• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

A small but not insignificant detail in the Qur'an

Status
Not open for further replies.

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
There is no Pharoah before the Pharoah.
Historically that's not yet shown. And, your argument, is simply based on the assumption that the OP is correct. It's circular; No one before Moses could have been called Pharaoh, so when this Pharaoh is placed before Lot in order, he's not a Pharaoh before Lot.

Whereas I argue that there were Pharaoh's BEFORE Moses based on
a) the time-line of the Koran is clear here in the order it gives these names.

and
b) the fact that historically, it's not inaccurate to refer to earlier kings of Egypt as Pharaoh.

Whilst it is true that the Pharaoh AT THE TIME OF JOSEPH is simply called 'king' it is not incorrect to refer to Pharaoh's before Moses' day as Pharaoh (as evidenced by Peaceful Soul's citation)

How you see a list going A-B-C-D-E-F as A-C-D-E-F-B is entirely up to you
 
Upvote 0

anatolian

Senior Veteran
Dec 12, 2006
2,781
98
44
Turkey
✟37,421.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Why do you think that the order of 38:12 must be a historical order? Do you have any method for this? Here there is a different order. 89:9"And with the Thamud (people), who cut out (huge) rocks in the valley?" 89:10"And with Pharaoh, lord of stakes? "Thamud was mentioned after Pharoah in 38. Quran doesnt tell us any Pharoah story other then the Pharoah of Moses,therefor I normally think this Pharoah is that Pharaoh.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Why do you think that the order of 38:12 must be a historical order?
a) See Peaceful Soul's post.
b) everything in the Koran's supposed to be significant.



It doesn't tell the story of Pharaoh AND Moses other than the story of Pharaoh and Moses; but as you believe in many prophets that are unknown it's not improbable that unknown prophets met un-named Pharoahs and were rejected.

But as I say, if you want to interpret the order given in the koran as you have, that's up to you.

You still don't have any evidence that this is 'significant' (as per a Biblical error)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.