Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2014, 08:58 AM
Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
I am currently in lots of research about the whole atheist/religious/purpose of life thing. I think Christianity is actually rather ok, all this "love your neighbour" etc. But the one thing I really do not get is the fact about Jesus' "sacrifice". I mean if the "original sin" was put upon humans by God, then why does he have to incarnate himself, just to be tortured and killed, in order to forgive us our sins? I thought he was almighty, so why all this complicated and horrible stuff?
And there's of course all this stuff about hell and paradise which I think is just extremly sadistic and terrible.
But Christianity is definitely better that Islam in my opinion. I think Islam is the most terrible thing that can happen to humanity. It is just so barbaric and inhuman, it's almost unbelievable. But that's also why I am terribly afraid of Islam being "true". During the last years I read a lot about the "scientific miracles of the Quran" (you have probably heard about them - if not, just google Harun Yahya or Zakir Naik). Fortunately, the vast majority of these "miracles" is not only complete bullshit or sometimes plain wrong but also extremely ridiculous (if you need something to laugh, there you go!). Anyway, there are two or three topics which I am not sure about, so I wanted to ask what you think about this, if that is ok.
Since the first thing I can't quite explain is just really embarrassing and stupid I think (but strangely I still do not know how to handle it) I am going to ask the other thing. It is historical and concerns the story of Joseph in the Bible and in the Koran. The point is that the Bible always speaks of "Pharaoh" when referring to the king of Egypt, in both the stories of Joseph and Moses. But the Koran, however, speaks only in Moses' story of "Pharaoh" and in Joseph's it always says "king" and not "Pharaoh". And this is historically correct, because at the (supposed) time of Joseph, the king of Egypt was not yet called "Pharaoh", that began later, but was already the habit at the (supposed) time of Moses.
That's more or less all. It puzzles me because generally it is said that the Koran copied from Bible, but then how come that it didn't copy this mistake but instead got it right?

What do you think about this? I would be happy for any opinions Smile
But be honest please: Is this really a "funny, nice coincidence" or am I just plain stupid even bothering about that kind of stuff?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
The quoran was the first "holy book" I have ever read and I was honestly very shocked of it.

Fuck whatever miracles people interpret into the book, people should focuse and explain the ways in which muhammed treats the opposition to him and how he invisions a state to be like.

It reminded me more of Mein Kampf and the various esseys by Lenin that I read, rather than any "life guidline" it`s a police state guidline.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Germans are coming's post
04-01-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
(04-01-2014 08:58 AM)Clara Wrote:  I am currently in lots of research about the whole atheist/religious/purpose of life thing. I think Christianity is actually rather ok, all this "love your neighbour" etc. But the one thing I really do not get is the fact about Jesus' "sacrifice". I mean if the "original sin" was put upon humans by God, then why does he have to incarnate himself, just to be tortured and killed, in order to forgive us our sins? I thought he was almighty, so why all this complicated and horrible stuff?
And there's of course all this stuff about hell and paradise which I think is just extremly sadistic and terrible.
But Christianity is definitely better that Islam in my opinion. I think Islam is the most terrible thing that can happen to humanity. It is just so barbaric and inhuman, it's almost unbelievable.

Not all of Islam is accurately characterized by the extremists, and if someone tries to push the idea that the extremists practice the most "accurate" or "correct" version of Islam, they're basically just adopting extremist sectarianism for rhetorical purposes. That perspective vilifies millions of quite good and honorable people just trying to live a religion to which they are committed.

(04-01-2014 08:58 AM)Clara Wrote:  But that's also why I am terribly afraid of Islam being "true". During the last years I read a lot about the "scientific miracles of the Quran" (you have probably heard about them - if not, just google Harun Yahya or Zakir Naik). Fortunately, the vast majority of these "miracles" is not only complete bullshit or sometimes plain wrong but also extremely ridiculous (if you need something to laugh, there you go!). Anyway, there are two or three topics which I am not sure about, so I wanted to ask what you think about this, if that is ok.
Since the first thing I can't quite explain is just really embarrassing and stupid I think (but strangely I still do not know how to handle it) I am going to ask the other thing. It is historical and concerns the story of Joseph in the Bible and in the Koran. The point is that the Bible always speaks of "Pharaoh" when referring to the king of Egypt, in both the stories of Joseph and Moses. But the Koran, however, speaks only in Moses' story of "Pharaoh" and in Joseph's it always says "king" and not "Pharaoh". And this is historically correct, because at the (supposed) time of Joseph, the king of Egypt was not yet called "Pharaoh", that began later, but was already the habit at the (supposed) time of Moses.
That's more or less all. It puzzles me because generally it is said that the Koran copied from Bible, but then how come that it didn't copy this mistake but instead got it right?

The Quran didn't simply copy from the Bible, but rather adopted and adapted a lot of traditions current within the historico-cultural context, whether drawn from the Bible, from parallel traditions, or from separate traditions. While it's true that the title "pharaoh" was not common prior to the New Kingdom, it hardly qualifies as evidence of the Quran's divine provenance. The Hebrew Bible was composed over the course of almost 1000 years between around 1000 BCE and 150 BCE. None of the stories from Genesis or Exodus were composed contemporaneously with the events they narrate, and the Quran is even further removed from those events. The Quran, by the way, mentions coinage during Joseph's time, and that's completely anachronistic.

(04-01-2014 08:58 AM)Clara Wrote:  What do you think about this? I would be happy for any opinions Smile
But be honest please: Is this really a "funny, nice coincidence" or am I just plain stupid even bothering about that kind of stuff?

I think you're just worrying a tad too much.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
04-01-2014, 09:13 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
(04-01-2014 08:58 AM)Clara Wrote:  I am currently in lots of research about the whole atheist/religious/purpose of life thing. I think Christianity is actually rather ok, all this "love your neighbour" etc. But the one thing I really do not get is the fact about Jesus' "sacrifice". I mean if the "original sin" was put upon humans by God, then why does he have to incarnate himself, just to be tortured and killed, in order to forgive us our sins? I thought he was almighty, so why all this complicated and horrible stuff?
And there's of course all this stuff about hell and paradise which I think is just extremly sadistic and terrible.
But Christianity is definitely better that Islam in my opinion. I think Islam is the most terrible thing that can happen to humanity. It is just so barbaric and inhuman, it's almost unbelievable. But that's also why I am terribly afraid of Islam being "true". During the last years I read a lot about the "scientific miracles of the Quran" (you have probably heard about them - if not, just google Harun Yahya or Zakir Naik). Fortunately, the vast majority of these "miracles" is not only complete bullshit or sometimes plain wrong but also extremely ridiculous (if you need something to laugh, there you go!). Anyway, there are two or three topics which I am not sure about, so I wanted to ask what you think about this, if that is ok.
Since the first thing I can't quite explain is just really embarrassing and stupid I think (but strangely I still do not know how to handle it) I am going to ask the other thing. It is historical and concerns the story of Joseph in the Bible and in the Koran. The point is that the Bible always speaks of "Pharaoh" when referring to the king of Egypt, in both the stories of Joseph and Moses. But the Koran, however, speaks only in Moses' story of "Pharaoh" and in Joseph's it always says "king" and not "Pharaoh". And this is historically correct, because at the (supposed) time of Joseph, the king of Egypt was not yet called "Pharaoh", that began later, but was already the habit at the (supposed) time of Moses.
That's more or less all. It puzzles me because generally it is said that the Koran copied from Bible, but then how come that it didn't copy this mistake but instead got it right?

What do you think about this? I would be happy for any opinions Smile
But be honest please: Is this really a "funny, nice coincidence" or am I just plain stupid even bothering about that kind of stuff?

Ok the Pharaoh thing, it is an anachronism the Egyptians never referred to their Kings by that name, it was the Israelite name for the Egyptian King. As for the Koran it was not a direct copy of the Hebrew texts so it is unsurprising they would use the generic title King (which is more correct) rather than the specialized title the Israelites used. So I guess happy coincidence rather than divine intervention.

I mean we can start with that fact that while they got that small detail right they still messed up the fact that there was never a large population of Jews in Egypt and they most certainly did not build the pyramids. Oh course the Koran is filled with things that are just plain wrong. Salt water will not mix with fresh water, except that is completely and demonstrably false, brackish water is exactly that.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 09:15 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
(04-01-2014 08:58 AM)Clara Wrote:  Fortunately, the vast majority all of these "miracles" is not only complete bullshit or sometimes plain wrong but also extremely ridiculous (if you need something to laugh, there you go!).

*fixt.

Quote:The earliest instance where pr-aa is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who reigned c. 1353–1336 BCE, which is addressed to 'Pharaoh, all life, prosperity, and health!.[8]
~ wikipedia

I don't know about "the supposed time of Joseph" 'cause it's all made up. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
Interesting piece about the pharaoh/king issue. Most scholars agree that the Torah was not written by Moses but instead it's a compilation of 4-5 traditions floating around in Mesopotamia (Babylon at the time). This explains the 2 creation stories, the deutoronomic contradictions and of course historic inaccuracies in the narrative.

The Koran having been written in the 7th century has the benefit of having been composed closer to Egypt and that might account for the accuracy in this case.

As for the sacrifice of Jesus / original sin issue, one if the theories of the atonement is the penal vicarious substitutionary theory. This theory made popular by the reformation claims that Adam by disobeying God threw his decscendants into death. It's necessary under this theory that a second Adam (made in the image of God by God himself) die in the place of the first Adam to satisfy divine Justice. Because the 'crime' of sinning against God has an infinite punishment it requires an infinitely worthy substitute to appease justice.

Very arbitrary on Gods part (I know) but that's the Christian defense.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
(04-01-2014 09:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok the Pharaoh thing, it is an anachronism the Egyptians never referred to their Kings by that name, it was the Israelite name for the Egyptian King.

This isn't accurate. The Egyptian pr'3 is the word transliterated in Biblical Hebrew as פרעה and in English as Pharaoh. In Egyptian it means "great house," and refers to the king's administrative household. It was used in Egyptian texts, but not that commonly before the New Kingdom.

(04-01-2014 09:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  As for the Koran it was not a direct copy of the Hebrew texts so it is unsurprising they would use the generic title King (which is more correct) rather than the specialized title the Israelites used. So I guess happy coincidence rather than divine intervention.

Actually the Arabic فرعون does appear in the Quran in reference to the Egyptian king.

(04-01-2014 09:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I mean we can start with that fact that while they got that small detail right they still messed up the fact that there was never a large population of Jews in Egypt and they most certainly did not build the pyramids. Oh course the Koran is filled with things that are just plain wrong. Salt water will not mix with fresh water, except that is completely and demonstrably false, brackish water is exactly that.

"Jews" is a bit of a misnomer for that time period as well, as the term, deriving from the Hebrew יהודית, "Judahite," doesn't appear until the end of the divided monarchy in the mid-first millennium BCE. A Jew was a member of the house of Judah, which wasn't a discreet demographic entity in the second millennium. Israelite and Hebrew are also questionable. There were demonstrably large populations of Semites in Egypt. In fact, they ruled Egypt for a time, and the precursors to the Phoenician alphabet come from Semitic worker inscriptions found in Egypt. It is plausible that the exodus tradition preserves vestiges of knowledge of a limited emigration of slaves from Egypt into the area that would later be known as the Northern Kingdom. Nothing anywhere near the size and significance of the tradition as found in the Bible is plausible, though.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
(04-01-2014 09:23 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Interesting piece about the pharaoh/king issue. Most scholars agree that the Torah was not written by Moses but instead it's a compilation of 4-5 traditions floating around in Mesopotamia (Babylon at the time). This explains the 2 creation stories, the deutoronomic contradictions and of course historic inaccuracies in the narrative.

Actually the trend these days is away from the Documentary Hypothesis and more toward a revised Supplementary Hypothesis or a view of J and E as nothing more than fragments of discreet traditions that don't extend beyond the beginning of Genesis. This latter theory, to which I subscribe, identifies P, D, and broadly categorizes everything else in the Pentateuch as non-P, whether prior or posterior. Two good collections of essays that touch on many of these issues are here and here.

(04-01-2014 09:23 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  The Koran having been written in the 7th century has the benefit of having been composed closer to Egypt and that might account for the accuracy in this case.

Closer to Egypt? It was a millennium further removed from the actual Egyptian civilization, though. Egypt was a Persian, Byzantine, and then Islamic territory in the seventh century. These cultures had nothing to do with Pharaonic Egypt.

(04-01-2014 09:23 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  As for the sacrifice of Jesus / original sin issue, one if the theories of the atonement is the penal vicarious substitutionary theory. This theory made popular by the reformation claims that Adam by disobeying God threw his decscendants into death. It's necessary under this theory that a second Adam (made in the image of God by God himself) die in the place of the first Adam to satisfy divine Justice. Because the 'crime' of sinning against God has an infinite punishment it requires an infinitely worthy substitute to appease justice.

Very arbitrary on Gods part (I know) but that's the Christian defense.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 11:43 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
If Christians were to take the full Bible, believe it all and practice everything it says, it would be as bad as Islam. Take a look at Leviticus..... whew. Moses' teachings also. They're both horrendous.

"God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight." - Nietzsche

You can follow/read my blog on religious text and things related at: http://alookatholytext.wordpress.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Thoughts about the Bible and the Koran
(04-01-2014 11:27 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 09:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok the Pharaoh thing, it is an anachronism the Egyptians never referred to their Kings by that name, it was the Israelite name for the Egyptian King.

This isn't accurate. The Egyptian pr'3 is the word transliterated in Biblical Hebrew as פרעה and in English as Pharaoh. In Egyptian it means "great house," and refers to the king's administrative household. It was used in Egyptian texts, but not that commonly before the New Kingdom.

(04-01-2014 09:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  As for the Koran it was not a direct copy of the Hebrew texts so it is unsurprising they would use the generic title King (which is more correct) rather than the specialized title the Israelites used. So I guess happy coincidence rather than divine intervention.

Actually the Arabic فرعون does appear in the Quran in reference to the Egyptian king.

(04-01-2014 09:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I mean we can start with that fact that while they got that small detail right they still messed up the fact that there was never a large population of Jews in Egypt and they most certainly did not build the pyramids. Oh course the Koran is filled with things that are just plain wrong. Salt water will not mix with fresh water, except that is completely and demonstrably false, brackish water is exactly that.

"Jews" is a bit of a misnomer for that time period as well, as the term, deriving from the Hebrew יהודית, "Judahite," doesn't appear until the end of the divided monarchy in the mid-first millennium BCE. A Jew was a member of the house of Judah, which wasn't a discreet demographic entity in the second millennium. Israelite and Hebrew are also questionable. There were demonstrably large populations of Semites in Egypt. In fact, they ruled Egypt for a time, and the precursors to the Phoenician alphabet come from Semitic worker inscriptions found in Egypt. It is plausible that the exodus tradition preserves vestiges of knowledge of a limited emigration of slaves from Egypt into the area that would later be known as the Northern Kingdom. Nothing anywhere near the size and significance of the tradition as found in the Bible is plausible, though.

I will just concede the point on the pharaoh thing, I would imagine you know much better than I on that matter. As to the titles it is easier when talking with other layman to use the modern names rather than the more correct Semites or Canaanites.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: