendered the stories, and people around him received the stories that way, and yet he still avoided making the mistake, and did so in very many instances, then that’d be interesting. But no, there’s no evidence that people around him knew the stories and told the stories as they’re told in the Bible. It’d even be more interesting if everyone had access to the Torah and got the stories directly from there.

        Jews and Christians lived with Muhammad. But they didn’t exactly each carry a Bible and get their stories directly from it. Most of them told what they heard or even when they read it, they didn’t do so frequently. So, still, most people didn’t know the details. Evidence of this is in the fact that even apocryphal stories were circulated. It would most likely not have been so if everyone had a Bible and got their stories directly from it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Christian

        1. No reason not to use Pharaoh in the texts. Also strangely no anachronism or errors are on our side for any story concerning the prophets. But as you said, I guess he must have been super lucky or something.

        2. Instead of making jumps you should check sources because they DID have their texts:

        Narrated Abu Huraira:

        The people of the Scripture used to read the Torah in Hebrew and explain it to the Muslims in Arabic. Then Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Do not believe the people of the Scripture, and do not disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever has been revealed…’ (3.84)

        https://sunnah.com/bukhari/97/167

        But no big whoop he must have gotten lucky again.

        3. States accurately that they corrupted their text and are missing text:

        But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a large portion of what they were told repeatedly to remember… I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot part of what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture. People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much ˹of what you changed˺. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear, which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path. (Q. 5:13-16)

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-12208

        The Children of Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah. (This hadith was reported in Tabarani’s Al Mu’jam Al Awsat and was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)

        https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures%5D

        But yeah man he got lucky again

        4. Claimed Jesus(as) never claimed to be God.

        Yep, just pure luck again. Maybe he just stepped on a Leprechaun or something.

        PS

        None of the Bible is an early source for the most part.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Stew…

        This whole stuff is less impressive and uncool considering that the story isn’t even detailed but as a result of 23 years compilation. Not in chronological order. AND not in many instance as would warrant that conclusion. AND the Quran doesn’t tell us it’s correcting a mistake. (And that’s the general problem with all the “hey the Quran knew stuff we only discovered recently!” claims). These make this NOT convincing.

        If the Quran tells the story as it is in the Bible, AND does not make that mistake, then that’d be cool. It doesn’t. Instead, it’s vague all about it.

        1. The Quran is unreliable by secular standards, and FAR more unreliable than the Bible or any other earlier source (literally 1000 year gap!). No matter how bad the source is, it’s more reliable than the Quran. Because the Quran is way late to have any primary sources (especially as you guys deny any exist). And because earlier sources are better by default. You can’t get over this. Its version of the Exodus is not even more likely to have happened than what is claimed in the Bible.

        2. There’s no evidence that the Jewish Torah looked like the Quran and then was “corrupted”. (There’s literally no evidence for Islam prior to Islam.) So that’s not an “accurate” statement. The “missing texts” were never in the OT canon. So what were they “missing” from? Canon established – earliest: 400BC. “Missing texts” is supposed to have been written earlier than that. Not “accurate”. Again.

        3. Still there’s no evidence that Jesus was ever regarded as the Quran wants us to think he was. He might never have claimed to be God but he almost certainly was regarded as more than man. Divine in some sense. Not “accurate”.

        But the Bible is too early compared to the Quran.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Christian

      Heard ya the first time, everything is just lucky over and over again. Also as a note:

      1. The story of Moses is the most detailed in the Quran so that was just a wrong statement.
      2. The Bible has a 700-year gap to the event it is talking about.
      3. Uh.. yes it was and you already have been shown not to know what you’re talking about. Let’s look at some samples:

      6Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7Then he took theBOOK OF THE COVENANT AND READ IT TO THE PEOPLE, who replied, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient…” 12Then the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and stay here, so that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commandments I have written for their instruction.” (Exodus 24:6-7)

      I’m sorry isn’t the Pentateuch the Torah? How can he read the Torah to the people while quoting himself reading the Torah to the people, lol? Also, can you pull up this little number for me?

      Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke of when he said: “‘Among those who approach me I will be proved holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored.'” Aaron remained silent. (Levitcus 10:3)

      There is an over 1000 year transmission gap in the Jewish text and they themselves admit to losing it for this long. The canonical text is CLEARLY quoting these books for readers to go read. Also, the Jewish canon was NOT established yet:

      “It was not until a century or so after Jesus that most Jews agreed on virtually all the books of what we now think of as the Hebrew Bible – but Jesus and his followers would have accepted most of them.”
      https://ehrmanblog.org/the-afterlife-in-the-hebrew-bible-sheol/

      4. Jesus and “divinity”

      And you have once again proven to not know what you’re talking about. Ebionites (who are generally considered to be branches off the Jerusalem church and closest to what Jesus(as) preached) believed the Hebrew texts were corrupted:

      “It is also important to recognize that the Ebionites would have thought that Jesus’ teaching role in relation to the law was especially important as they contended that the writings of the Pentateuch had been corrupted and did not represent the true law of God; he would restore the forgotten laws received on Mount Sinai for God’s people.” (Can’t link paper is “The Ebionites: Eccentric or Essential Early Christians? By William J. Cook, Jr)

      “Rejection of the “doctrines and traditions” of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses, including scribal alterations of the texts of Scripture (Jeremiah 8:8).”
      https://jamestabor.com/ebionites-nazarenes-tracking-the-original-followers-of-jesus/

      Finally, (as I assume you’re a Christian as you’re the only ones who rever try and debate this) Jesus (as) himself is alleged to have quoted “extra-Biblical material” and straight-up quotes verses that do not exist in the Bible (ex. Luke 11:49):

      Like

      • Stew…

        It’s not “luck”. It”s plausibility.

        1. Is the Exodus more detailed in the Quran? No. The stories of Moses where he was involved in Egypt aren’t even remotely as detailed. And I doubt that the story of Moses in the Quran is as detailed as it is in the Bible. (The first few chapters of Exodus are literally dedicated to Moses’ history alone.). Plus, these whole stories are not arranged in chronological order. Plus, the Quran still allowed us to do the history ourselves and make the find, in spite of allegedly containing this truth. Which all don’t make this whole thing impressive.

        2. 700 year gap? he Quran has almost 2 millennia year gap then! Which is still way worse. And which makes it very useless as any source for whatever happened. As a matter of fact, the Bible is the only source historians have for, and consider in order to know the events of the Exodus (since the stories aren’t recorded anywhere else and we have no clue from anywhere else). Your point?

        3. The Hebrew texts may have been far from the original, but the problem for you is that there is no evidence that the “original” had the teachings of Islam in it. In fact, it takes divine intervention for an entire belief system to be erased from existence and can’t be traced, as a result of transmission of religious texts solely. Except the texts were purposely corrupted. But that’s unrealistic and unlikely as there’s no plausible reason for them to have done so, and still left no trace.
        Many religious texts were “corrupted” (somehow you think “poorly transmitted” = “corrupted”). It requires extra effort to tell us what those “originals” had. Oh…and that Muhammad got it right that the Torah was “corrupted” is NOT even remotely impressive either. First, almost all ancient texts were “corrupted” in that sense. Even the NT. Second, it’s clear that Muhammad didn’t mean merely poor transmission when he talked about “corruption”. He talked about purposeful tampering in a grand Jewish conspiracy. But we have no evidence for this. Third, he meant that Islam was corrupted off the texts, which we have no clue of. Fourth, a claim that some text that disagrees with you was tampered with is a very expected and common tactic. It doesn’t require divine revelation to claim that texts were corrupted (ESPECIALLY when they disagree with you) “Our texts don’t say what you say.” “They originally said that, but were corrupted by the wicked ones who didn’t want you to know it.” Very easy to make up. So that it matches what happened (it doesn’t in reality) is not impressive.

        A few centuries before Jesus (at least the 2nd Temple period), there were at least some agreed upon forms of the canon somewhere. Josephus and Ben Sira evidence this. Even if not all agreed. The whole thing might have been in flux. One thing is almost certain: those “missing texts” were never there.

        4. You have not addressed the fact that it’s almost certain that no one saw Jesus as Muhammad claims he was seen. I don’t see how the stuff about the Ebonites matters. And still, they don’t suggest Islam was in the “originals”.

        And how does Jesus quoting verses not in the Bible prove your point?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Christen

        As I keep reading your post I have to wonder how you haven’t managed to drown eating spaghetti yet:

        1. Yep just Muhammad(saw) just kept getting it right over and over again 🙄🙄🙄 Heard you the first time broken record.

        2. The point is the Bible is not an EARLY source that you keep making a deal about. You are nowhere near the time period being written about. So your point on “earlier” is moot because both are late text. Can you follow or do I need to paint you a pretty picture with crayons?

        3. There’s plenty of “plausible” reason for them to have done so. Off the top of my head, not wanting to follow laws (simply pickup a targum), exalt their race higher (we can see this by comparing MT and LXX), political motives (Lot’s(as) story is a good example), innovations, folklore that they mixed up(we can see this in the NT where common sayings are attributed to Jesus(as), poor transmission, lack of bookmaking technology or the fact that they LOST the text TWICE in their history for over a 1,000 years. As your not too bright I’ll help you, what that means in their history they had no idea where the Torah text even was for ONE THOUSAND YEARS. Seriously why do you keep trying to argue about something you obviously haven’t studied? Also, there is PLENTY of evidence they tampered text (ex when they changed Ishmael(as) into Issac(as) for the sacrifice, changed a blessing of Ishmael(as) into a curse and changed the age of Ishmael(as) when him and his mother went away) The ONLY reason they aren’t picked apart as bad as the NT is solely the fact that we don’t have as many manuscripts to work off of.

        4. Because I assume you have dyslexia let me quote for you again that transmission is a charge against them in the Quran:

        “But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a large portion of what they were told repeatedly to remember…” (Q.5:13)

        But go ahead and keep showing your ignorance as everyone is getting a good laugh.

        5. The missing text (also you can stop putting “quotes” around that as the things are gone) are CLEARLY meant to be read with it:

        The other events of Abijah’s reign, what he did and what he said, are written in the annotations of the prophet Iddo. (2 Chronicles 13:22)

        Just using this verse for a sec. Isn’t the Bible supposed to be the “inspired word”? Didn’t a prophet write a text and thus it was inspired? What happened to it? Oh, we don’t know. Also, quoting Jesus (as) allegedly quoting texts, not in the current Bible shows there were writing around at HIS tie that we still don’t have.

        6. I most certainly did you’re just retarded. Let me help you (don’t worry I’ll use simple phrases so you can follow):

        Jesus(as) preached in Jerusalem as a prophet -> The church of Jerusalem headed by what is recorded to be his brother believed he was not divine, that the Jews corrupted their text and that Paul was a heretic (i.e. what Muslims believe)-> They were then wiped out in the Siege of Jerusalem. -> heretics spread and forge texts->The Quran is right (again)

        Still too complex and need those crayon drawings?

        Liked by 2 people

    • The question from the reddit reviewer is, in my opinion, an excellent question. The fact that the Quran tells somewhat different versions of earlier stories – and Muslims would argue better ones – does not mean that the Quran’s stories are more accurate, from a historical point of view. One would be hard pressed to think of any professional historian who have argued this, and to argue this point is of course methodologically problematic. So I would agree with Christian Kingsley and the reddit reviewer who pointed out that this is a major methodological flaw.

      It seems to me that the view of scholars is rather that the Quran is aware of an orally transmitted and interpreted Bible (including what is now found in apocrypha, Midrash, homilies etc.) and that at least some scholars have concluded, that the author(s) of the Quran interacted, integrated and engaged with such material and this is the process that lead to the creation of some of the Quranic discourse. Gabriel Said Reynolds states in chapter 19 “Biblical Background” in the “The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an”, 2017, ed. Andrew Rippin and Jawid Mojaddedi, p. 314:

      “Yet the Qurʾān’s references to these stories seem to have come from the same sources as its references to non‐biblical stories, such as the story of the Sleepers of Ephesus (aṣḥab al‐kahf ̄ ; Q 18:9–26) or the story of Alexander the Great (dhu l‐qar ̄nayn; Q 18:83–98). In other words, the Qurʾān’s author(s) seems to have been exposed to those Jewish and Christian Midrashic and homiletic traditions which circulated (orally, above all) in the late antique Near East, and not to the Bible itself”.

      On p. 317 he notes that:

      “…El‐Badawi, Sidney Griffith, and Gabriel Said Reynolds – have looked more broadly at the special relationship of the Qurʾān with Syriac Christian literature. Unlike the early Orientalists, these scholars tend not to think of the Qurʾān as borrowing material from Syriac Christian sources (the Bible or otherwise). Instead they tend to attribute agency to the Qurʾān, arguing that the Qurʾān alludes to narratives or traditions still accessible to us in Syriac Christian texts (such as the Cave of Treasures, Jacob of Serugh’s Homilies Against the Jews, or Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise) while it develops its original religious message. From the perspective of these scholars the Qurʾān actually provides a window into the way Jews and Christians were reading the Bible, and telling biblical stories, in the late antique Near East”.

      More broadly, this informs Reynolds’ approach in his book on the Quran and the Biblical subtext. Thus, in this perspective, the Quran is not seen as an independent source to historical events; rather it engages previous materials to create its own unique discourse.

      To be noted also. Just, as critical scholars see anachronisms in the Biblical stories, so critical scholars also see anachronisms in stories of the Quran. Specifically, on the Israelites and Egypt, one might mention the anachronistic use of dirhams or coins in the selling of Joseph in surah 12:20 (see reference below). Haman appears as an associate of Pharaoh e.g., in Q 28:38, otherwise known from the book of Esther that supposedly takes place some 800-1000 years later and the mention of al-Samiri usually translated as “the Samaritan” (Samaritans as a group that did not exist at the time Moses) in connection with the golden calf story in surah 20:87-97 (cf. the golden calf story in Q 7:146-153 that does not mention al-samiri).

      Of course, as the reddit reviewer expresses, the framework of pitting one text against the other, is, I agree, not helpful in trying to understand any of these texts, as these must be assessed individually.

      We should, I believe, ask if we can learn anything from such anachronisms or difficulties. True, in the case of coins/dirhams we may learn relatively little. I believe, however, we can learn more in some cases. Or, at least ask some significant questions. For example, when 600,000 men left Egypt in the Exodus we might ask, what is the significance of this number? Does it tell us, for example, something about political history or about literature as perceived by the author?

      Similarly, when “the Samaritan” or al-samiri is mentioned in the Quran in connection with the golden calf, scholars have asked what might be behind this particular version of the story. One proposal is summed up by Pummer:

      “Non-Muslim scholars have advanced a variety of hypotheses as to how a Samaritan came to be associated with the story of the Golden calf. The Samaritan’s call to others “touch me not!” is an echo of the Samaritans’ avoidance of contracting impurity through touching outsiders as the Church fathers Origen and Eusebius had noted and as Samaritan halakhah enjoins. But what is considered a duty by the Samaritans is depicted in the Quran as a punishment”. R. Pummer, The Samaritans: A Profile, 2016. Pp. 146-147 (cf. I. Goldziher, “La Misasa”, Revue Africaine LII (1908), pp. 23-28; U. Rubin, “Traditions in Transformation. The Ark of the Covenant and the Golden Calf in Biblical and Islamic Historiography”, Oriens, Vol. 36 (2001), pp. 202ff).

      Similarly, with “Haman”, the Encyclopaedia of Quran states that:

      “There are conflicting views as to Hāmān’s identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is that he is the minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the Persian empire to the palace of Pharaoh (cf. Vajda, Hāmān). There is, however, no reason, other than the paradigmatic one of hostility to the Israelites (see Jews and Judaism), to make any direct connection between him and the eponymous minister of Ahasuerus referred to in Esther (3:1-6) who persuaded his ruler to issue an edict to exterminate the Jews of the Persian Empire because Mordechai refused to pay him homage. One suggestion is that Hāmān is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Hā-Amen , the title of a high priest second only in rank to Pharaoh (Asad, Message, 590, n. 6). The name, however, may have become a time-honored designation for any court official hostile to the Jews and belief in the one God”.

      While there is no evidence of the Egyptian echo, I believe the other two proposals might well capture the meaning. It is not so much that it is anachronistic: Haman had become the paradigmatic time-honored enemy of the Jews and so it is a powerful way to get the message across (cf. Goldziher, op. cit., p. 23). Such “anachronisms”, by the way, are quite common in homiletical literature of antiquity.

      In other words, I propose that focusing simply on anachronisms, for apologetic purposes, rather than on what could lay behind the texts as we have them, might not be very helpful in understanding what the texts themselves want to communicate.

      Coins:

      “The phrase darāhim maʿdūda, “a counted number of silver coins,” in q 12 (Sūrat Yūsuf, “ Josepsh”; q 12:20) indicates silver coins of no particular weight and fineness. Al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144; Kashshāf, ad loc.) emphasizes here that the term darāhim means “not gold (q.v.) coins” (ay lā danānīr). Most early commentators speculate on the number of coins implied, suggesting numbers from twenty to forty. The verse agrees generally with the Hebrew Bible where Joseph (q.v.) is sold for twenty shekels (see scripture and the qurʾān ). The qurʾānic reference, however, is anachronistic since it refers specifically to coins and not standard weights of silver. Modern scholarship places the historical figure of Joseph in the early second millenium b.c.e., long before the invention of coinage in the seventh century b.c.e.” Brill Encyclopaedia of Quran, “MONEY”.

      Pharaoh in the Quran seems to be understood as a proper name and is used only for the Pharaoh which Moses and Aaron had to deal. Thus, the Quran makes Pharaoh and those of his people who did not heed the message stand out, cf. “Firʿawn” in the Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “More broadly, this informs Reynolds’ approach in his book on the Quran and the Biblical subtext. Thus, in this perspective, the Quran is not seen as an independent source to historical events; rather it engages previous materials to create its own unique discourse.”

        Heavy reliance on the old orientalist methodology, which scholars like Reynolds cannot seem to let go of. Not particularly impressive.

        “To be noted also. Just, as critical scholars see anachronisms in the Biblical stories, so critical scholars also see anachronisms in stories of the Quran.”

        I love how the response to the undeniable anachronisms and historical errors in the Bible is almost always “well the Quran has them too”. Even if this was true, how does that save the Bible?

        “Specifically, on the Israelites and Egypt, one might mention the anachronistic use of dirhams or coins in the selling of Joseph in surah 12:20 (see reference below).”

        This was brought up previously by another commenter. However, far from being an “anachronism”, it has been argued by Islamic-Awareness that dirhams simply meant a few pieces of silver that were counted, a view that is supported by heiroglyphic evidence:

        “A study of “coinage” in ancient Egypt clearly shows that precious metals, especially silver, were used as money in the form of deben and sh‘t. During trade, the numbers of deben or sh‘t were specified, clearly suggesting that they were counted and were of a standard metal quality as well as of a standard weight. The texts do not say that either deben or sh‘t were weighed or tested for quality during commercial transactions. Although very common from Ramesside times onward, the evidence of such transactions extend all the way down to the mid-5th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom Period, where, in one particular market scene, a particular length of cloth is valued at 6 sh‘t.

        In assessing the evidence of coinage in ancient Egypt, Černý came to the conclusion that sh‘ty “was a flat, round piece of metal 1/12 deben, that is about 7.6 grams, in weight, possibly with an inscription to indicate this weight or the name of the issuing authority”, adding “If so, the ‘piece’ was practically a coin.”[103] Although Černý’s assessment was startling,[104] he was not too far off the mark.

        In conclusion, the Qur’anic description of the transaction darāhima maʿdūdatin (i.e., a few pieces of silver, countable) is accurate from the point of view of ancient Egypt.” (https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/contrad/external/dirham)

        “Haman appears as an associate of Pharaoh e.g., in Q 28:38, otherwise known from the book of Esther that supposedly takes place some 800-1000 years later”

        So since the unhistorical book of Esther mentions Haman, therefore the Quran must have copied it? These are the sorts of non-sequiturs that make up the bulk of orientalist attacks on the Quran.

        But Islamic-Awareness makes a strong case that “Haman” could just be an Arabized form of an Egyptian title, just like “Firawn” is the Arabized form of “Pharaoh”. They point to similarities between “Haman” and Bakenkhons, the High Priest of Amun in the reign of Ramesses II:

        “We have shown that Qur’anic Haman in the context which he is placed, i.e., ancient Egypt, makes sense when various elements of the Qur’anic story are scrutinised from a historical point of view. An examination of four specific concepts in the Qur’an relating to the narrative of Moses and Pharaoh (in which Haman plays a part), encompassing religious notions and construction technology, does not contradict its placement in an ancient egyptological setting. Could the usage of ‘Haman’ in the Qur’an be similar to that of ‘Pharaoh’, i.e., an Arabized version of an ancient Egyptian title? A detailed investigation has shown the life and works of Bakenkhons, the High Priest of Amun, who served Pharaoh Ramesses II, appears to accord well with the data about Haman in the Qur’an. Since events in the distant past can be expressed in a probabilistic manner due to underlying uncertainties, one can say that Bakenkhons could be Haman mentioned in the Qur’an. Crucially, the absolute identification of an ancient Egyptian figure with Qur’anic Haman does not negate the need to examine the literary evidence. Western scholarship writing on Haman in the Qur’an has understood Haman as a personal name. This derives from their understanding of the alleged connection between the Qur’anic and biblical Hamans, which, as our enquiry has revealed, is lacking in evidence.” (https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/contrad/external/haman)

        “and the mention of al-Samiri usually translated as “the Samaritan” (Samaritans as a group that did not exist at the time Moses) in connection with the golden calf story in surah 20:87-97 (cf. the golden calf story in Q 7:146-153 that does not mention al-samiri).”

        Another example of “let’s use the Bible to judge the Quran, even though the Bible is by no means the final authority”.

        First of all, you might want to update your study on the Samaritans. What the Bible says (2 Kings 17) about their origin has been rejected by scholars. Furthermore, the Samaritans themselves claim ancestry from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Islamic-Awareness thus concludes:

        “In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The common ancestry of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going back to cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans.” (https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/contrad/external/samaritan.html)

        ” For example, when 600,000 men left Egypt in the Exodus we might ask, what is the significance of this number? Does it tell us, for example, something about political history or about literature as perceived by the author?”

        Yes, it tells us that the editor(s) of the Bible were basing these numbers from their own time, which was hundreds of years after the events.

        I find it amusing how you put “author” in the singular, but earlier with the Quran, you suggested the possibility of multiple “author(s)”. Bias much? It is widely accepted among scholars that the Bible had multiple authorS. There was no one single “author”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        If memory serves me correctly, I believe this was the passive-aggressive kaffir you refuted by busting out Lane’s and all he did was go “But, but Islam encyclopedia said!”

        Liked by 2 people

      • I should add that by “authors” of the Bible, I was referring specially to the Pentateuch in this case.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Heavy reliance on the old orientalist methodology, which scholars like Reynolds cannot seem to let go of. Not particularly impressive”.

        If you look at the quoted paragraph, you can see he explains how this approach differs from earlier orientalists. You don’t need to agree or disagree for that matter. I was simply clarifying a scholar’s understanding of the current state of scholarship. This position, which has only been developed in the past few decades, is the middle position in the urtext-intertext-subtext approach of understanding – in particular – biblically related material in the Quran.

        I don’t want to get bogged down in a discussion of “anachronisms”. As I already stated I disagree with the whole approach of pitting one text against the other the other, as it not helpful in terms of what we might learn and, as the reddit reviewer already pointed out, and I agree with, is methodologically untenable. The point is that critical scholars come to the same conclusions when applying identical methodology.

        On coins or dirham: In the link, there is no concrete evidence provided, that coins let alone Dirhams are dated to the period of Joseph – and also when do you date him roughly and on what grounds? I cited scholarship and you cite apologists. If you could instead quote scholarship or evidence to that effect that might be helpful.
        The historicity of Esther, not accepted by main stream critical scholarship, is not relevant to the argument, as it is a paradigmatic one of hostility towards Jews. Again, the site you link to does not offer any concrete evidence.

        “A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh…”

        Can you cite me a single historian who believes or have evidence that proves there were a people or a tribe called Samaritans around in the time of Moses? I doubt any professional historian believes there were “Samaritans” around in the time of Moses let alone have the evidence to back up such a claim it. When is the chronicle dated to?

        Reading through these links, I begin see a pattern, I doubt many will find this kind of apologetics convincing. But again, let us leave behind apologetics and apologetic sites of whatever kind, as these are clearly neither helpful nor scholarly.

        “I find it amusing how you put “author” in the singular, but earlier with the Quran, you suggested the possibility of multiple “author(s)”. Bias much? It is widely accepted among scholars that the Bible had multiple authorS. There was no one single “author”.

        You are correct, of course. The quite prosaic reason is that I used Reynolds’ words in summarizing his description and my own words subsequently. In critical scholarship, the Pentateuch is thought to have multiple authors and a complex transmission history. Nobody in scholarship is trying to deny it or cover up this fact, let alone being biased about it. For the Pentateuch, terms like priestly writer or source, the E source etc. are commonly used with the implicit understanding that such individual sources have a complex compositional history and were neither composed by a single person nor that each of these literary corpora, together making up the Pentateuch, are made up of a single strata only.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “If you look at the quoted paragraph, you can see he explains how this approach differs from earlier orientalists. You don’t need to agree or disagree for that matter. I was simply clarifying a scholar’s understanding of the current state of scholarship. This position, which has only been developed in the past few decades, is the middle position in the urtext-intertext-subtext approach of understanding – in particular – biblically related material in the Quran.”

        It seems that this approach is simply rehashed orientalism. The underlying assumption is the same. The Quran MUST have copied from other sources, instead of allowing for the fact that the Quran is giving its own perspective.

        “I don’t want to get bogged down in a discussion of “anachronisms”. As I already stated I disagree with the whole approach of pitting one text against the other the other, as it not helpful in terms of what we might learn and, as the reddit reviewer already pointed out, and I agree with, is methodologically untenable. The point is that critical scholars come to the same conclusions when applying identical methodology.”

        Except that you were NOT “applying identical methodology”. For example, I called you out for using the singular “author” when referring to the alleged single author of the Biblical account (when the same historians that you seem to love when they discuss the Quran would also argue that there were actually multiple authors), but at the same time, casually suggesting that the Quran may have had multiple “authors”, based of course on absolutely no evidence. The Quran, in contrast to the Bible, has a unified text and there is no evidence multiple authors. This shows your shoddy methodology. There is a clear bias.

        Ironically, you say don’t pit one text against the other, but that’s exactly what you did in your initial response! You responded to the claim of anachronisms in the Bible…by responding that the Quran has them too! As I asked before, how does that help the Bible?

        “On coins or dirham: In the link, there is no concrete evidence provided, that coins let alone Dirhams are dated to the period of Joseph – and also when do you date him roughly and on what grounds? I cited scholarship and you cite apologists. If you could instead quote scholarship or evidence to that effect that might be helpful.
        The historicity of Esther, not accepted by main stream critical scholarship, is not relevant to the argument, as it is a paradigmatic one of hostility towards Jews. Again, the site you link to does not offer any concrete evidence. ”

        LOL, see? All of a sudden, the people you quote are “scholars” when it comes to the Quran, but what about the same “scholars” who state that the Bible is historically suspect?

        And by the way, MSM Saifullah (the owner of Islamic-Awareness) has a PhD. He is a scholar. Please stop making stupid claims.

        Furthermore, even if he was merely an “apologist” (you are a mere apologist), that means nothing. The discussion should be based not on appeals to authority or ad hominems on the credentials or lack thereof of a particular person, but rather on the evidence. In the article, evidence was given for the conclusion. A dirham could have been a weight or a coin. Evidence was provided for this from scholarly sources. And the use of weights in ancient Egypt was also demonstrated. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

        The historicity (or actually, the lack thereof) of Esther IS relevant because it is based on this pseudohistorical book that Christians mainly claim that the Quran must have confused Haman. But who says that the author even knew what he was talking about? Does the fact that there is a “Haman” in this book mean that this was the only Haman in the history of the world? It’s a silly argument to use Esther as an apologetic tool to attack the Quran. Furthermore, what if the author of Esther was using an earlier figure as the inspiration for the Persian Haman?

        “Can you cite me a single historian who believes or have evidence that proves there were a people or a tribe called Samaritans around in the time of Moses? I doubt any professional historian believes there were “Samaritans” around in the time of Moses let alone have the evidence to back up such a claim it. When is the chronicle dated to?”

        LOL, again with the biased historical approach. Can you name me a single historian who actually believes in the Exodus? Secular historians, mind you. Not Christian historians like Kitchen or Hoffmeier.

        Furthermore, did you even read the article? It quotes numerous scholars. For example, N. Schur stated:

        “Our conclusion is therefore that the Samaritan tradition is generally correct in claiming direct descent from the Ten Tribes of Israel.

        This conclusion can be checked now also by archeological evidence. Except for the destruction of the towns sacked by the Assyrians, such as Samaria and Shechem, other places, where occupation was continuous, show no trace of a different material culture intervening in the later Assyrian period. In the 1967/8 survey ceramic remains of 81 sites were also examined in the province of Samaria, and no differences of nuances could be discovered between the Assyrian period on the one hand and the Persian on the other. The same results were obtained in the 1978/9 survey of the Dotan region, in the exploration of western Samaria and by further archeological excavations of the last 15 years in Samaria.”

        Frank Cross also was cited:

        “Accordingly, the later Jewish tradition comes to call the Samaritans en bloc Kutians (kwtym), or sardonically, “lion-proselytes” in light of the anecdote in 2 Kings 17:25-28. For their part, the Samaritans of the later times claimed to be the remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh, authentic Israelites who alone preserve the ancient faith and service of the god of Israel unsullied by Judaean innovations.

        In fact, neither of these two polemical positions can stand close critical scrutiny. On the other hand, there are very strong arguments to support the conclusion that the bulk of the men of Ephraim and Manasseh remained in the land; on the other hand, there is equally strong evidence… that Samaritanism in the form we find it in the Roman Age and later is not a survival of old Israelite religion, pure or syncretistic, but rather is essentially a sectarian form of Judaism.”

        “Reading through these links, I begin see a pattern, I doubt many will find this kind of apologetics convincing. But again, let us leave behind apologetics and apologetic sites of whatever kind, as these are clearly neither helpful nor scholarly.”

        Again, stop pretending like you are not an apologist. I have already shown that your approach is severely biased. Furthermore, unlike you, the authors of Islamic-Awareness are scholars. Get over it.

        “You are correct, of course. The quite prosaic reason is that I used Reynolds’ words in summarizing his description and my own words subsequently.”

        And this exposes Reynolds. He is a Christian, so no wonder he wants to hide the undeniable mountain of evidence against his Bible! So he is clearly very biased.

        “Nobody in scholarship is trying to deny it or cover up this fact, let alone being biased about it.”

        Do you even think before you write? You just said that Reynolds argued for a single author for the Bible. But why would he say that if “nobody in scholarship is trying to deny it…” It would seem that he was trying to deny it, albeit very subtly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        So out of curiosity which ones can’t you stand more:

        A. The openly hostile ones like Watson and Shamoun?

        or

        B. Passive aggressive bias ones like Marc and James White?

        Personally, I think I prefer A because at least their man enough to hold a stance instead of pretending to be unbias and scholarly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “It seems that this approach is simply rehashed orientalism. The underlying assumption is the same. The Quran MUST have copied from other sources, instead of allowing for the fact that the Quran is giving its own perspective”.

        You seem not to have read what I wrote. Here is the summary I gave of Reynold’s perspective in my very first comment:

        “…rather it [the Quran] engages [with] previous materials to create its own unique discourse”. So the Quran, among other things, engages with previous material creating its own unique message.

        You also seem not to have read Reynolds nor to be familiar with such modern scholarship. Here is the quoted passage from Reynolds from the very first post:

        “…El‐Badawi, Sidney Griffith, and Gabriel Said Reynolds – have looked more broadly at the special relationship of the Qurʾān with Syriac Christian literature. Unlike the early Orientalists, these scholars tend not to think of the Qurʾān as borrowing material from Syriac Christian sources (the Bible or otherwise). Instead they tend to attribute agency to the Qurʾān, arguing that the Qurʾān alludes to narratives or traditions still accessible to us in Syriac Christian texts (such as the Cave of Treasures, Jacob of Serugh’s Homilies Against the Jews, or Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise) while it develops its original religious message”.

        He specifically says that these scholars tend to not to view the Qurʾān as borrowing, rather that it develops its own original religious message and these scholars “attribute agency to the Qurʾān”. More broadly, in modern scholarship, the view of “borrowing” is not considered a useful paradigm for the study of the Quran.

        Paul Williams has recently called attention to this fact a number of times on this blog. I think Paul can verify what I say.

        “And this exposes Reynolds. He is a Christian, so no wonder he wants to hide the undeniable mountain of evidence against his Bible! So he is clearly very biased”.

        “Nobody in scholarship is trying to deny it or cover up this fact, let alone being biased about it.” (here you are quoting me)

        “Do you even think before you write? You just said that Reynolds argued for a single author for the Bible. But why would he say that if “nobody in scholarship is trying to deny it…” It would seem that he was trying to deny it, albeit very subtly”.

        Again, you didn’t read what I wrote or what I quoted Reynolds for, in my very first comment.

        I never quoted Reynolds’ about biblical authors. Reynolds, as quoted, uses the words “the
        Qurʾān’s author(s)”. I used the phrase “author(s) of the Quran” in describing his approach. Since you asked about authorship, however, I clarified, making it perfectly clear, that nobody in critical scholarship believes the Pentateuch was authored by one person. Nobody is trying to hide this fact, or being biased about it and there are popular books on the subject. Commonly, the singular is used for simplicity. Rather there were several authors, there were redactions etc. I even gave an example. Take just one part of the Pentateuch, thought to be composed by a “priestly writer” or the “priestly source”. Scholars don’t believe there was just one priestly writer or even one priestly source. There are several literary priestly strata within P, making up this corpus, so the very common theories go. But for simplicity, singular might be used.

        I stated this in no uncertain terms and it isn’t a very subtle point. And Reynold’s wasn’t even quoted for anything about a biblical author or authors. So why you try to make out of this something “subtle” I don’t understand.

        “Ironically, you say don’t pit one text against the other, but that’s exactly what you did in your initial response! You responded to the claim of anachronisms in the Bible…by responding that the Quran has them too! As I asked before, how does help the Bible?”

        I’ve said a number of times, clearly and unequivocally, that I don’t believe in this approach, and I am not trying to “help the Bible”. What might be helpful and interesting is, as I have pointed out a few times, what we might learn in such cases. I’m for critical scholarship; Quran and Bible alike. Each text must be evaluated on it’s own merits. I am merely calling attention to the methodological weakness of your approach. You rely on scholarly critical methodology to argue that the Quran does not repeat historical errors in the Bible. When the same critical methodology is employed, scholars find anachronisms in the Quran as well. Thus your argument fails. This is not to mention the major methodological flaw already pointed out by the reddit reviewer.

        “On coins or dirham…”

        Again, so much of this does not accord with the facts, and you appear not to have read what I stated.

        I don’t go after the man, and I don’t know his credentials in Islamic studies (I understand his Ph.d, is in an unrelated field). I personally know of German and Austrian Egyptologists who have in strong terms criticised his site’s abuse of Egyptological material to give just one example (I think it is even hinted at by themselves in one of their articles). So quote scholars who are experts in their field. Not an apologetic site that does not display expertise in neither Bible nor Egyptology. I don’t particularly care what their religion is.

        But even if accepting, for the sake of argument (though in actual fact no one does) his Egyptian “Dirhams” or “coins” can’t be traced back to the time of Joseph as commonly dated. Which is why I asked when you date Joseph (roughly) and on what grounds, but received no answer, so please respond to that.

        “LOL, see? All of a sudden, the people you quote are “scholars” when it comes to the Quran, but what about the same “scholars” who state that the Bible is historically suspect?” and “..(you are a mere apologist)..”and “Again, stop pretending like you are not an apologist”

        Again, you appear not to read what I wrote:

        I am for critical scholarship, so I clearly and unequivocally stated “The historicity of Esther, not accepted by main stream critical scholarship…” .

        “The historicity (or actually, the lack thereof) of Esther IS relevant because it is based on this pseudohistorical book that Christians mainly claim that the Quran must have confused Haman. But who says that the author even knew what he was talking about? Does the fact that there is a “Haman” in this book mean that this was the only Haman in the history of the world? It’s a silly argument to use Esther as an apologetic tool to attack the Quran. Furthermore, what if the author of Esther was using an earlier figure as the inspiration for the Persian Haman?”

        Once more, you did not read what I wrote or quoted. I quoted a scholarly – not a Christian – source, the Encyclopaedia of Quran. In fact it is skeptical about the “[C]hristian claim that the Quran must have confused Haman”, stating that:

        “There are conflicting views as to Hāmān’s identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is that he is the minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the Persian empire to the palace of Pharaoh (cf. Vajda, Hāmān). There is, however, no reason, other than the paradigmatic one of hostility to the Israelites (see Jews and Judaism), to make any direct connection between him and the eponymous minister of Ahasuerus referred to in Esther (3:1-6) who persuaded his ruler to issue an edict to exterminate the Jews of the Persian Empire because Mordechai refused to pay him homage. One suggestion is that Hāmān is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Hā-Amen , the title of a high priest second only in rank to Pharaoh (Asad, Message, 590, n. 6). The name, however, may have become a time-honored designation for any court official hostile to the Jews and belief in the one God”.

        I summarized as following finding the paradigmatic solution helpful: “While there is no evidence of the Egyptian echo, I believe the other two proposals might well capture the meaning.It is not so much that it is anachronistic: Haman had become the paradigmatic time-honored enemy of the Jews and so it is a powerful way to get the message across (cf. Goldziher, op. cit., p. 23). Such “anachronisms”, by the way, are quite common in homiletical literature of antiquity”.

        “LOL, again with the biased historical approach. Can you name me a single historian who actually believes in the Exodus? Secular historians, mind you. Not Christian historians like Kitchen or Hoffmeier”.

        No critical scholar believes in the Exodus as described in the Bible. And most evangelical scholars like Kitchen and Hoffmeier don’t either. The evidence simply isn’t there, the texts are late, not supported by extra biblical sources etc., etc. Those who try whether secular or evangelical e.g., Millard, Hoffmeier and Kitchen, will try and find a historical kernel. Argue the text is historically accurate, possibly early and/or containing early material, get rid of things that don’t square etc. etc. At best, to my mind, highly speculative and that is putting it mildly.
        The same critical scholarship that is skeptical of the exodus due to historical problems, anachronisms etc. is the same kind that maintains, that the Quran is not a historical source for the exodus, primarily as it is not seen to contain independent historical information and also has anachronisms etc.

        On Samaritans and quotes by Schur and Cross:

        If you, or the site, by these quotes mean to say they believe there were Samaritans around in the time of Moses, in the second millennium b.c.e., then no scholar who works in the area of Samaritan studies believes this.

        And if that is what you or they say it is simply misleading. The most some scholars speak of is that Samaritans descended from the northern tribes. No one says Samaritans were around in Egypt in the second millennium b.c.e. It is simply misleading. Reinhard Pummer, a specialist in Samaritans studies I quoted, in my first comment above, also notes the anachronism of the Samaritan in the Quran.

        No scholar speaks of them being identifiable before the latter half of the first millennium at the earliest. Whether archaeologically, epigraphically or by written records. This, the problems with and the various scholarly views of the origins and history of the Samaritans, has been discussed recently in a responsible and detailed fashion in, Kartveit, Magnar. “The Origin of the Samaritans : Origin of the Samaritans”, BRILL, 2009. See especially chapter 3, “The State of the Question”, pp., 31-69 and chapter 9 “The Origins of the Samaritans”, pp. 351- 370. Cf. R.T Anderson and T. Giles; “The Samaritan Pentateuch an Introduction to its Origin, History and Significance for Biblical Studies”, Atalanta 2012, pp. 7-24.

        Even those scholars who hold an early origin of the Samaritans as a group, i.e. early first millennium b.c.e. regardless of whether they accept a connection to Samaria or not, rely on the biblical text (whether accepting it’s narrative of the Samaritan or not) and/or much later texts and accept there is on no distinction to be discerned in the contemporary archaeological and epigraphical records.

        But, please do quote those scholars saying they believe Samaritans were around in the time of Moses and also please provide the date of when the Samaritan Chronicle is thought to have been written.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Regarding Reynolds, fair enough. However, the problem I still see is that the underlying assumption is that it is simply copying or borrowing from earlier sources, even if to give its own perspective, instead of providing its own historical narrative by correcting what it sees as mistakes in the earlier narratives, and thus denying its claim to be a reliable source of information. The assumption is that since it came later, it has no status as a “historical” source. Hence, with the story of the sleepers, it corrects the mistaken assumptions of how many sleepers there were or how long they were sleeping, etc. But Reynolds also uses orientalist approaches to “borrowing” even when the evidence shows otherwise (e.g., the Alexander Romance). Even though evidence shows that the Alexander Romance postdates the Quran’s narrative about Dhul Qarnayn, people like Reynolds insist that the Quran must have based its narrative on the later Syriac source. This again underlies his arrogant, western chauvinism regarding the Quran.

        “You rely on scholarly critical methodology to argue that the Quran does not repeat historical errors in the Bible. When the same critical methodology is employed, scholars find anachronisms in the Quran as well. Thus your argument fails. This is not to mention the major methodological flaw already pointed out by the reddit reviewer.”

        Except that, unlike you, I don’t rely simply on an appeal to authority. I didn’t simply say “well, scholars say the Bible has anachronisms”. The anachronisms are demonstrated by historical evidence (e.g., the use of “Pharaoh” not being used for the king before the New Kingdom period).

        In contrast, the alleged “anachronisms” in the Quran are based more on assumptions rather than hard evidence (e.g., darahim). So regarding darahim, it was shown previously that the word in Arabic can mean both “coin” or “money” (see Lane’s Lexicon). A dirham could also be a coin or a weight. Also, Saifullah provided evidence from heiroglyphics that weights were used in ancient Egypt. So, where is the anachronism? Despite the evidence presented, you simply reject it on the basis of Saifullah being an “apologist”. Meanwhile, you trot out the secular scholars as if they are infallible. I have nothing against using scholarship. I am all for it. But using the argument that “I quote scholars, and you quote apologists” does not support your argument. That would just be an appeal to authority, instead of hard evidence. Christian apologists use this argument all the time or they simply reject secular scholars from the get-go when it suits their purpose. My point is that to use the evidence presented.

        “Which is why I asked when you date Joseph (roughly) and on what grounds, but received no answer, so please respond to that.”

        I would date Joseph to sometime during the reign of the Hyksos.

        “I don’t go after the man, and I don’t know his credentials in Islamic studies (I understand his Ph.d, is in an unrelated field). I personally know of German and Austrian Egyptologists who have in strong terms criticised his site’s abuse of Egyptological material to give just one example (I think it is even hinted at by themselves in one of their articles). So quote scholars who are experts in their field. Not an apologetic site that does not display expertise in neither Bible nor Egyptology. I don’t particularly care what their religion is.”

        Well, give examples of the alleged “abuse”, instead of making ambiguous allegations. Also, was this “abuse” demonstrated in the dirham article specifically? You are still resorting to character assassination rather than hard evidence.

        Regarding Haman, you quoted the Encyclopedia of the Quran, but even there, there is only speculation and no hard evidence of an actual anachronism (and it actually states the same theory presented by Saifullah):

        “There are conflicting views as to Hāmān’s identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is that he is the minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the Persian empire to the palace of Pharaoh (cf. Vajda, Hāmān). There is, however, no reason, other than the paradigmatic one of hostility to the Israelites (see Jews and Judaism), to make any direct connection between him and the eponymous minister of Ahasuerus referred to in Esther (3:1-6) who persuaded his ruler to issue an edict to exterminate the Jews of the Persian Empire because Mordechai refused to pay him homage. One suggestion is that Hāmān is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Hā-Amen , the title of a high priest second only in rank to Pharaoh (Asad, Message, 590, n. 6). The name, however, may have become a time-honored designation for any court official hostile to the Jews and belief in the one God.”

        So, where is the “anachronism”?

        “No critical scholar believes in the Exodus as described in the Bible. And most evangelical scholars like Kitchen and Hoffmeier don’t either. The evidence simply isn’t there, the texts are late, not supported by extra biblical sources etc., etc. Those who try whether secular or evangelical e.g., Millard, Hoffmeier and Kitchen, will try and find a historical kernel. Argue the text is historically accurate, possibly early and/or containing early material, get rid of things that don’t square etc. etc. At best, to my mind, highly speculative and that is putting it mildly.
        The same critical scholarship that is skeptical of the exodus due to historical problems, anachronisms etc. is the same kind that maintains, that the Quran is not a historical source for the exodus, primarily as it is not seen to contain independent historical information and also has anachronisms etc.”

        First, I took the same approach with the Quran as the one of Hoffmeier or Kitchen as you described, except for the “get rid of things that don’t square”. I showed that the Quran is historically accurate, and while you have tried to argue otherwise, you have yet to show any hard evidence of mistakes or anachronisms in the Quran (other than “well, the Encyclopedia of the Quran says this…”)

        Second, critical scholarship does not accept the Quran as “historical” simply because it is the youngest source. so far, no anachronisms have been conclusively demonstrated, and there is in fact, evidence for the Quran’s superior knowledge (e.g., instead of repeating the 600,000 Israelite men story, the Quran describes the Israelites as a “small band”).

        “If you, or the site, by these quotes mean to say they believe there were Samaritans around in the time of Moses, in the second millennium b.c.e., then no scholar who works in the area of Samaritan studies believes this.”

        Those sources state that the Samaritans are descended from the 10 tribes of Israel, which last time I checked, predate Moses (pbuh).

        “The most some scholars speak of is that Samaritans descended from the northern tribes. No one says Samaritans were around in Egypt in the second millennium b.c.e. It is simply misleading. Reinhard Pummer, a specialist in Samaritans studies I quoted, in my first comment above, also notes the anachronism of the Samaritan in the Quran.”

        If they descended from the northern tribes, then they could have been in Egypt, especially since the Israelites were there as well. Just because there is no physical evidence for “Samaritans” in Egypt, just as there is no physical evidence of “Hebrews” in Egypt, does not mean they weren’t there. Again, if they are descended from the tribes of Israel, specifically Ephraim and Manasseh, then it is plausible that they predate Moses and the Exodus.

        “But, please do quote those scholars saying they believe Samaritans were around in the time of Moses and also please provide the date of when the Samaritan Chronicle is thought to have been written.”

        Again, just because there is no scholar who believes Samaritans were not in Egypt, just as no scholar will say there were Hebrews in Egypt (given the lack of direct evidence), does not mean they were not there. I quoted scholars who accept the claim of descent from the tribes of Israel. That would make it plausible that Samaritans would predate Moses.

        The Chronicles might also be late, but historians like Schur and Cross don’t seem to be hindered by that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Except that, unlike you, I don’t rely simply on an appeal to authority. I didn’t simply say “well, scholars say the Bible has anachronisms”. The anachronisms are demonstrated by historical evidence (e.g., the use of “Pharaoh” not being used for the king before the New Kingdom period).”

        It seems to me, that you do rely on appeal to authority. There is no evidence for Samaritans in the second millennium B.C.E. and you have presented no more than vague quotes. So on what evidential basis do we speak about Samaritans in the second millennium B.C.E? Please provide the earliest primary evidence for the Samaritans.

        You write:

        “I quoted scholars who accept the claim of descent from the tribes of Israel. That would make it plausible that Samaritans would predate Moses. The Chronicles might also be late, but historians like Schur and Cross don’t seem to be hindered by that”.

        First, would you please so kind as to provide the date of when the Samaritan Chronicle is thought to have been composed?

        Second, with no actual evidence, but only quotes, why would it be “plausible that the Samaritans would predate Moses”?! That certainly seems to me like appeal to authority.

        But have you actually read what Schur and Cross, the scholars you quote, write?

        Schur believes that the Samaritans viewed themselves “with some right, from an ethnic point of view, to this day, as the direct continuation of the Ten Tribes of Israel” (p. 32) That makes them ethnically Israelites, not “Samaritan.” Schur dosen’t give the 2nd millennium B.C.E. any time of day in his book. There is not even a hint of a suggestion from him that there were Samaritans in the second millennium B.C.E., let alone in Egypt, nor does he make such claims anywhere in the book.

        Rather, he suggests that we may begin to speak of “Jews” and “Samaritans” by the latter half of the first millennium B.C.E., i.e. In the Judean restoration period of Ezra and Nehemiah and he does not believe in the “Samaritan Schism” but a process that led to this (See pp. 32-33).

        You quote this work as proof of Samaritans in the second century B.C.E.? Please quote him to that effect and state what evidence he presents.

        Cross’ paper is entitled: ”Samaria and Jerusalem in the Era of Reconstruction”, published in “From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel”, 1998 pp. 173-202. As the paper’s title suggests it deals exclusively with the restoration period after the Assyrian destruction in 722 B.C.E. There is not one word about neither the Samaritan Chronicle nor the second millennium B.C.E. Like Shur, but from a different perspective, he too understands that we can speak of Samaritans only from about the second half of the first millennium and accordingly, which is the main focus of his paper in from pp. 179-202.

        And you – and you say Islamic Awareness – are quoting these two scholarly sources as evidence for Samaritans in the second millennium B.C.E.? Is this an academically and intellectually honest way, you think, to use sources? Might this be an example of abuse of sources?

        The conclusion is that the there is no evidence for your unsubstantiated claim. There is no evidence for Samaritans in the second millennium B.C.E. and no scholar says there is, as they can talk about them only later in the first millennium B.C.E. It is a clear anachronism. So please produce the evidence and quote a scholar clearly and unambiguously stating there were Samaritans around in the time of Moses.

        “In contrast, the alleged “anachronisms” in the Quran are based more on assumptions rather than hard evidence (e.g., darahim). So regarding darahim, it was shown previously that the word in Arabic can mean both “coin” or “money” (see Lane’s Lexicon). A dirham could also be a coin or a weight”.

        Coins were invented around the 7th century. Dirham, from the Greek Drakhma a coin or a weight unit is from about the same time. Darahim only in later post-Quranic Arabic came to mean money. Nobody has ever said that the specific usage in Surah 12:20 means money. Not even the Islamic Awareness site gave that translation Rather surah 12:20 speaks specifically about coins. The literal translation is “A few dirhams, counted”

        I already quoted the Brill Encyclopaedia of the Quran:

        1. “The qurʾānic reference, however, is anachronistic since it refers specifically to coins and not standard weights of silver. Modern scholarship places the historical figure of Joseph in the early second millenium b.c.e., long before the invention of coinage in the seventh century b.c.e.”

        2. Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage, Badawi and Abdel Haleem, Leiden 2008, defines the usage in surah 12:20 as meaning a coin, perhaps silver or copper.

        3. Lane’s lexicon gives various meanings of later medieval Arabic language dictionaries, not Lanes’ “own” meaning. It does not mention surah 12:20 and gives no definition of the meaning there.

        4. In his book, E. W. Lane’s book “Selections from the Kuran”, himself translates it as “some dirhems counted” sura 12, 20 (page 79).

        5. There were no coins in the time of Joseph called dirham and neither, was there any weight unit called dirham in the time of Joseph.

        6. The Islamic Awareness site are simply trying to confuse things. That is not going to work with me. Even after all that they went through to “show” there were coins, they did not get coins from the time you claim Joseph existed and they didn’t even translate the Quranic usage with money.

        It is a clear anachronism and no scholar or even Islamic Awareness for that matter translate surah 12:20 as money.

        “Also, Saifullah provided evidence from heiroglyphics that weights were used in ancient Egypt. So, where is the anachronism?”

        I’m not sure what exactly that proves. There are weights from ancient Egypt from at least the fourth millennium B.C.E, see Karl M. Petruso, “Early Weights and Weighing in Egypt and the Indus Valley” M Bulletin (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), Vol. 79 (1981), pp. 44-51. But there were no weight units called dirham in the time of Joseph.

        In fact, “shekel” used in the Biblical narrative is a weight unit and was widely used in the Levant from at least the 3rd millennium B.C.E. In contrast, dirham as a term for a weight or coin does not exist before the 6-7th century B.C.E.

        “Despite the evidence presented, you simply reject it on the basis of Saifullah being an “apologist”. Meanwhile, you trot out the secular scholars as if they are infallible”.

        Again, this is a well documented anachronism recognized by scholars and can be found in a standard reference work such as EQ and no evidence to the contrary has been presented by you nor the apologist website that there were coins or dirhams in the time of Joseph. And no scholar believes this to be the case.

        Yes, it is an apologist site, but even more than that it is not a scholarly resource and they have no expertise in Egyptology. On the Islamic Awareness site they themselves say that they are not scholars of the relevant areas, rather it is the writers’ hobby: “Islamic studies and its associated disciplines represent one of their favourite hobbies which they maintain a keen interest in”. (FAQ page). So that’s not a good place to start, in my opinion. As I say we should start with the experts in their field.

        I never said secular scholars were infallible, nobody is. I quote them because they are scholars in a certain area. I don’t understand why are you trotting out an apologist website whose writers have a hobby.

        On Haman

        Like I said, in my reading the anachronism becomes a minor point. However, it would seem to suggest that Haman is a haggadic element in the Quranic discourse compared to Exodus. Thus, it sits lets well within the context of an argument in which the Quran is correcting the Bible’s historical errors.

        “Well, give examples of the alleged “abuse”, instead of making ambiguous allegations. Also, was this “abuse” demonstrated in the dirham article specifically? You are still resorting to character assassination rather than hard evidence”.

        Nobody is resorting to character assassination. They linked to some of it on their own site (see below). I understand the site was informed directly or indirectly about a press release and an open letter written by Egyptologist Prof. Jürgen Osing (who felt his work was misused) as well as three other Egyptologists’ evaluations of Islamic Awareness’ treatment of “Haman in an Egyptian source, if I remember correctly. They also I understand received correspondence.

        Apparently, a Christian apologist group, tired of the claims in longwinded and inconclusive articles by Islamic Awareness, that left lay readers bewildered as to what was going on, did some research and consulted specialist scholars.

        To their credit – and I really have to admire them for that – The Islamic Awareness site admitted they were wrong in the Haman article you yourself linked to, just like I told you. They even linked to Egyptologist Prof. Osing’s letter and press release, though they downplayed it somewhat. Subsequently they were forced to rewrite and republish it some three years later.

        But here’s just some of what they did. In an inscribed doorpost from the New Kingdom period, they found a name with a total of four transcribed letters, ḥmn-ḥ which is probably an abbreviated form of ḥemen-ḥetep or the like. They decided that the final letter, perhaps standing for “ḥetep” should be dropped as part of the name. Something they could do only be by disregarding the explicit note in the original publication which they claim they consulted.

        Then they claimed that the quality of the first ḥ was not really that but rather it should be h to bring it in line with the “h” of Haman. To do that they had to misrepresent what Prof. Osing said in his book to make their case appear stronger, saying: “There are early examples of a merger between /h/ and /h/ from the New Kingdom Period mentioned by Jürgen Osing”, whereas, Osing said there is only one known case in the New Kingdom Period and that in a secondary merger. They followed up by citing another Egyptologist: “Carsten Peust says: It is presently impossible to decide whether the primary distinction of /h/ and /ḥ/ [i.e., /h/] was one of voice or one of place of articulation.”

        The problem is that Peust is referring to Coptic Egyptian, some 1000 years later than the Egyptian language of the New Kingdom doorpost.

        All this simply to get the name “Haman”, an otherwise unattested name in Egypt but present in the Quranic story. Prof. Osing had to write and correct them, in a very civilized way on these matters. Another Egyptologist, however, was more blunt saying the “Haman” reading was so objectionable that it amounted to no more than “loud nonsense”.

        Since Islamic Awareness admitted they were wrong and even explained some of their errors about it (but clearly downplaying it) I have a lot of respect for them in this regard. Credit where credit is due. But it just goes to show that an apologist site who writes about a highly specialized area of study such as Egyptology of which they have no expertise, is not the way to go. I don’t care if they are Muslim or Christian or whatever. These apologetic sites are not helpful.

        The link to the German document is in Islamic Awareness’ own Haman article but it dosen’t work, but I found what I believe to be the correct link, and l link also to their 2006 article that Prof. Osing responded to:

        2006 article

        https://mquran.org/content/view/9220/12

        Open letter from Prof. Osing and press release:

        https://www.islaminstitut.de/2009/kein-beweis-fuer-goettliche-offenbarung-des-korans-in-aegyptischen-inschriften/

        Small band:

        First, I could not find any references to a “small band”, perhaps it is in a link or I may have overlooked it. My apologies if I did. So I’ll answer as best as I can.

        You are simply making an unproven assumption that an historical Exodus did in fact take place. But as we have already established, few critical scholars accept the idea of a patriarchal age, Egyptian sojourn and exodus anymore, and in any case, there is little hard conclusive evidence in this regard. Even those few scholars who have attempted to find “a historical kernel” or “setting” such as Hoffmeier and more secular scholars like Friedmann and Rendsburg, who have to do so in highly speculative and selective ways of reading the Bible etc. and with little hard evidence to support such historical reconstructions.

        And you have not provided any evidence as to why you accept Joseph to have lived in around the 17-16 century B.C.E.

        Second, the argument is a non-sequitur, if you intend to say that the “small band” could only have been a divine “correction” as opposed to human. Why could a human author not have “rationalized” or “exegeted” the 600,000 to a smaller number? In fact, this is what happens in the rabbinic Midrash known as Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael (consensus is that it was redacted in the 4-5th century C. E):

        “Another opinion: “Chamushim [Ex. 13:18] went up [from Egypt]” means one in five. Some say one in fifty. Some say one in five hundred. Rabbi Nehorai says: “[I swear by] the Temple Service! It was not one in five hundred that went out [but fewer]. It says, ‘I made you into myriads like the grass of the field’ (Ezekiel 15:7), and it says, ‘The Children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed and multiplied and became huge’ (Exodus 1:6) – a woman would give birth to six at one time. And you say that one in five hundred went out?! [I swear by] the Temple Service! It was not one in five hundred that went out [but fewer]. Rather, many Jews died in Egypt. When did they die? During the three days of darkness, as it says, ‘People could not see each other’ (Exodus 10:23). They were burying their dead, and they thanked and praised Hashem…” https://harova.org/torah/view.asp?id=1975

        If a rabbinic Midrash is able to make the 600,000 into a “small band” then surely it could be done by another human author as well. Perhaps even one familiar with traditional narrative exegesis? Whether we as modern readers agree with such interpretation or not is a different question altogether. The point is that we do find such traditions.

        Pharaoh:

        The Quran understands “Pharaoh” as a proper name, whereas in the Bible it is understood as a regnal title (See G. S. Reynolds: “Moses, Son of Pharaoh: A Study of Qurʾān 26 and Its Exegesis”, in “Exegetical Crossroads”, ed. Tamer et al., 2018, pp. 289-301; A. Silverstein: “The Qurʾānic Pharaoh” in. G. S. Reynolds (ed.):“New Perspectives on the Qur’an: The Qur’an in Its Historical Context 2”, Routledge 2018. Pp. 467-477; cf. ”Firawn” in Encyclopaedia Islam; ”Firawn” in Encyclopaedia of the Quran ). So it is not particularly strange to fins that only Moses’ pharaoh is called so and not Joseph’s.

        Whereas the Biblical exodus story, proceeds more or less chronologically, has a number of Pharaohs, the Quran has only one. This highlights the narrative action on the continued conflict between the Pharaoh and Moses, as the Quran has not one continuous narrative but rather a number of episodes distributed at various points of the Quranic discourse.
        Thus the Quranic Pharaoh – used as a proper name and only for this one person in the Quran – is the one with whom Moses and Aaron negotiates This explains “pharaoh” organically within the Quranic narrative framework; as an expression of how the Quran creates its own unique discourse adapting and reworking previous material. Without recourse to such unsubstantiated assumptions about historical corrections that could not have been known otherwise and divine origin or authorship.
        However, in order to actually show that the Biblical naming of Joseph’s Egyptian ruler as “pharaoh” is anachronistic, for the Quran to correct it, one would have to prove, that Joseph is described as living prior to the New Kingdom period. This, however, is a disputed point among those relatively few scholars who consider the Joseph story historical to begin with.

        Like

  2. ” A third example is the Quran’s failure to repeat the Biblical anachronism in Exodus 13:17-18. This passage states that the Israelites did not leave Egypt through “the road through the Philistine country”. However, the Philistines did not occupy Canaan and the surrounding areas until much later. It seems that every time the Biblical account made a historical error or anachronism, the Quran did not repeat it.”

    “Genesis 20:2
    And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

    Genesis 26:1
    And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.

    It seems that every time that scholars made a historical error or anachronism, Faiz was sure to repeat it.

    Like

    • LOL, Iggy opens his mouth again and makes a fool of himself yet again.

      Earth to Iggy: No one cares what the Bible says. It is a weak historical source. Your pathetic circular argument doesn’t change the fact that the Philistines did not occupy the region in the time of Moses. Moreover, you just dug a bigger hole for yourself and your Bible by showing the Philistine anachronism was repeated throughout the Bible, including Genesis.

      Here is what the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states (you might want to go back to school Iggy):

      “Whether, however, the alleged reason was the real reason, is very doubtful: the Philistines in point of fact do not appear to have settled in Canaan till the reign of Rameses III (EB. iii. 3717 f.; Sayce, EHH. 291 f.; Wade, OT. Hist. 108): the use of the term here is consequently an anachronism (cf. Genesis 21:34; Genesis 26:1). It is remarkable that no mention is made of the forts and guards (pp. 127, 141), which might have formed a real obstacle to the Israelites leaving Egypt by the isthmus.” (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/exodus/13.htm)

      Liked by 2 people

    • Watson: It seems that every time that scholars made a historical error or anachronism…

      As a baby boomer with no more than a high school education, you are the last person to evaluate scholarship.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 🤣🤣 I couldn’t have put it any better.

        Iggy is the kind of moron who believes the earth is 6000 years old, or that climate change is not real, or that dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark. 😂 When you show him the evidence, he will ignore it and point to the Bible.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. “since that term was not used by the Egyptians for the king until the New Kingdom period?”

    Evidence please and don’t hold your breath.

    Faiz believes in a local flood which makes no sense. He has to believe in this nonsense because one islamic prophet can’t confront the whole world.

    His Koran won’t tell him one way or the other. It is too vague.

    “or that dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark.”

    I don’t believe they were. That is why they died out.

    “When you show him the evidence, he will ignore it and point to the Bible.”

    The only “evidence” you ever show is for your bias and the fact that so-called scholars are groping in the dark.

    Like

    • Watson: I don’t believe they were. That is why they died out.

      According to Watson, the dinosaurs died out because they couldn’t make it on Noah’s ark. Lol.

      Liked by 3 people

      • “According to Watson, the dinosaurs died out because they couldn’t make it on Noah’s ark. Lol.”

        Those poor brachiosaurs…

        But what about the plesiosaurs and other marine reptiles? Shouldn’t they have survived since they lived in the ocean?

        Liked by 1 person

      • ‘But what about the plesiosaurs and other marine reptiles? Shouldn’t they have survived since they lived in the ocean?’

        Only if they were as good in Persian as Ken Temple.

        Liked by 2 people

    • “Evidence please and don’t hold your breath.”

      Dumbass, we have already been through this. The earliest record of the word being used for the king of Egypt is regarding Tuthmose III. Before that, whenever it was used, it meant the palace of the king. It would be like if the “White House” became synonymous with the President of the United States.

      “Faiz believes in a local flood which makes no sense. He has to believe in this nonsense because one islamic prophet can’t confront the whole world.”

      LOL, but a global flood which covered mountains makes perfect sense? Oh Iggy, were you always an idiot? A local flood makes perfect sense. We see local floods all the time. When was the last time you saw a flood that affected the entire planet? We have evidence for global mass extinctions due to asteroids, but no evidence of a global flood has ever been found.

      “His Koran won’t tell him one way or the other. It is too vague.”

      Actually, the Quran suggests a local flood. Just because it doesn’t literally say “it was a local flood” doesn’t mean it’s vague.

      “I don’t believe they were. That is why they died out.”

      ROTFL!! Do you see the stupidity folks? This moron is talking about “nonsense” and asks for proof that the word “pharaoh” meant different things to the Egyptians at different times (yeah, who would have thought that words can be used differently as time goes by, right?) but then simultaneously believes that dinosaurs existed in the time of Noah. I mean, what hope is there for such a moron to see the light?

      There were no dinosaurs in Noah’s time, stupid. They died out long before humans ever appeared on earth. I keep saying that you need to go back to school. Your level of intellect is lower than a 3rd grader.

      Let’s see what “evidence” you can present for your dinosaur fantasy world. Don’t hold your breath. 😉

      “The only “evidence” you ever show is for your bias and the fact that so-called scholars are groping in the dark.”

      LOL, no moron. I show you historical evidence from experts in their field. Who the hell are you? Some jackass who still clings to Biblical myths that even a child would know is nonsense?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “Actually, the Quran suggests a local flood. Just because it doesn’t literally say “it was a local flood” doesn’t mean it’s vague.”

    And we see people building arks all the time to save humans from a local flood, LOL.

    When you get to this level of stupidity there really is no hope.

    Like

    • @ Watson

      Yeah we do its called a “boat”

      Liked by 1 person

    • 🤣🤣🤣 Lol dude, haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough? Just keep your mouth shut and you won’t have to endure anymore mockery.

      Yes, people build these things called “boats”. They float on the water and work really well when rescuing people stranded during floods.

      The level of stupidity you are exhibiting is further proof that being a Christian has rotted your brain.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Idk man Christian is giving him a good run for his money.

        Liked by 1 person

      • So in the “eternal” Koran is it “ARK” or “BOAT”?

        Like

      • 😂😂 Iggy, just stop. Go back to living in your cave of ignorance.

        An ark is a boat. Ark = boat just like Iggy = dumbass.

        Like

      • The ark is not a boat. It has no sails, oors or steering. The word used is Tebah, is according to some of Egyptian origin and means “chest, box”, is used for also Moses’ “basket” in Exodus 2 and nowhere else in the bible.
        The theological message of Noah’s tebah might be that it is in God mercy alone. Humans have no influence on the fairh of the ark.

        Like

      • Oy vei. You know, if you guys spent as much time using your reason when reading the Bible, instead of overthinking on a mundane topic like this, you would have renounced the Bible a long time ago.

        These are the different definitions for “ark”:

        1. Merriam-Webster: a boat or ship held to resemble that in which Noah and his family were preserved from the Flood

        2. Dictionary.com: the large boat built by Noah in which he saved himself, his family, and a pair of every kind of creature during the Flood. Gen. 6–9.

        3. Yourdictionary.com: the huge boat in which Noah, his family, and two of every kind of creature survived the Flood: Gen. 6

        4. Collins Dictionary: In the Bible, the ark was a large boat that Noah built in order to save his family and two of every kind of animal from the Flood.

        5. Cambridge Dictionary: (in the Bible) a large wooden ship built by Noah in order to save his family and a male and female of every type of animal when the world was covered by a flood

        6. Vocabulary.com: a boat built by Noah to save his family and animals from the flood

        The bottom-line is that a “boat” can be of different types. It can be small or large. It can have oars or not. It can have a sail or not. A boat is simply a vessel used for floating and traveling on water. Yes, we tend to refer to bigger boats as “ships”. For example, the Titanic was a ship, or you could also refer to as a “large boat”. Similarly, the “ark” was a “large boat”.

        Like

      • I think you missed my point. The entries may, indeed correctly point to the right reference, but in the original language, it is not a boat. Even in archaic English “ark”, from which our modern translations hail, correctly captures the original meaning as a “box, chest, coffer”. This old translation is kept because it became “canonical”, though today many may have forgotten the meaning of such archaic English words. Think for example also of the “ark of the covenant”as a good example of old English usage, though here another word is used in the original. The theological significance of “Noah’s box” being that the ark is left to God’s mercy alone.

        It is perhaps in noticeable contrast to the Mesopotamian flood accounts where a boat is built and is navigated by regular means and sailors.

        Like

  5. Stew…

    1. Getting it “right” “over and over again”? 😂 Where and how many are those instances of impressively getting facts right?

    2. The point, rather, is that the Bible is STILL MORE RELIABLE than the Quran EVEN when it’s not early. That’s the whole point. The Exodus series tries to make it look like the Quran’s account could be trusted. But right off the bat the Quran fails one criterion for reliability, which is being early. You guys then argue that the Quran gets facts right where the Bible gets them wrong. But that argument doesn’t hold water as the Quran not only does not tell us it’s correcting a mistake (I mean that’d be powerful evidence that the Quran got things from above), but it does a bad job in reporting the stories.

    3. All those “reasons” don’t account for what you would have me believe that that Jews were involved in a conspiracy to completely erase an entire religion (and BTW this was the trend not only for Jews but for literally every other people). No kind of political agenda would warrant that. Nor has any of you given us a coherent model of how things actually happened. Yes, the reasons could have been responsible for textual changes and stuff, but not taking down whole religions every time and everywhere. Killing all prophets of such religion every time and everywhere. Erasing all records every time and everywhere. And then EVERYONE had to be in support. Which is a rather unrealistic conspiracy.
    Not to mentions that stories were altered which would not have any consequences if they remained. I mean look at the stories in the Bible and the Quran. Why did the Jews have to change those “original” stories which allegedly were the Quranic stories into the one we find in the Bible down to insignificant details? And that’s it for EVERY story the Quran repeats. In some cases, leaving the story that way would have been more impressive. Exactly what kind of mission did they have? This whole thing does not make sense one bit.

    Anyway, there’s no manuscript evidence for the alleged changes regarding Ishmael. (And then the excuse is “but hey we don’t have many manuscripts so…”). This whole thing as as a result of a bias when looking at the texts as you’ve already assumed the right history so any problem tends to suggest that the imagined history was altered.

    4. I repeat, they may have CHANGED the text. Right. But that the Quran might have been “lucky” and got it right that they changed the text is not remarkable, as that’s like a default thing to claim regarding texts that disagree with you. AND, MANY non Jewish texts were changed this way. Plus, there’s no evidence that the Torah texts looked like an Islamic text. Stop ignoring this point.

    (What the Quran says is what even I would have said if I was a prophet who wanted to lie to people and stuff.)

    5. “Missing texts.”

    • We have an idea of what those text might have talked about. Evident in your example. It doesn’t seem like they talked about Islam.

    • No evidence that those texts would have been relevant. Christians don’t think the Bible contains everything God had ever said to a prophet or revealed or inspired anyone to say. (Remember the burnt scroll in Jeremiah?) You have to show that those texts had things that would change Christian or Jewish theology, and things would start to get interesting.

    6. I don’t know about this Church of Jerusalem stuff. Yeah. Peter and Paul had issues, and we’ve lost what Peter’s sect believed. But it’s most likely that they all believed Jesus was some sort of preexistent person. Evidenced in Paul’s authentic letters. And also, mainstream scholarship agrees with this view. Jesus was regarded as some kind of preexistent figure who was prophesied. Divine.

    Anyway, the Quran is still not right as it wants us to believe Jesus preached Islam. Which is what ONLY Muslims believe.

    Like

    • @ Christian

      1.The jist of your argument:
      The text that is also late is a bit earlier than another one, so there we can trust it!”

      2. It does say it corrects mistakes, which is why it calls itself the “Furqan” (the Standard):

      25:4. The disbelievers say: “This is nothing but a lie he’s made up with the help of others,” but it’s they themselves who’ve done great evil and spread much propaganda.
      25:5. They say: “These are just fairy tales and myths of ancient people which he has written down, they are read to him in the morning and evening.”
      25:6. So say to them: “It was sent down by He who knows the secrets of the heavens and earth. And He is Most Forgiving and Forever Merciful…”
      25:9. See how they come up with all these different examples about who or what you are? They are so far lost, they can’t even find a path.

      3:2. God, there is no god but He, the Ever Living source of Life ˹and˺ Caretaker of existence.
      3:3. He’s gradually sent the Scripture down to you, with Truth, verifying what’s come before it. He sent the Torah and Gospel down,
      3:4. previously as guidance to the people and has now revealed the Standard. As for those who are set in disbelieving in God’s revelations there’s an intense punishment for them ˹because˺ God is the Final Authority and capable of taking vengeance.

      Man just stop because this is getting embarrassing.

      3.Not a trend for us lol. What’s funny is you’re the only fool saying they didn’t have a political agenda when they’re OWN scholars say they did 😂😂😂

      ““The Bible you usually read is the abridged version. Its contents were culled from a much larger selection of holy scriptures when new realities forced religious leaders to discard some of their most cherished and sacred books, resulting in what we now call the Bible. Some writings were left out for POLITICAL or theological reasons, others simply because of the physical restrictions of ancient bookmaking technology. At times, the compilers of the Bible skipped information that they assumed everyone knew. Some passages were even omitted by accident. For these reasons and more, your Bible doesn’t give you a complete picture. […]”

      Your argument in a jist:

      The Jews: Yeah we changed our texts for a variety of reasons.
      Christian: No you didn’t!!!

      Also dumb@$$ they admit to killing prophets, ONLY their scholars knew the Torah and we have seen them congregate to change things like the incident of the Calf in less than a month.

      As noted they did so for a variety of reasons. For example, they made up an entire story about the prophet Lut(as) committing incest to insult a rival tribe. The ending of Mark all a forgery. The lady took in adultery all a forgery. Why were all those made-up, Christian? What was the grand reason there Christian? These aren’t slips of the pen, like you are retardedly claiming. These are entire stories that just straight up didn’t happen and were then circulated among the masses.

      4. The evidence is the context doesn’t make sense and their own scholars like Rashi had to do verbal gymnastics too try and save it:

      “Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love–Isaac–…” (Genesis 22:2)

      When was Issac(as) Abraham’s(as) “only son”? Furthermore, it’s a harder test with Ishamael(as) because he had no other children at the time. Rashi saw the problem and had to create a conversation by breaking u this one sentence into a huge conversation between Abraham(as) and God.

      5. Got it we know you’re theory of extreme leprechaun luck you don’t have to keep repeating. (PS I guess Jeremiah in your text was lying as well)

      6. You don’t know what the text contained so lol you don’t know what was changed. All i have to prove is they lost entire BOOKS.

      7. Oh so you admit you don’t even understand something basic in “low Christology” regarding the Church of Jerusalem but want to debate about it lol? Jerusalem involved more than Peter (who was lied on btw) and they (aka the people that Jesus(as) preached to) thought Paul was a heretic. I just told you everything they believed Jesus was a prophet, the Jewish Scriptures had been changed and Jesus(as) was only sent to the Jews. Three Islamic beliefs lol. Don’t worry man you’re just these people in the Quran:

      “They’re calling it lies simply because it’s not within reach of their knowledge or comprehension…Some of them will believe, and some will not. Your Lord knows best about those who are simply causing trouble.” (10:39-40)

      ALL of the NT (barring maybe “James” which is in this strand) is written by Paul or his students. So no you don’t have a complete picture which is why those guys I quoted are a knockout punch regarding what Jesus(as) taught and confirm Islam is correct. Again you have not actually researched these subjects before and are just talking out of back pocket.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Stew…

        What’s with the insults? 🤔 I never referred to you as ANYTHING. Literally. Anyway…

        1. That’s not the gist of my argument. I literally never claimed that we could trust the Bible’s accounts. My point is that we can’t trust the Qur’an’s account either, as the post wants us to believe.

        2. Yeah, yeah. Aren’t religious texts supposed to correct mistakes? Wasn’t the Quran entirely meant to correct the entire Bible? Obviously. But the Quran doesn’t tell us it’s correcting a mistake of calling the king that Moses dealt with, pharaoh. Unlike other “mistakes” the Quran obviously corrects, it doesn’t even tell us that calling the king pharaoh is a mistake. It doesn’t. And it goes for all other claimed Quranic foreknowledge.

        3. The “trend” was to kill and destroy records of one religion in literally every place in the world in every time. You didn’t get that, obviously.

        I said they didn’t have a political agenda THAT WOULD WARRANT wiping out entire religious practices and texts and killing its prophets such that we have no clue of what they did originally (except by some alleged divine revelation). AND THEN this would not have had to be the first time this was happening as it happened in every place and everywhere and every time Islam showed up on the scene.

        The Bible texts have been analysed and they have been found to have been derived from different cultures and religions and theologies, which somehow all came together as a result of a series of religious, political and cultural factors. BUT you guys want us to believe that there was once one true Torah and true religion and true prophets, then a conspiracy was in place, then the Torah got changed (and it doesn’t make sense WHY they changed the things that changed, under your paradigm). The above quote doesn’t fit what you believe. Plus, every other culture had to be involved in similar conspiracies, which effectively wiped Islam out of existence until the 7th century. But I don’t need to stress myself imagining that as that is all fiction.
        Scholars actually have some clue on what the biblical texts were derived form, and it’s not anything about Islam.

        My actual argument:

        Jews: It looks like our texts were changed for some reasons.
        Muslims: Aha! Islam was corrupted off your texts! Like Allah always said!
        Me: That does not follow. Not only is there no evidence that the current texts were derived from Islam, that their texts were changed does not imply that Islam was what was changed.
        Also me: And Muhammad’s claim that the texts were corrupted is a very common tactic against texts that disagree with you. So that he gets it right that the Torah was changed is not remarkable.
        Me again: yeah. The Jewish texts were changed. (I never said they weren’t as you seen to think I argue.)

        I don’t get what you try to argue with NT forgeries. Those are not relevant here.

        “Why were all those made-up, Christian?” For whatever reason. But it’s almost certainly not because they wanted to scrap off Islam.
        “What was the grand reason there Christian?” Whatever. But It’s almost certainly not to get rid of Islam, Stew. And who said everything was just by accident and not purposeful tampering? Surely not me. I only deny tampering with the purpose of eliminating Islam.
        Yeah. I get it, there were forged stories. But only you guys say they were forged to destroy Islam.

        4. Genesis 21:10-12 makes it evident that Abraham and Hagar were legally separated (with God’s permission). Genesis makes it clear that Issac was the only son through whom God’s promised blessings to Abraham would pass to his descendants.
        Abraham didn’t have only Ishmael by the time in 22:2. And it’d still not be a “harder test” as the birth of Isaac was well anticipated through a divine promise. Just as it happened with Hannah. Children who come that way consequently become the most loved, especially in light of knowledge of promises that would be fulfilled through them. These all make the claim that Ishmael was meant to be in the text unlikely.
        PLUS on top of all that, there’s no MSS support for the claim. Do the math.

        5. That Muhammad said that the Torah texts were corrupted was not out of luck. Nor was it out of luck that the Quran didn’t call the King of Egypt Moses met with pharaoh. There’s not many instances to arrive at the conclusion of divine revelation responsible for it. And then the Quran doesn’t tell us we’re making a mistake until we figured that out. Not remarkable.

        6. We have a clue of what those “missing texts” contained. The Bible literally tells us what some of them said. It doesn’t look like Islam was part of any of them.
        There were lost books? Heck, even if there were lost libraries, you’d have to show that losing them had consequences to Jewish or Christian theology. Or that those lost works had anything to do with Islam.

        7. As long as the resurrection of Jesus was proclaimed by Christians shortly after the events the gospels are supposed to be describing, then it’s likely that the first Christians saw Jesus as more than the regular prophets. Divine. Even before Paul wrote. Many scholars agree (like Ehrman in his book “How Jesus Became God”).
        Peter’s sects still believed in the death and resurrection and the Second Coming, which all point to Jesus being divine.

        And then that some guys believed something the Quran centuries later said was the case does not mean that the Quran is right. Because it hasn’t been shown that those guys were right.

        Like

      • @ Christian

        Stop saying stupid things and you won’t be insulted. I never have an issue with anyone calling me stupid.

        1. The argument of “early” text does not work for the Bible either so bringing it up has no use and is not proof for it.

        2. Not the entirety of it just main theological points. Usually, the Prophet(saw) ignored small details that don’t matter to the overall message. Again the Quran says this.

        3. The purpose is not to constantly go “aha, aha, aha”. Usually in the Quran God is telling the story and its lessons to derive from His perspective. Again, points are only being mentioned in passing because the purpose is not to sit there and go over every little thing. But when we do diverge from their text there is important reasons for doing so (again as an example Joseph’s(as) mother being alive to fulfill the dream)

        4. I didn’t say they wiped out the records in one huge wave. This is your strawman. They have a variety of things that happened over time (and again I’d like to point out their own text testifies to an actual book from God Moses’s(as) was reading from. Same with Jesus(as) More than likely (and God knows best) his revelations were his parables that people then framed stories around. Again if you were open-minded and read my article I clearly demonstrate the rough draft of what they did.

        5. It would happen each time Islam showed up on the scene otherwise there would be no need to send prophets period point-blank.

        6. “The Bible texts have been analysed and they have been found to have been derived from different cultures and religions and theologies, which somehow all came together as a result of a series of religious, political and cultural factors.”

        Oh, thank you for catching up with the rest of the class. They modified things accordingly and created a Frankenstein book like the Prophet(saw) said (there goes that luck again) creating a new religion.

        7. “Scholars actually have some clue on what the biblical texts were derived”

        Not really. They have some vague parts.

        8. NT forgeries are relevant because Christians are just heretical jews.

        9.Lol really that was the best argument you could come up for Genesis? Like… are you being serious or do you want me to pick that apart?

        10. “the Quran doesn’t tell us we’re making a mistake until we figured that out. Not remarkable.”
        Got it, man, some people are destined to be fuel for Hell you don’t have to tell me twice.

        11. You don’t know what missing books contain so you can’t argue what their importance is.

        12. Man, you are so ignorant about the Jerusalem Church lol I would REALLY recommend you stop talking. They are 1st century Christians from the area Jesus(as), the Disciples and his family preached and taught in. AND they just so happened to not believe anything Paul said calling him a heretic and they just so happened to coincide with Islamic beliefs hmmmm…. But, but Paul and his students said everything is peachy!!!

        13. Because you keep saying stupid crap about the “elimination of Islam” tell me something. What is the “Islam” that is being claimed to have been eliminated?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Stew…

        Insulting people in debates is not only unnecessary, it’s stupid. I don’t do that. Unless my opponent acts stupid. But then you not only call me stupid, you refer to me as a bunch of other bad things. I’m not particularly used to that. But I understand that that’s the standard in typical religious dialogues, especially online.

        1. Who said I was trying to prove anything for the Bible? My whole point is that the Quran hasn’t been demonstrated to be a better source, which is what this article argues. And that the Quran is even less reliable than the Bible. That’s it. I’m not defending the Bible here.

        2. Still the Quran differs from the Bible in irrelevant details.

        3. That argument can’t easily slide. There are indeed differences in Quranic stories that make more sense in context (like the example with Joseph and his dream). However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that other differences in detail were a result of an “important reason”.

        4. I didn’t say you said that they wiped total religions at once. It doesn’t matter how many waves it’s supposed to have taken, what matters is that it had to require a very elaborate conspiracy by the top Jews to completely erase Islam from the scene, to such a point that there’s no evidence left. And this not only had to happen once, but repeatedly, and then it had to not only be for Jews but for literally every era of culture in human history. Ummm. Soooo not true.

        Why now get evidence of an actual original Torah that Moses read, from sources centuries late from the events they describe? These sources are almost useless regarding those events, not to mention down to details of books Moses supposedly had (as even you have said). Yet you get clues from them. Yeah, only when you like what you see. Aaaannnd as usual, no evidence that that book had anything to do with Islam. I get it. There were lost books and stuff, but your job is to show that the lost material had anything to do with Islam. That’s it. Stop harping on claims of possible earlier original sources. I accept they might have existed, but the issue is whether on not they corroborate the Quran’s claim that they were Islamic.

        As for Jesus, the primary sources for his teachings were most likely parables, upon which stories were built. But we know this only because we can somehow trace the parables from the stories, or at least even get clues from the gospels that they were from parables. But then stories which were derived from Islamic parable Jesus is supposed to have taught (about monotheism, Muhammad, Messaiahship, what actually happened, etc.), would sound like the original, or have elements of it (that’s how we’d know it was derived from that kind of parables). But here, all stories of Jesus do not look like something derived from anything like Islam.

        Hmmmm which article? I wanna see.

        5. And that would make no sense when we have no evidence for it even when it should have happened hundreds of times. Allah sends prophets and books, they get killed and corrupted. Over and over again. Yet the world doesn’t seem to have any such memories. Strange.

        6. How many times do I have to point out that for Muhammad to get it right that the Jewish texts were tampered with was no luck nor did it come as a result of divine revelation, as making such assertion is expected when texts disagree with you AND such corruption tended to happen in antiquity? So making that claim and getting it right is almost an inevitable outcome. That’s not hard to understand.
        The real magic would be when it’s proven or shown to be likely that Muhammad and the Quran were right in their claim that ISLAM was corrupted off their texts which said more or less what the Quran says.

        7. “Not really. They have some vague parts.” Which is exactly what I meant by the statement you’re responding to. I never said scholars had a good idea of what was there. I only said the have “some clue”.

        8. NT forgeries are irrelevant because the NT was written after Jesus and thus had zero relationships with Jesus’ alleged Injeel. And we’re talking about Torah corruption, not… And Why would you ever think NT forgeries matter? It’s as if you think the NT was at some point authentic and then was corrupted. But you in reality think the NT was totally made up from scratch. So how is that ever relevant to corruption of inspired texts or religions?

        9. I made my case for that argument that Ishmael got mixed up in Genesis being lame. You make yours against.

        This is basically confirmation bias. You already assume that the real history is that Ishmael was the one, then any problem regarding the biblical account would tend to suggest that that history of yours was tampered with. Anyway…there’s not much evidence for you to work on.

        10. I’m glad you get that the Quran does a bad Job in delivering foreknowledge. Thanks.

        11. You’re the one who argues that “missing texts” point to some kind of significant change. So you’re by default arguing from the contents of those texts. My point was that you don’t know what those texts said, so you can’t make that argument. And that we know enough to know that Islam is among the last things the texts would have talked about (the Bible gives us a clue of what the texts would have said).

        12. Okay. I admit I don’t know much about the Jerusalem Church. But Paul doesn’t address them in his letters as he does with his rivals. Their beliefs are nearly opposite those of Paul, so it’s strange he doesn’t address them. I want to know your evidence for what these people believed. Share it.
        Regardless, I side with the scholarly opinion that Jesus was considered divine from day one (as Ehrman argues).

        13. Islam would be belief in monotheism; disbelief in the practices peculiar to cultures through the times (the prophet would obviously have to be like “oh those practices aren’t good! They’ll land you to Hell!”); belief in the Islamic afterlife and judgment, belief in a prophet Muhammad who would be the last prophet; belief in the creation and Adam and Eve story and about Satan and jinns; belief in Abraham (obviously, this would apply to times after Abraham. And it would apply to the appropriate places. I mean, a prophet can’t be sent to ancient China and be preaching about Abraham and Jews and Israel); belief in some kind of house that Adam built for worship of Allah (I’m not saying belief in the Hajj. I’m merely saying belief in the existence of the Kaaba and who built it); dress code and hijab; Shariah (not sure that would have been relevant, but hey, it’s an ideal law so Allah most likely would have wanted early humans to know it); as well as the Islamic moral codes; etc.

        Such an Islam is supposed by Muslims to have existed every time and everywhere.

        Like

      • @ Christian

        My apologies insults just keeps me invested in conversing with stupid people and listening to their dumb theories/ideas.

        13. I had to move point 13 to the top as you know nothing about “Islam” so I have to start here and work my way back. Pretty much EVERYTHING you said would NOT matter for previous iterations. Whaaaatttt???? Yeah, literally the only thing they would need is an All-Knowing God. That’s what any prophet came with and EVERYTHING else is subjective to time, place and culture. Also as a note, there are times where it’s completely gone like between Jesus(as) and Muhammad(saw). Pretty embarrassing you didn’t know this but sounded so confident in your posts. Now back to order.

        1.Good, see how simple that was? Both texts are late, let’s move on

        2 /3. Nope. Literally EVERY TIME the tales differ there is ALWAYS an issue with the Biblical story. I can state this as I have read and studied both texts while you haven’t.

        4. There you go with the strawman again. There were a variety of reasons for alterations, corruptions and text being lost whether intentional or not and I have for the most part proven all my statements.

        5. Except we do. So we can now conclude not only are you ignorant in theology but history as well.

        6. People in antiquity believed their texts were 100% right like how they do now. Biblical criticism is relatively recent so this point is just straight up wrong. Nobody was sitting there looking at manuscripts and going “aha!”

        7. No you said “Scholars actually have some clue on what the biblical texts were derived”
        They do not know what any source text and it’s all just shooting into the dark because Jews and christians didn’t do a simple thing called “listing your references”

        8. The Gospel is not “alleged” dumb@$$. Next I’ll say it again, Christians are simply Jewish heretics. By looking at their copying practices we can see things that they did earlier. Even if you want to reject this I don’t need it. I can simply argue the fact that the Jews have four Torahs is sufficient for my point.

        9.Even if they separated Issac (as) is not his “only son” using this logic if you have children with one woman then remarry you no longer are bound to your previous children. The story with Sarah is illogical for a number of reasons for one it portrays Ishamel(as) in a negative light (with no reason at all with an extreme reaction from his mother) and still continues to exalt Issac(as) showing bias. Next Ishmael(as) was a baby when they seperated in Arab tradition and what do you know a 40+ year old woman is just carrying around a 17-year-old in the desert in their text. Ishmael(as) according to the same text you quoted has a divine promise as well so that’s just an illogical argument. Regarding the love are you arguing Abraham(as) didn’t love his son lol? Completely missed my point, if he had to sacrifice Issac(as) he still had another son but with only Ishmael(as) he has no other child making it a harder test. Finally who cares what the late DSS (I assume this is what you meant) says? At the end of the day Issac(as) was NEVER Abraham’s(as) only son and their greatest scholars like Rashi acknowledged this problem.

        10. Never stated that retard this is why you get insulted.

        11. Never stated that again. Having missing texts is enough to do the job.

        12. Actually, most scholars favor he does in Galatians. Already listed some. And i’m glad you brought up Ehrman (note most of his earlier lectures are now outdated):

        Long story short the Quran is right (again)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Allow me to just interject for a minute to refute Christian on one of his claims:

        “Abraham didn’t have only Ishmael by the time in 22:2. And it’d still not be a “harder test” as the birth of Isaac was well anticipated through a divine promise. Just as it happened with Hannah. Children who come that way consequently become the most loved, especially in light of knowledge of promises that would be fulfilled through them. These all make the claim that Ishmael was meant to be in the text unlikely.
        PLUS on top of all that, there’s no MSS support for the claim. Do the math.”

        Actually, there is evidence from MSS to show that even Jews saw a problem in the Genesis account. I discussed this in previous articles.

        In a 2006 article in the journal “Dead Sea Discoveries”, Betsy Halpern-Amaru made the following interesting observation about a variant of the story in the fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls known as 4Q225:

        “…the author of 4Q225 develops a structure that creates a new backdrop for the narrative of the Aqedah. Prefacing the account of the Aqedah is a summary presentation of the promises of a son and multiple progeny in Gen 15:2–6 (2 i 3–7). Isaac’s birth is announced immediately thereafter (2 1 8–9a) and thereby is explicitly portrayed as the fulfillment of the preceding divine promise of a son. The Ishmael narratives that intervene between the promises of the covenant making in Genesis 15 and the birth of Isaac are omitted. Indeed, in 4Q225 Ishmael is never born. Consequently, when God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son (2 i 11), Isaac is quite literally…the only son the patriarch has.” (Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. 2006. “A Note on Isaac as First-born in Jubilees and Only Son in 4Q225.” Dead Sea Discoveries 13, no. 2: 127-133.)

        Besides, there are numerous inconsistencies in the story, which I discussed in a separate article which can be read here: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/ishmael-and-isaac-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        Whhhaaaaat, are you saying this is ANOTHER time Christian has been shown not to know what he’s talking about?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Stew…

        13. You’ve now reduced everything to an “All-Knowing God.” How convenient. Anyway, it’s still strange that we have little evidence for such monotheistic beliefs if they repeatedly popped up here and there in everywhere and every time. And how is every other thing I listed subjective to time and culture?
        Wouldn’t the sent prophet have to speak against those practices peculiar to the culture he’s sent in?
        How is the knowledge of Islamic eschatology dependent on time and culture? Isn’t it a vital thing for any religion to have? Why would they not have been revealed something about the afterlife?
        And why would they not know about Muhammad, as he’s basically the seal of everything? (He’d even be involved in Judgment Day.)
        How would they not know the history of mankind, the history of jinns and evil, Satan Adam and Eve? How are those dependent on culture and time?
        What about morals? Why would the knowledge of the Islamic moral codes not have been necessary at early times, or how is that dependent on different cultures? After all, morality is supposed to objectively come from God, not subjective to human culture. (Dress codes might be subjective, but it couldn’t have been limited to a small culture in a certain time.)
        Shariah? It’s an ideal law good for every human so why should Allah have delayed in revealing it? Even if it’s subjective to cultures and time (which is opposed to it being the very best law for any state), it couldn’t have been known in only a single culture and time (Middle East-Arabia; possibly three thousand years ago).

        I don’t mean literally every time when I say “every time”. I know there could have been times between prophets, when Islam was basically non existent. (Which is itself, strange, as elements of such religions most likely should survive long enough for another messenger to come.)

        2/3. Oh really? Let’s see.
        In the Quran (Surah 2:60) when Moses asks for water for his people, 12 springs come out for each tribe to get water. In the Bible (Exodus 17:1-6) one spring comes out for the whole of Israel. Not a significant difference and there’s no problem with the Bible’s account.
        In Genesis 2:19, God tells Adam to name the animals, but in Surah 2:130 Allah teaches Adam the names of everything instead. Any problem with the Bible’s account?
        In the Bible, Noah and his family all escape the flood. But in the Quran (Surah 11:42-43), one of his sons abandons him and dies in the flood. And oh, non family member get to come along too. Any problem with what the Bible says?
        Abraham asks God to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah in both the Bible and Quran. God gives Abraham conditions, but Allah tells Abraham not to ask for mercy (Surah 11:76).
        Moses is first a reluctant hero in the Bible. In the Quran he isn’t.
        Lot, Potiphar, Saul, are all prophets in the Quran. In the Bible, they aren’t.

        This is just too much. There are many differences between the Bible and Quran stories, and those differences don’t really have consequences were they different. This makes me wonder why wicked Jews would want to change their Torah that way.

        4. I don’t deny that the “variety of reasons” were responsible for what we have now. I only deny that those reasons were responsible for total annihilation of whole religions even in insignificant aspects. Like totally wiping out an entire religion from existence. Normal processes of cultural diffusion can’t explain that.

        5. Okay. The historical evidence for Islam prior to Islam? Let me see.

        6. You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter what people believed. What matters is what was really the case. Two facts I state don’t depend on whatever people thought about their texts.

        • A claim that texts that disagree with you were just tampered with is a very expected response to those texts.

        • Many texts in antiquity tended to be tampered with.

        These two facts make it like 95% probable that Muhammad would get it right. They don’t depend on what people thought or believed. Why is this so hard for you to get?

        7. Of course they have clues. The Genesis flood narrative might have been derived from Sumerian myths, for example. This is what I mean when I say that scholars have clues. Not literally that the can list all their sources.

        8. We have no evidence for any “Injeel” Jesus had. Appealing to “sayings sources” and parables don’t help. You can’t establish what those sources talked about was anything about Islam. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants probably goes back to Jesus (or is an earlier tradition than the gospels themselves), and it portrays Jesus as the direct heir to God, the Son of God, which is exactly what Islam opposes. So this makes it more unlikely that early traditions had anything to do with Islam.

        9, Ishmael’s separation from Abraham mattered at that time because it wouldn’t make sense for God to tell Abraham to go and bring back Ishmael who by then was far way from them, to sacrifice him (BTW it was the same God who gave permission to send Ishmael away to begin with). Isaac was the only one remaining then. (Ishmael technically was still his son, but he no longer had a legal contract with him). Think about that for a moment.
        As for promises, you don’t get it:

        “… Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”” — Genesis 21:12-13, NIV

        God allowed Hagar to be driven away and told Abraham not to worry PRECISELY BECAUSE it’s through Isaac that Abraham’s descendants would be blessed, remembered. Look at the difference. Isaac brings blessings to Abraham’s descendants. Ishmael is merely promised to be over a great nation. Doesn’t have anything to do with Abraham. And this is because Abraham loved Ishmael so he wanted something for him too. (That’s why he was grieved and that’s why God said concerning Ismael that “I have heard you.”). Just like the difference between a prince and a crown prince.

        Isaac came through divine promise and after long waiting. Losing such a person is most unbearable especially in light of knowledge of promises of blessings to YOUR DESCENDANTS (Abraham’s “descendants” are from Isaac not Ishmael). That all gets terminated when you lose such a person.

        On top of all that, there’s no textual evidence for such alleged tampering. Now put all these together and you see that the odds are like 90% against you. Literally the only thing you have that bears weight is the mention of “only son” in Genesis 22:2. That’s it. Simple math.

        Now whether the story is illogical or not bears nothing on your view. How Isaac and Ishmael are portrayed has nothing to do with whether or not the texts were tampered with. Like I said, this is a result of bias. You already assume Ishmael was mixed up. Then literally ANY problem you find with the story automatically seems to suggest that it was changed. Even when normally, they shouldn’t. Ishmael being unnecessarily portrayed in a bad light does not even remotely suggest that the text was tampered with. But since you’re biased, you think that.

        10. Okay.

        11. No it isn’t enough to claim something significant was missing. “Something is missing” doesn’t mean “that thing missing is important.”

        12. Paul seeks to establish his legitimacy; he addresses whether or not to follow Jewish laws, denounces other gospels opposed to his (by “gospel” I don’t mean Gospel books but creeds like in Philippians 2:6-10 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). He opposes Peter also. But he doesn’t address claims that Jesus was meant for Jews only, or claims that Jesus was not divine. (As a matter of fact the creed in Philippians is said by scholars to be very early, establishing that early Christians saw Jesus as divine and preexistent.). Yes Ehrman’s earlier lecture are obsolete as NT scholarship continues to evolve. But you have to point out recent scholarship that oppose the main thesis in his book, and also where that scholarship stands in consensus.

        You completely lost me there. You didn’t even argue the Quran being right in anything. (Except for the Bible’s tempering, which is just pointless. The thing about pharaoh is not a strong case.). Not to mention “again”.

        Q&B…

        Your quote could only suggest that the birth of Ishmael narrative was either added or omitted. Not that Ishmael was the “only son” in Genesis 22. If the birth of Ishmael is present in the texts then there might be a problem with Isaac being the “only son” in 22:2. If it’s not present in the text, then 22:2 is literally true. The DSS manuscript does not seem to suggest that the “only son” in 22:2 should be Ishmael not Isaac. That Jews saw problems with the texts does not imply that the whole thing was made up, because that Isaac was the one sacrificed was never disputed. If the texts had Ishmael then changed to Isaac, there would have been evidence for this (textually, and also we would have seen the whole thing being disputed).

        As I explained above, inconsistencies with the stories don’t imply that they were tampered with. The stories didn’t have to be consistent. That’s not how to do history. Inconsistencies in accounts of event mean just that. Inconsistencies. Or it could, in some cases, mean that the events they describe just didn’t happen. You already have a preconceived view of the events, so problems with the accounts would tend to imply that the event was originally how you want it to be. That’s invalid.

        Anyway, as I said, there is no textual support for the rendering “Ishmael” in Genesis 22:2. There could be textual evidence that people saw problems with the account. But that doesn’t weigh much. The odds are against you.

        Like

      • “Your quote could only suggest that the birth of Ishmael narrative was either added or omitted. Not that Ishmael was the “only son” in Genesis 22. If the birth of Ishmael is present in the texts then there might be a problem with Isaac being the “only son” in 22:2. If it’s not present in the text, then 22:2 is literally true. The DSS manuscript does not seem to suggest that the “only son” in 22:2 should be Ishmael not Isaac. That Jews saw problems with the texts does not imply that the whole thing was made up, because that Isaac was the one sacrificed was never disputed. If the texts had Ishmael then changed to Isaac, there would have been evidence for this (textually, and also we would have seen the whole thing being disputed).”

        This is a typical apologetic response: moving the goalpost. The manuscript evidence shows a concerted effort by a scribe to alter the text to completely omit the birth of Ishmael so as to make the narrative more coherent. This would be one of the earliest surviving manuscripts of Genesis. So, let’s put this in perspective. One of the earliest manuscripts of the Bible has an altered chronology of events in Genesis concerning Abraham and the sacrifice. For some reason, the scribe omitted the birth of Ishmael. The motive seems to be clear: remove the birth of Ishmael so that Isaac literally becomes the “only son”.

        I don’t know what you’re smoking but your response is typical of brainwashed apologists. When they are proven wrong, they just move the goalpost. Anything other than admitting you are mistaken will be thrown out as an excuse.

        “As I explained above, inconsistencies with the stories don’t imply that they were tampered with. The stories didn’t have to be consistent. That’s not how to do history. Inconsistencies in accounts of event mean just that. Inconsistencies. Or it could, in some cases, mean that the events they describe just didn’t happen. You already have a preconceived view of the events, so problems with the accounts would tend to imply that the event was originally how you want it to be. That’s invalid.”

        What on earth are you talking about? Your opinions mean nothing. Provide evidence for claims like “don’t imply that they were tampered with”. Your preconceived view is that the Bible is correct, even when it seems it isn’t. That’s invalid.

        Inconsistencies show that there were multiple hands involved in the narrative. Multiple authors, scribes, and editors may have been involved, which is why the story has become so convoluted and inconsistent.

        It seems to me that Christians always tend to be very charitable with their Bible, something they would NEVER do with other religions. The fact that the Bible has contradictions, inconsistencies, historical errors and anachronisms, scientific errors, and a frankly TERRIBLE manuscript record. One would think that a reasonable person would conclude that the Bible is very unreliable and cannot be the “inspired” word of God, but Christians want to give it the benefit of the doubt time after time, even after a 1000 times. This sort of charitable approach would NEVER be given to any other source.

        “Anyway, as I said, there is no textual support for the rendering “Ishmael” in Genesis 22:2. There could be textual evidence that people saw problems with the account. But that doesn’t weigh much. The odds are against you.”

        Again, your personal opinion “that doesn’t weigh much” is absurd. It doesn’t “weigh much” to you because your religious bias wants to deny the significance of the textual variant. As a matter of fact, it DOES weigh much, because it shows the internal inconsistencies of your Bible, which forced a very religious sect to even alter the text (assuming the original Genesis account is the earlier one).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Q&B…sorry for replying late.

        Okay. Let me clear something up. I’m not a Christian not to mention a Christian apologist. So my only bias would be against Islam.

        You didn’t get my argument. How does “there were multiple hands involved in the narrative. Multiple authors, scribes, and editors…involved…[so] the story…[is] inconsistent” get to “Ishmael was the one originally said to be sacrificed in the story” and other things you want it to be? That’s what I want you to explain.
        The inconsistencies could mean a whole lotta things. It could mean the whole story was made up, it could mean that Isaac didn’t even exist in the original story, etc. So why should it mean that Ishmael was nearly sacrificed and other things you want? You need extra evidence to prove claims that the texts were what you want it to be. And that’d be a difficult job because we don’t have good evidence like Jews believing any other thing (and indeed it could not even have been the case, for the entire Jewish culture and religion depended on the premise that Isaac was the one).

        The DSS mss evidence that some guy omitted Ishmael to make the “only son” in Genesis 22:2 not problematic, does not imply that Ishmael was originally the “only son” there, for that would require falsifying the entire birth narrative of Issac before 22:2 which we have no textual evidence for. What i mean is that if Ishmael was the “only son” in 22:2, it would remain problematic at that point since Isaac was already born, thus he too was no “only son”. So, just like the scribe, it would require you to remove the birth narrative of Isaac for it to make sense. See? You can’t get to the conclusion you want just from that DSS evidence alone or the nature of the story as we have it.

        This is why secular historians don’t get to your conclusion. Only Muslims do. And that’s no surprise as you guys have a preconceived view of the events, so you are cognitively biased to imagine that problems with the texts or story get to your preconceived view. I’ve said this many times here and you guys keep proving it. That’s not how to do history. Secular historians don’t have this preconceived view (or any for that matter).

        The story is messed up. I get it. But it still doesn’t prove anything for you. The story could have been made up in its entirety.

        Like

    • @ Christian

      1.It’s not a matter of “convenience” you makeup strawmen (especially concerning our theology) and run with them which is why i’m correcting you. And yeah we do have records of this, again you would know this if you weren’t retarded please stop talking out of your butt.

      2. No a prophet wouldn’t necessarily do that. As for your other random tangents:
      A.No not every prophet is foretold. For example, nobody foretold Noah(as) there is your strawman again.
      B. Most cultures have an idea of judgment on the wicked in the afterlife even more abstract religions such as Buddhism.
      C. Most cultures have an understanding of jinn they just call them different things (usually “spirits”)
      D. Some nations never got to actual regulations or had little regulations. As I said it depends on time and place. (As a note I never said earlier peoples this is again that strawman you love) God only judges on the circumstances of a person. Sometimes depending on circumstances they literally only needed to believe in monotheism. An example even with us is there will be a time all of what you think a Muslim is will be gone AND the Quran will be wiped off the face of the earth. The Muslims at that time will only say: “My parents used to say there’s one God so I do to” and that’s it, that’s the extent of their knowledge. As i said there’s tons of variable when discussing this subject
      E. Even with our Shariah this was because quite frankly it was given to us because we are the best nation among all those revealed previously. However even in this case a person could never hear about Islam a day in their life and still go to heaven based on their knowledge. A “Muslim” is simply a person who submits themselves to God. And some were willing to to do that but they had no idea what to do. Everything we do is based on that principle.
      F. Our nation has not been around for 3,000 years, lol we are less than half that age

      3. Your “challenges”

      Genesis account contains anthropomorphism and contradicts its previous statement that the animals were already created:

      And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air… (Genesis 2:19)

      20And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” 21So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good…24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20-24)
      The reason for this anomaly in the text is because it was derived from when the Jews tried to stitch their stories back together after their kingdom fell.

      Exodus account also contains anthropomorphism (Exodus 17:5), straight up blasphemy (they “tested” the Lord) and the story is retold 3 times in the Pentateuch (again due to problems previously mentioned)

      Noah’s account is stolen from Egyptian paganism regarding his son’s name also altered to insult Caanan.

      Moses(as) is reluctant in the Quran just not blasphemous. Potiphar and Saul are NOT prophets in the Quran. These arguments were born from simply not knowing Quranic content (i.e. not knowing what the heck you’re talking about, seems to be a theme for this discussion with you)

      4. This is because you don’t know the Jews history. The lost the Torah for over 1,000 years and then cobbled together a new text and started claiming that was what was given to them. This isn’t that difficult and they themselves admit to this.

      5. Examples of Islam

      Xenophanes (Greece)
      https://www.ancient.eu/Xenophanes_of_Colophon/

      Furthermore most cultures have a transcendent deity who created everything and then they add partners alongside it (again usually “spirits”) and make up stories to fit them in.

      6. Except:

      A. The Jews admit to tampering with their texts
      B. That further strengthens Muhammad(saw) as he would not know that seeing as his society did not read.

      7. That is just guessing in the dark not a clue.

      8. Please stop saying things when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Being called the “Son of God” does not mean being a deity dumbf**k. It means you’re the heir to David’s throne THAT is what he is claiming and his people who he was sent to understand that. Furthermore, the parables DO help because:

      A. The times the Quran quotes the Gospel it is parables
      B. Early Christians believed the parables were God’s revelations to Jesus(as)
      C. They are the common denominator of all the Christian sects. They took his parables and framed their deviant interpretations or unverified stories around them.

      9. I’ll just let QB b*tchslap you some more as you and I both know you’re just spitting bs.

      10.I’m glad we agree you’re retarded.

      11. We can’t verify what is or isn’t important without knowing what it is.

      12. You argued Jesus(as) is not as he was portrayed in the Quran. You were then refuted and are now acting like you don’t see it because you don’t want to admit the Quran was right. As I said man you don’t have to convince me some people are meant to be Hell’s firewood I already know this

      PS
      Ben 10 sucks.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Stew…

        1/2. But a prophet wouldn’t necessarily NOT do that every time one is sent. A prophet might want to deliver a message about monotheism, but the people to whom he’s sent observe certain practices that aren’t compatible with Islamic monotheism. So he obviously would object to those practices. Where the problem is is that we should see evidence here and there, not limited to the Middle East, but places like other parts of Asia (India-China-Japan, etc. and other continents too (but we generally have poor ancient records of other places, so…)), evidence pointing to belief in absolute monotheism, like that of Islam, for a brief time (piloted by someone, like in the case of Xenophanes). If people like Xenophanes repeatedly showed up in the scene hundreds of times, and in every part of the globe, then it’s very likely we’d find evidence for such occurrences, just like we have for Xenophanes. We don’t. So it’s weird.

        Then you get me wrong on my points (like you’ve always done):

        A. Obviously. Because I never said that prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. should have been foretold. I said MUHAMMAD should have been foretold. Not because he was a prophet, but because he’s the greatest person in, and last hope for Islam. It’d make sense for them to have known about him, even if they didn’t get to know his name, birthplace or whatever. A knowledge of just the “last and greatest prophet” is sufficient.

        B. So it would not be necessary for them to have known Islamic eschatology because they had their own concepts which were fine because they were an “idea of Judgment on the wicked”? Many of their ideas wildly differed so I don’t see why Allah wouldn’t want them to know the truth. People should have known their true fate with their “All-Knowing God” because punishment and reward depends on how you serve Him. So it doesn’t make sense that some people knew an “All-Knowing God” but had different views of how He judged them. This also can’t happen as people who really worship the same god (as in actually have the same god with the same attributes and characteristics, not just claiming to do so), inevitably have the same eschatology.

        C. How convenient. But apart from the jinns they should have known their history and the history and source of evil (ie, how Satan got here). They should have known about Adam and Eve and this is not subjective to time and culture. Practically every culture and religion had a creation story.

        D. Okay. I 100% agree with you here.

        E. Okay. I concur.

        F. I assumed you think Jews had the Shariah, so that’s why I dated it that way.

        3. You completely get me wrong here again. You argue generically while my case is specific. I said you have to point out problems SPECIFICALLY WITH THE DETAIL THAT DIFFERS in both accounts. Not problems with the stories surrounding it.

        In the case of Exodus 17, is there a problem with the claim that one spring gushed out water as opposed to twelve springs? (BTW, I don’t think Christians see anthropomorphism as a problem.).

        Genesis is as a result of stitching of different stories together. I get it. (And as a matter of fact, the entire Noah-Ark story was made up from previous myths. And then the Quran follows suit.) But is there a problem with Adam naming animals as opposed to Allah teaching them to Adam? Etc. That’s what I mean.

        Compare with this instance that in the Quran, Jacob’s wife lives to enter Egypt, but in the Bible she doesn’t. The one with the Bible is problematic in that it contradicts Joseph’s dream. You then claim that all other differences between the Bible and the Quran in little details are like this. Which is wrong.

        And the problem with this is that why would someone change it from being Allah teaching Adam (as it allegedly was) to Adam doing the job himself seeing that that change has no significant consequence? Why would they change Exodus from twelve springs bringing water to one spring bringing water, seeing that the change doesn’t have significant consequences? This can’t be explained by accidental loss of details because these differences are reflected in almost every book of the Bible, which all had different circumstances surrounding their composition.

        Okay. You might be right about Saul and Potiphar.

        4. Has the Torah even been around for 1000 years until the first century AD? The Torah most likely was started in the 900s BC and its final form gotten in the 600s to 500s BC. So I don’t know where you get the 1000 years the Torah is supposed to be “lost” from.
        Now don’t forget things aren’t limited to the Torah here. The stories in the Quran can be found in other books of the Bible which had different circumstances surrounding their composition. The Quranic stories can be found in Kings, Esther, Samuel, Chronicles, and even apocrypha. And then many of the prophets to whom books have been attributed are accepted by Islam to have been Muslims. This makes it very unlikely that normal textual changes and loss of data and corruption of data due to cultural diffusion changed from Islam to what we have now. Because some of the stories we have in the Quran can’t be proven to have had anything to do with the Torah of Moses. It seems that the Quran got its stories from the canonical OT as it is, rather than the OT being as a result of corruption of Quranic stories, as those books in the Bible where the stories are scattered don’t seem to have a divergent origin. The stories just got made up straight up when those books were composed. Not that they were gotten from corrupted revealed scriptures. And the Quran gathers them all in a book, as if they all belonged and originated in a book. Which means the Quran just copied the OT.

        5. Okay let’s get this straight… So Xenophanes was an Islamic prophet? Holy crap. Wait. Is that what you meant? Otherwise, HOW is this an evidence for Islam? He draws his conclusions from the philosophies of pagan philosophers. (And that’s why I said reducing Islam to merely absolute monotheism is convenient because it means you can just claim any monotheistic beliefs were Islam, as if monotheistic beliefs HAD to be Islam.)

        As for “most cultures,” you mean if there was any polytheistic religion which had a supreme god and then demigods and other “partners,” this means that religion was initially monotheistic and Islamic? Facepalm moment. Hmm.

        6. A. How does that affect anything I said? My points don’t depend on whether the Jews admitted it or not.

        B. He would not have known that, but he would have claimed that. That’s what matters. That he would have claimed that makes it likely that he would have gotten it right.

        7. Okay, it’s not a clue…given your definition of ‘clue’, that is.

        8. I never said being the Son of God implies divinity. My point was that being called the Son of God is still what Islam opposes, and since this title could go back to early Christians, it’s evidence that that’s what the first Christians saw him as. Parables don’t help.

        A. Not sure about that, but okay.
        B. Early Christians didn’t believe the parables were “revelations” to Jesus. They instead believed it was Jesus’ way of preaching his messages to them.
        C. Yeah. Like they did with the Parable of the Wicked Tenants which suggests the opposite of Jesus having an injeel.

        9. Okay. I’ll respond to him later. O don’t have much time now.

        10. “Never stated that retarded this is why you get insulted.”

        11. Therefore your whole argument from “missing texts” is baseless.

        12. No, I was not refuted because I pointed out that Galatians only opposed Torah law observance and other gospels. It didn’t oppose claims against Jesus’ divinity nor did it oppose Jesus being meant for Jews only. What Paul’s rivals were saying was that a Gentle should be under the Jewish law if he wants to become a Christian. Not that Gentiles couldn’t become Christians. Ehrman agrees. There was nothing like “hey Jesus is not the Son of God, he didn’t die and resurrect, he was just a prophet like John the baptist only that he’s the Messiah (whatever that means for you) and he was sent only for Jews.” That would be big news and Paul would have addressed that. Ehrman’s book?

        PS.
        Instead of praying or hoping that I’ll see the light, you already conclude that I’ve been “destined” for Hell. Jesus Christ, what the hell. First, my “destiny” wasn’t revealed to you nor did whatever I said warrant that conclusion (as people have said worse, and still ended up seeing the light and converted). Second, how the hell can you not be bothered that someone you’re communicating with is doomed to perish? That’s inhumane. And that’s why religion tends to strip people of humanity because they hate their fellow human because of what some “god” allegedly says. So you know what? This entire concept of being “destined” for Hell (or for any other thing) sucks (and BTW it contradicts our alleged free will).

        I don’t know what it has to do with any of this, but Ben 10 rocks. 😍 (The reboot series sucks though.) One of my favorite TV shows during my childhood.
        But seriously commenting on this is just childishly taking cheap shots, and a characteristic of trolls. It was unnecessary.

        Like

      • @ Christian

        ½. So basically “yeah you just proved your point with Xenophanes who appeared in a SUPER pagan society but I’m going to ignore it

        A. Muhammad(saw) is not “the last hope for Islam”. See how you just keep making things up over and over again?

        B. Again they have the concept of being punished in the Hereafter. Idk why you don’t think religions that have been around for hundreds of years through oral tradition didn’t drastically alter. Again we can look at something like Christianity and the Gnostics. Imagine if they won out Christianity would be DRASTICALLY different than what was taught.

        C. Satan is not “the source of evil” in Islam. I mean seriously you’re just writing fanfiction at this point. Regarding creation, we still see this. The problem comes that when they give God these partners they create new stories to fit them in the narrative. For example the Zulu, they believe in God but somehow someway they began worshipping Adam(as) whom they call Unkulunkulu. Then they think Unkulunkulu then created “spirits” called Amatoga. Even when you hear them talking they are kinda remembering and jumbling stuff.

        https://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/rsa/rsa01.htm

        D. Cool

        E. Cool

        F. Shariah doesn’t remain the same between nations so some stuff might transfer some might not.

        3.Didn’t argue generically those details show a jack-up in their story. Also, it doesn’t matter if they see anthropomorphism as a problem, it’s incorrect and among the big sins.

        The entirety of the Noah story is not QB did an article on it.

        There is a significant consequence as the purpose is God is the one who gives knowledge to man.

        4. It depends on how you’re dating it. Moses(as) is generally dated 1300 BCE. The Jews have two major breaks in the transmission of what happened with their text in this time:

        1.Moses(as) 1300BCE- King Josiah 600BCE (2 Kings 22:8)
        Key point is 2 Kings 23:24 when they get rid of magic even though it’s clearly forbidden in Deut.12:2 so for them not to know this means the Torah was gone for a minute.

        2. King Josiah 600BCE- Ezra 400BCE (Nehemiah 8:1)
        They lost the Torah again in exile and he is said to have brought it back. However another key detail he tells them how to do this one festival and they said they hadn’t celebrated it a long time. Again that means they haven’t seen it because the festival is mentioned in Leviticus 23:42.

        Also, you’re understanding of the Torah’s composition is untrue. It is a break off earlier written material (see JEDP)

        5. Lol you are so mad you got disproven about Xenophanes. Finally its not a facepalm dumb@$$ you keep making up beliefs. If we look at someone like the Arabs, who we know Ishmael(as) taught them about God. They took partners then created new stories around them and put God at the back burner, This is how ALL pagans work.

        6. Got it leprechaun luck.

        7. Clue- Some sort of convincing connection other than “Uhh…this is kinda like this so therefore this must be it. “

        8. Nope again writing that fanfiction I can’t wait for the book to be released, Christian. Also, parables do help as they are all from my reading Islamic.
        A.It does.
        B. Would have to look for it because I know I read it. I’m honestly just not that invested to find it again as you just deny evidence even when seeing it.
        C. Don’t know how you came to that conclusion but alright.

        9. Cool have fun.

        10. We already agee you’re retarded no need to butcher grammar to prove it more.

        11. Not baseless. I never said the missing text is even revelation, it was you again making things up.

        12. Ehrman is the one who said Paul was potentially refuting Ebionites in Galatians. Finally, it’s irrelevant as again they did not believe Jesus(as) is divine. So again you lost this point.

        PS

        To begin I never said you were going to Hell I said you don’t have to convince me people are going. It could be me, you, QB, Eric the janitor, etc.

        Next, when dealing with trolls I could care less if you “see the light” because a policy I’m not giving dawah to them (see Watson, Marc or Ken). Do the smart thing and become a Muslim or don’t makes no difference to me. Now if you would prefer a “reset” and we talk about real fundamental issues you care about we can do that. I’ll put that choice in your hand.

        Also, to answer your question no it doesn’t bother me hence my previous statement. (BTW never argued we have “free will” the more accurate description is “free choice”)

        As for Ben 10 that makes sense you would feel that way as I was trolling. (It was alright, Four Arms more or less carried it)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Stew…sorry for replying late.

        1/2. No evidence Xenophanes got any revelation from God. He got to his conclusions from philosophies of pagan philosophers. And this is how philosophers work. They don’t care what people around them thought. They thought for themselves. That’s why we have great philosophers who developed philosophies that were pretty much contrary to what people around them thought. So, no…it didn’t matter whether his society was “super” pagan or not.

        A. Okay. He’s not. Why shouldn’t they have known about him? You didn’t answer.

        B. Fair enough. I grant that it was very likely that religions which allegedly had no peculiarities other than belief in only an “All-Knowing God” transmitted solely by oral tradition would get wiped out. But this religion was supposedly popping up on a global scale and it’s just not realistic that (almost) every single one of them had their prophets being rebelled against or killed, or the religion corrupted. Surely we should have had some people here and there who were faithful that they transmitted the religion long enough for us to know it.

        C. But he tempts. I didn’t mean he created evil, or without him, there wouldn’t be evil.
        Having polytheistic religions which have a supreme God or something doesn’t mean they originally worshiped one God or a prophet visited them revealing monotheism to them. For one thing we have MANY polytheistic religions like that, so it’s weird that they all were initially monotheistic (even if you don’t think that “all” were initially monotheistic, that’s what your argument from polytheism with a supreme God implies. It wouldn’t imply that if you argue with additional evidence why specific ones like the Zulus’ were initially monotheistic but were corrupted.) For another thing, we have a coherent model of how people became polytheistic: Natural phenomena which were so cool and weird and unexplained (eg. lightening) were seen as manifestation of spirits or gods. And so people felt that they can communicate with them and thus felt the need to worship them. That’s why we have, for example, gods of thunder, sun gods, gods of death, gods of almost anything. And as the whole of nature was as well so cool and unexplained, they attributed it (thus the whole universe) to a god (the supreme God and originator of all things). That’s HOW those kind of polytheisms come about. Not some prophet taking about monotheism and then later when he’s out of the way, they corrupt it with “partners”. For a third thing, there are polytheistic religions that have creation stories similar to that about Adam and Eve, yet they, right out of the gate, have multiple supreme gods and goddesses. Like they were NEVER monotheistic. Thus, the Zulus having a creation story like that doesn’t prove anything for you.

        3. The story of Noah is made up. It doesn’t matter what the Quran says because you can’t trust it without the excuse of divine revelation.

        “There is a significant consequence as the purpose is God is the one who gives knowledge to man.”

        I literally don’t understand that statement and how it answers the question it’s supposed to answer. But okay.

        4. Okay. You seem to assume that the Torah got lost near when Moses wrote it. It could have been lost one or two or three centuries before Josiah (Kings gives clues). And exile lasted for 70 years according to the Bible. So they don’t add up to 1000 years.

        5. You don’t “know” Ishmael thought Arabs about God. You just believe it, because there’s no credible way you know it.

        And that’s not how “all” pagans work. Like seriously? All pagans were monotheists and then had “partners” added to God? Facepalm moment. Anyway, I refuted this above. And really, that’s weird, except Allah or Satan was actively making sure his religion ended up being pagan…everywhere and every time.

        6. Yeah, right.

        7. Yeah, Stew’s definition of “clue” which can only be referenced here.

        8. A. Wow.
        B. Okay. No proof for now.
        C. You didn’t get me.
        So at the end you didn’t argue or prove anything.

        11. Facepalm. You used “missing texts” to argue the Torah was changed like Muhammad said it was. Read your comments.

        12. Ebonites didn’t believe Jesus was divine, or was even born of a virgin (which proves that they didn’t really hear from Jesus). Paul doesn’t refute attacks on the virgin birth in Galatians so… We have really little evidence for them and their beliefs so we can’t argue much. Finally, Ehrman implies they used only Matthew’s Gospel as their scripture, and Matthew’s Gospel was late so they were most likely late as well.

        And again you haven’t addressed the fact that mainstream studies agree Jesus was seen as divine by the very first Christians.

        You seemed to imply I was going to Hell, otherwise what did the statement have to do with anything we were talking about? Not caring if someone goes to Hell or not whether you’re giving dawah or not is weird. I think that’s why it’s said that Muslims should engage in dawah because we all would like as many people as possible to make it to Heaven and escape a Hell like what Islam describes. Wouldn’t we?
        And then you’re giving me options as if I KNOW that Islam is the “smart” choice
        for me to make but I’m willfully ignoring it and making other choices because I hate Islam or I’m the devil’s servant or something like that. No. I HONESTLY don’t think that Islam is the “smart” choice. So it’d be wicked for me to die without getting convinced then wake up in an unpleasant afterlife.

        As for other things I said. I admit I shouldn’t have said those. They weren’t relevant as well.

        Like

    • 1. Never claimed he did or didn’t lol. You asked for monotheistic beliefs similar to Islam and got it. Do you see why I’m not really engaged in this conversation as your “challenge” wasn’t really genuine?

      A.Because it wouldn’t be relevant to that nation? Again, a prophet being foretold or not is not a requirement this is simply you’re strawman.

      B.Who said it was popping up on a global scale? Again you’re strawman.

      C. Except that we do. Pagan Arabs are a good example. Christians are another.

      D. Let’s complete the sentence together: “If you can’t find something or don’t know what happened to it, that thing is…(blank)”

      E.Not all Ebionites didn’t believe Jesus(as) wasn’t born of a virgin. The scholarly opinion is that the Church Fathers grouped multiple Jewish Christian sects with different beliefs under the blanket term “Ebionite”. If you’re going to argue something try to keep up as I told you Ehrman is out of date regarding them. They are mentioned by Early Church Fathers and they didn’t start really being attacked until much later nobody really debates that they’re not early except you who doesn’t want to admit being wrong. This is yet another moment of not being genuine as these are 1st century Christians who are worst-case scenario a secondary branch off of the Church of Jerusalem.

      F. Nope, could care less about you going to Heaven or not, quite frankly (if I made it to Heaven I would actually laugh). You not believing because you don’t think it was “right” doesn’t really matter. People go to Hell for being retards as well:

      67:10. Then they’ll continue: “Had we just listened or used our intelligence, we wouldn’t have been among the dwellers of the growing Fire!”

      You have already been shown to be arrogant and insincere so yeah the punishment would be justified.

      Like

      • Stew…

        1. I asked for evidence for Islam. Of course there were monotheistic beliefs similar to Islam and I knew that. (I don’t have time to go through my comments but if I said that, it was a mistake.)

        A. Okay then. (But it’s still weird for a religion anyway…but Allah might have had his reasons.)

        B. Okay so Allah didn’t send prophets to every culture?

        C. Still missing my point but okay. Tired of writing the same thing over again.

        D. …not necessarily what you want it to be? Because idk what that was for.

        E. Only a small group believed the virgin birth. You can’t say “okay, so there were some of them who believed in the virgin birth, therefore they were early and go back to Jesus’ original disciples.” That would be a display of bias because someone could just as well make the argument that “okay, there were some of them who believed in the virgin birth, therefore they were early and go back to Jesus’ original disciples.” The thing is we have very little and fragmentary evidence for their beliefs and origin (first reference to them is in the 2nd century and there are no references to then in Paul’s letters). Even most of what we’ve got is not clear. So you can’t prove much from them. They used Matthew’s Gospel which is a forgery, so they didn’t have anything to do with Jesus. And then scholars still think that first Christians thought that Jesus was divine (not “God”) and Tue virgin birth was originally what Christians believed (except that they stole the concept from their neighbours). And then you haven’t said anything about it.

        F. Okay okay. That you wouldn’t care (and would actually laugh) is weird but I don’t expect you to get it as I understand what happened to you. Yeah, I’ll be punished for being honest with myself. Cool.

        Like

      • @ Christian

        👍

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: