A small but not insignificant detail in the Qur'an

[hamba2han]

Ok, so the Exodus got the royal title of the pharaoh wrong, but what then? If the Quran calls him king (malik), it doesn't prove anything unless there existed a specific Arabic word for pharaoh. If there would have, then one can argue that "king" means king specifically, but if not, then it just means any kind of hereditary monarch.

The Arabic word for 'Pharaoh' is 'Fir'awn' and it is found in no less than 85 verses of the Qur'an.

 

[Snowbunny]

ugh, not 'Dr. Maurice Bucaille' again... the ubiquitous expert on everything that declared on behalf of the entire scientific community that the quran was 'from God.' he lacks credentials (might not even exist) and his opinion was purchased with saudi gold.

 

[hamba2han]

i don't see why this is significant of anything... but then i have never found the 'miraculous quran' vein convincing...

The Qur'an was revealed some 2000 years after the Old Testament and yet it does not contain this particular inaccuracy that is clearly found in the OT and other writings by Jewish historians which existed at that period in history and you do not see the significance of this??

Apart from God Himself, who else would possibly have known about this inaccuracy at the point in time when the Qur'an was revealed?

 

[Snowbunny]

The Qur'an was revealed some 2000 years after the Old Testament and yet it does not contain this particular inaccuracy that is clearly found in the OT and other writings by Jewish historians which existed at that period in history and you do not see the significance of this??

Apart from God Himself, who else would possibly have known about this inaccuracy at the point in time when the Qur'an was revealed?

hola...

there is an awful lot of 'begging the question' going on here... for example you assume that anyone knew about an inaccuracy and that the reasons for the way the quran is worded are to correct an inaccuracy. it's just as likely they decided to choose that word for stylistic reasons. it doesn't even remotely demonstrate that God wrote anything.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[hamba2han]

ugh, not 'Dr. Maurice Bucaille' again... the ubiquitous expert on everything that declared on behalf of the entire scientific community that the quran was 'from God.' he lacks credentials (might not even exist) and his opinion was purchased with saudi gold.

Here is a highly compressed account by Dr. Bucaille of his research and study of this subject that appears in one of his books. Dr. Bucaille writes :

"I have noted the points where the Biblical and Quranic narrations agree and disagree, and, for some details, I have found points where the two texts complement each other in a very useful way. Among the many hypotheses concerning the position oc-cupied by the Exodus in the history of the Pharaohs, I have concluded that the most likely is the theory which makes Memeptah, Rameses II's successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The confrontation of the data contained in the Scriptures with archaeological evidence speaks strongly in favor of this hypothesis. I am pleased to be able to say that the Biblical narration contributes weighty evidence leading us to situate Moses in the history of the Pharaohs: Moses was born during the reign of Rameses II. Biblical data are therefore of considerable historical value in the story of Moses.The medical study of the mummy of Memeptah has yielded further useful information on the possible causes of this Pharaoh's death.The fact that we today possess the mummy of this Pharaoh, which was discovered in 1898, is one of paramount importance. The Bible records that it was engulfed in the sea, but does not give any details as to what subsequently became of the body. The Quran (10:92) notes that the body of the Pharaoh, who was to be damned, would be saved from the waters. A medical examination of this mummy, has moreover, shown that the body could not have stayed in the water for long, because it does not show signs of deterioration due to prolonged submersion. Here again, the confrontation of the narration in the Quran with the data provided by modern knowledge does not give rise to the slightest objection from a scientific point of view."​

 

[Rasta]

Here is a highly compressed account by Dr. Bucaille of his research and study of this subject that appears in one of his books. Dr. Bucaille writes :

"I have noted the points where the Biblical and Quranic narrations agree and disagree, and, for some details, I have found points where the two texts complement each other in a very useful way. Among the many hypotheses concerning the position oc-cupied by the Exodus in the history of the Pharaohs, I have concluded that the most likely is the theory which makes Memeptah, Rameses II's successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The confrontation of the data contained in the Scriptures with archaeological evidence speaks strongly in favor of this hypothesis. I am pleased to be able to say that the Biblical narration contributes weighty evidence leading us to situate Moses in the history of the Pharaohs: Moses was born during the reign of Rameses II. Biblical data are therefore of considerable historical value in the story of Moses.The medical study of the mummy of Memeptah has yielded further useful information on the possible causes of this Pharaoh's death.The fact that we today possess the mummy of this Pharaoh, which was discovered in 1898, is one of paramount importance. The Bible records that it was engulfed in the sea, but does not give any details as to what subsequently became of the body. The Quran (10:92) notes that the body of the Pharaoh, who was to be damned, would be saved from the waters. A medical examination of this mummy, has moreover, shown that the body could not have stayed in the water for long, because it does not show signs of deterioration due to prolonged submersion. Here again, the confrontation of the narration in the Quran with the data provided by modern knowledge does not give rise to the slightest objection from a scientific point of view."​

Yet other scientist who have NOT been paid by the Saudi's don't agree. Strange. Coincience?

 

[hamba2han]

To all Christians and Jews here, you need to consider the following:

I realise that no matter what evidence I or anyone else puts forward in support of the view that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, it will still not be enough to satisfy those who choose not to believe.

Anyhow, like I mentioned previously, based on historical evidence, there are only a few candidates for selecting who among them was really the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Since all of their bodies have been discovered, the thing to bear in mind here is that if NONE of these candidates show any signs on their bodies which are consistent with the manner of death suffered by the Pharaoh as described in scriptures, then the next logical assumption is that the Exodus did not really happen at all.

Atheists would have no problem at all in disbelieving the story of the Exodus altogether and there is therefore little reason for them to accept that Merneptah was indeed the Pharaoh of the Exodus despite all the findings from the forensic examination performed by Dr. Bucaille and his team which support this conclusion.

However for believing Christians and Jews -- Are you sure that you too would wish to go down this same road of disbelief which ultimately would deny the occurence of the Exodus?

 

[SedjmNeter]

P.E.A.C.E and Blessings...

Anyhow, like I mentioned previously, based on historical evidence, there are only a few candidates for selecting who among them was really the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Based on historical evidence U should not have even come to the conclusion that the exodus actually ever happened.

SHEM HETEP

 

[ChildishFears]

The miracle is that there was even a body to recover given the manner in which how he died.



At the time the Qur'anic verses were revealed, no one knew that the body even existed anymore let alone believed that it was still preserved intact even though 2000 years had passed.

Again …once you’ve fully established the correct date of the Exodus, verified that the Exodus described in the Qur’an and the Bible actually happened, show the correct Pharaoh that reigned during this course of events, showed that this Pharaoh died by drowning in the Reed Sea, and was found to have been naturally preserved…then I would be pretty impressed.

Remember the tsunami of Dec. 2004?

Virtually none of the bodies of the victims who were swept out to sea were ever recovered and even the few bodies that were found days later were badly decomposed by then.

Similarly, the expectation then was that the body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus was washed away by the sea and not even the Bible mentions that it was recovered and preserved intact.

I *think* you’re making the mistake that the Pharaoh’s body was preserved purely by natural means without human intervention. Both Ramses II and Merneptah’s body were preserved via mummification.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Also, the thing to remember is that there are only a few candidates for who really was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and among them, Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE were favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars.

Shame there isn’t conclusive evidence as to WHICH Pharaoh reigned during the alleged Exodus. Seti I is favored by some, so is Thutmoses III. Just face that there is currently no way of knowing who reigned especially when historians can’t even agree on the time period the Exodus took place.


And one of the amazing things about the body of Merneptah is that it did not show any signs of decomposition.

[FONT=&quot]Do you realize that Merneptah’s body was preserved and handled by the Egyptians embalmers? Merneptah’s tomb was found in a burial tomb with his other brothers in the Valley of the Kings and his actual body was discovered in Amehotep’s II tomb. Unless you’re willing to say that the Egyptians pulled Merneptah’s body out of the Reed Sea, then proceeded with the mummification process, then buried him in a tomb along with Ramses’ II other sons? Can you actually verify this? Then again, it doesn’t matter anyways since Merneptah did not die from drowning.

[/FONT]This is totally unexpected even if someone says that there is hardly anything strange about recovering a body from the sea.

For the body to not show signs of decomposition means that it did not stay in the water for long... which is completely the opposite of what you would expect when recovering a body that has been in the water for a spell especially considering the way in which he died.

When you square this with the discovery by Dr. Maurice Bucaille in 1975 that only the mummified body of Merneptah bore distinct signs which are consistent with that of someone who had drowned, then this can only mean that it was Merneptah who was very likely indeed to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah


Merneptah suffered from arthritis and arteriosclerosis in old age and died of natural causes after a reign which lasted for nearly a decade. Merneptah was originally buried within tomb KV8 in the Valley of the Kings, but his mummy was not found there. In 1898 it was located along with eighteen other mummies in the mummy cache found in the tomb of Amenhotep II (KV35) by Victor Loret. Merneptah's mummy was taken to Cairo and eventually unwrapped by Dr. G. Elliott Smith on July 8, 1907. Dr Smith commented that:
The body is that of an old man and is 1 meter 714 millimeters in height. Merenptah was almost completely bald, only a narrow fringe of white hair (now cut so close as to be seen only with difficulty) remaining on the temples and occiput. A few short (about 2 mill) black hairs were found on the upper lip and scattered, closely clipped hairs on the cheeks and chin. The general aspect of the face recalls that of Ramesses II, but the form of the cranium and the measurements of the face much more nearly agree with those of his [grand]father, Seti the Great.[6]
Where does it say anything about Merneptah dying via drowning

..

 

[ChildishFears]

I realise that no matter what evidence I or anyone else puts forward in support of the view that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, it will still not be enough to satisfy those who choose not to believe.

You haven't put forth any conclusive evidence...and I'm not choosing not to believe. If the Truth was so blatantly obvious then why is there disagreement among both secular and religious scholars/historians?

 

[hamba2han]

Dr. Maurice Bucaille has produced a book "MUMMIES OF THE PHARAOHS Modern Medical Investigations" which explains his findings and it is interesting to note that one of the criticisms of his work came from a book review for the New York Times and the reviewer had this to say:

"The author does not make it quite clear how a surge of water would produce the massive cranial trauma evident in the mummy, but never mind. This is but one of many questions the author leaves hanging."

If this reviewer had seen the pictures of the dead victims of the tsunami of Dec. 2004, then he surely would not have said this especially when considering the Biblical verse ‘And the waters returned, and covered the ‘chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.’ ... [Exodus 14:28]

The "massive cranial trauma evident in the mummy" was very likely indeed to have been a result of the collision with the debris and objects on the sea-floor, not from the surge of water itself!

Anyhow, for those who wish to learn a bit more on this subject of who really was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, then this webpage should be of interest to you.

 

[Disippelen]

Hi Mr.

And so then, we have two somewhat different accounts, first in the Bible and second in the Qur'an, of how Prophet Moses (pbuh) was brought to the household of Pharaoh.

Question is -- How do you KNOW which of the two accounts is the more accurate?

Normally, the oldest version is correct. And since the Bible is older than the Quran (which was written quite isolated by people who didn't have much knowledge about Judaism and Christianity) it's not so difficult to trust the Bible.

Another point which might not be so obvious immediately is the very detail that the Bible and Quran disagree on. As you're aware of, it's a question whether or not it was a daughter of a wife of the Egyptian ruler.

Firstly, it's indeed very strange that the Quran should want to mix up such a detail, after all, there are lots and lots of more significant theological points in the Bible which the Quran disagrees upon - for far more obvious reasons (reasons which contribute to the fundamental distinctions between the faiths). What's the real point with changing this small detail? Is there a theological point attached to it? No... And because of that, one is much more convinced that this change of a minor detail derives from weak scholarship by the authors of the Quran. They should have checked their sources (the Bible) better if they were to pick up such details in their own work. Since they didn't, they ended up having this mistake (though a minor one) in the Quran.


Secondly, if it indeed was the case that Moses was the son of the wife - and not the daughter. Then one would expect Moses to hold a much higher position. After all, Moses had to flee from Egypt after the murder of the Egyptian man (and he was almost killed in his escape). If he, according to the Quran, was the son of the wife, it is less likely that this would have happened. But if he was merely an adopted son of the daughter, (Bible), it is easier to fit in the account of Moses' dramatic escape beacuse of his killing.


Exodus 2:15:
When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well.


If Moses was his son, the above mentioned is not so likely to have happened. Thus, the Quranic version is far more likely to be wrong than the Biblical. It's common sence.

This same question, of course, can also be asked of the story of the alleged crucifixion of Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

Yes, that is yet another question related to this thematic. I'm sure there have been lots of threads regarding that question before. (Though I can still mention that both Christian and non-Christian accounts claim that he was indeed crusified. The Islamic version of denial occured 600 years later in isolated Arabia. Hence, also in this question it is more reasonable to trust the Christian version.)



Best,
Disippelen

 

[hamba2han]

Normally, the oldest version is correct.

Oh, is it really normally like that??

The significance of the Qur'an with regard to the Bible and all other earlier scriptures is like this:

Why read last week's newspaper when today's edition has just been delivered to your door-step?

Why refer to an old obsolete book which has many of it's pages either missing, torn or defaced to the point of being unreadable when the very latest complete and revised edition of the book by the very same author is now available at your neighbourhood bookstore?

Seekers of the Truth need to seriously ponder upon this.

 

[Rasta]

Oh, is it really normally like that??

The significance of the Qur'an with regard to the Bible and all other earlier scriptures is like this:

Why read last week's newspaper when today's edition has just been delivered to your door-step?

Why refer to an old obsolete book which has many of it's pages either missing, torn or defaced to the point of being unreadable when the very latest complete and revised edition of the book by the very same author is now available at your neighbourhood bookstore?

Seekers of the Truth need to seriously ponder upon this.

You know that there are "newer editions" than Islam right? So why don't you read the "most updated version" like you ask Christians to do? Probably because that's not the reason why you believe what you do?

 

[hamba2han]

You know that there are "newer editions" than Islam right? So why don't you read the "most updated version" like you ask Christians to do? Probably because that's not the reason why you believe what you do?

If these "newer editions" contain clear signs and evidences that they were produced by the same "author", then I have no objections at all in examining them.

So far, however, all of these "newer editions" do not at all contain any such signs that I am aware of and so I remain convinced that the Qur'an is indeed the Creator's Final Revelation to humankind.

 

[Rasta]

If these "newer editions" contain clear signs and evidences that they were produced by the same "author", then I have no objections at all in examining them.

So far, however, all of these "newer editions" do not at all contain any such signs that I am aware of and so I remain convinced that the Qur'an is indeed the Creator's Final Revelation to humankind.

Right on, do you feel you have biases to assume such, different from Christians and Jews who do the same thing?

 

[hamba2han]

Right on, do you feel you have biases to assume such, different from Christians and Jews who do the same thing?

Well, then why don't these Christians and Jews (and anyone else for that matter) just give a simple and unequivocal answer to the question I asked regarding the topic of this thread:

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

 

[Rasta]

Well, then why don't these Christians and Jews (and anyone else for that matter) just give a simple and unequivocal answer to the question I asked regarding the topic of this thread:

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

1. What is the arabic word for king? What is the egyptian word for king? Why do you think they are the same?

2. You assume that an exodus happened at all. All evidence seems to indicate otherwise. There are no Egyptian records that verify this myth.

3. You assume that it was unkown to people at the time of Mohammed. Why is this? It's geographicaly not that far from Egypt.

4. The Quran and Bible do not name the "Pharoh" thus making it immpossible to distiguish "truth" unless you are already biased towards the answer.

 

[Disippelen]

Oh, is it really normally like that??

The significance of the Qur'an with regard to the Bible and all other earlier scriptures is like this:

Why read last week's newspaper when today's edition has just been delivered to your door-step?

Why refer to an old obsolete book which has many of it's pages either missing, torn or defaced to the point of being unreadable when the very latest complete and revised edition of the book by the very same author is now available at your neighbourhood bookstore?

Seekers of the Truth need to seriously ponder upon this.

I'm sorry to say, but you're totally wrong.


It's a common rule to always consider the oldest documents when examining a matter.

(let me provide you with some statements from bible science when I return)

 

[Rasta]

I'm sorry to say, but you're totally wrong.


It's a common rule to always consider the oldest documents when examining a matter.

What does this say for the cration story and flood story from the Bible?