Q'ran or Bible is more reliable as the word of God?

[iceaura]

So basically the least secular ignorant illiterate backward technologically simple and easily victimised people like the Afghanis are under threat from the most secular highly educated, knowedgeable and technologically advanced nations like NATO and the US.

Not just under threat - under attack.

When is "it believed" that change took place?
”
No one knows. The Bible itself acknowledges Ishmael as the older son and he was at least a decade or more older than Isaac. The inconsistency is what people thought incongruous.

Unless it just means Ishmael wasn't around any more - which would sharpen the moral, in a way, as a second loss - or two different stories had different names, originally, and when combined into "Abraham's" story they had to adjust to fit.

Interesting that consistency is expected, or inconsistency seen as requiring explanation, in this kind of story.

The Quran does not mention any of these details probably because it is irrelevant to the moral

So these are considered fables, in the Quran?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not just under threat - under attack.
Unless it just means Ishmael wasn't around any more - which would sharpen the moral, in a way, as a second loss - or two different stories had different names, originally, and when combined into "Abraham's" story they had to adjust to fit.

I have my own theory about that inconsistency.
Hajra [or Hagar as she is called in the Bible], is according to Islamic tradition, the daughter of the Pharoah who was temporarily married to Sara. He gave her into Sara's keeping because he was apparently impressed with her poise and demeanour.

According to Judaic law, a child of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman is not a Jew. According to Islamic law, it doesn't matter, since religion is not inherited. So perhaps, "only son" refers to "only legally recognised" son? But thats just a theory.

Interesting that consistency is expected, or inconsistency seen as requiring explanation, in this kind of story.

Why?

So these are considered fables, in the Quran?

You can consider them what you like, no one cares, really.

 

[Michael]

I've known Chinese who have told me China would be rich and "powerful" if it weren't for the Japanese - you know, because of WWII, which happened like almost a century ago. Yup, Chinese are poor ALL because of Japan. OH, and Japan is only "rich" because they exploit poor Chinese :bugeye:

I've noticed that as China is becoming a bit more successful and a bit more wealthy and a bit more powerful, they are slowly getting over their tiny-weenie syndrome.

In SAM's world it's akso all Japans fault that North Korea is poor. Because this is her argument. Japan colonized Korea and so 100 years later it's still Japan's fault. Oh, it has nothing, nothing to do with North Koreans .. nope, all Japan's fault. Because of the colonizing. Oh, and the only reason Japan is successful is because Japanese suck the blood out of third world North Korea. :bugeye:

Well - that's what the NK and Chinese say anyway


Notice also that when Arabs colonized Persia THIS was GLORIOUS for SAM. GLORIOUS!
There's a city in Turkey that used to have a population of about 250 thousand people. Very prosperous. Around 680 the population seems to have abandoned the city and it has been desolate ever since. Did you know that along the Mediterranean there were many cities that specialized in marble sculptures. Following their colonization by the Glorious Islamic Arabs the industry collapsed, cities stopped functioning and there is a massive migration back to farming. GLORIOUS!!!


Talk about hypocrisy ... geeesh....

 

[S.A.M.]

Did the Arabs ever occupy Turkey?

Weren't the Byzantine there till the 9th century?

Nah never mind, those are irrelevant details.

 

[Michael]

Did the Arabs ever occupy Turkey?

Weren't the Byzantine there till the 9th century?

Nah never mind, those are irrelevant details.

The trade collapsed SAM. This means that people lose their livelihoods. The city weathered up and died. You know, because of the Arab Crusades and Arab Colonization. SURE, Arabs did well out of the deal. But lots of other people were f*cked.

Now, you seem to be happy to point this out when it's the "WEST" but you can't when it's anything to do with Islam. The only way I can make sense of this is to think you must be completely brainwashed? What else explains it?


Tell me SAM, of the problems in the Middle East, you seem to find a lot of them leading back to the "West". OK, I agree, some probables in the ME are related to the West. Western culture has enveloped the world, from using our inventions like electricity or computers to using our styles of political organization of central governments.


Now SAM, of the problems in the Middle East, how many are a result of Islam? Things about Islam that relate to problems seen in the ME.

 

[S.A.M.]

Which city was this?

 

[iceaura]

Hajra [or Hagar as she is called in the Bible], is according to Islamic tradition, the daughter of the Pharoah who was temporarily married to Sara. He gave her into Sara's keeping because he was apparently impressed with her poise and demeanour.

Reasonable as that may be, the earliest "Islamic" traditions date to more than a thousand years after the early "Judaic" ones.

Last I heard, there as yet exists no evidence that any Jews were ever living in any Pharaoh's Egypt, or that Abraham ever existed as depicted in the collected stories.

 

[Pipes75]

what if both books could not have been mens' perspective, would that make them miracles?

Impossible. (and for me, that's a word seldomly used!)
We already know the books were written by man.
Man's perceptions would be included.
We don't tell stories without including our percpectives.

I am more interested in knowing what actually did take place that gave our ancestors these perceptions. .

 

[S.A.M.]

Reasonable as that may be, the earliest "Islamic" traditions date to more than a thousand years after the early "Judaic" ones.

Last I heard, there as yet exists no evidence that any Jews were ever living in any Pharaoh's Egypt, or that Abraham ever existed as depicted in the collected stories.

How would Abraham be identifiable as a Jew? The torah was not written in his lifetime. I'm talking abut differences in perception as to how the first son or only son were understood.

It is interesting though that the Torah puts Abraham in Ur, Iraq and genealogy puts Jews as closest to Kurds, also in the same locale.

Not really sure about Jews in the Pharoahs Egypt, they may have borrowed that bit of history.

 

[iceaura]

How would Abraham be identifiable as a Jew? The torah was not written in his lifetime. I'm talking abut differences in perception as to how the first son or only son were understood.

The "understanding" in the original story predates any Islamic traditions by a thousand years. And probably predates the current Judaic tradition be almost as long.

 

[S.A.M.]

The "understanding" in the original story predates any Islamic traditions by a thousand years. And probably predates the current Judaic tradition be almost as long.

Except that the Islamic tradition is based on rabbinical commentaries:

According to the Midrash (Gen. R. xlv.), Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh, who, seeing what great miracles God had done for Sarah's sake (Gen. xii. 17), said: "It is better for Hagar to be a slave in Sarah's house than mistress in her own."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=53&letter=H

Interestingly enough, by its Hebrew root, the name Hagar itself means flight or the dragged away one.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Hagar.html

 

[iceaura]

The "understanding" in the original story predates any Islamic traditions by a thousand years. And probably predates the current Judaic tradition be almost as long.
”
Except that the Islamic tradition is based on rabbinical commentaries:

Sounds about right. With some improvements in the consistency area, naturally.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sounds about right. With some improvements in the consistency area, naturally.

Isn't that what the advantages of retrospection are?

 

[iceaura]

Isn't that what the advantages of retrospection are?

Revision, is more to the point.

No problem - as long as we are telling a story, rather than lying; as long as nobody is being conned into literal belief, to the advantage of the story teller. We've got three or three and a half metaphorical characters in a work of fiction, or myth - Abraham, Isaac/Ishmael, and God. So far so good?