The wrote:
|
Amusingly, this bibliolator has used the Bible to give a context to the Quran, as if the Bible has some sort of authority when it comes to history.
|
The wrote:
|
Indeed, their likeness is that of a dog trying to chase its own tail, and they endlessly run in circles.
|
The wrote:
|
A very apt verse, buddy. However, the guy is a Christian writer and he openly admits it, and as such it is understandable that he is making a plea to his Bible.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I am a little busy with another issue. I will return to this one as soon as I can, and we will see that (ironically) our good Christian has asked such wonderful questions that once answered, any Muslim or non-Muslim will with ease pick up Mecca over Jerusalem as the location of the Kaaba.
Take care.
|
Indeed bro, however I meant Layth who uses such guy Christian crap as evidences against the Quran
And take your time mate, that is the beauty about this web site, it is only for relaxation and not fighting between different sects
Take care
- Mon 12 Apr, 2010 12:35 am
Post subject: Re: Incomplete Quran and location of Kaaba
Reply to 4 and 5: As shown in the previous reply, our good crusader has no clue about either Becca or Yerushalim, and these two questions being an extension of the ignorance displayed in the previous question are dismissed as invalid and inapplicable.
Cross-questions: Now that you have not been able to locate 'Yerushalim' in the Quran, can you locate a verse in the Quran which tells us that Ishmael was settled at Yerushalim? Can you at least find a verse in the Quran which states that either of Abraham and Ishmael as much as set a foot in Yerushalim?
Reply to 6: Never has the Bible been accepted as a credible book except by credulous Jews and Christians, but, in the last few decades, in the face of overwhelming archaeological evidence against it, many leading Jewish and Christian archaeologists themselves have dismissed it as an inaccurate and unreliable source of history. Since the "challenge" is based on Quran alone and not Biblical myths, this desperate plea to the Bible merits rejection. But I enjoy playing with an Isaacite (Ishmaelite trait (-: ), so we will indulge our deluded child of Adam. I previously educated our evangelizer about the roots and origin of Yerushalim; I will now enlighten him some more about his Bible.
Our clueless crusader has no idea about the word he is chasing. The Hebrew 'baka' can most certainly denote weeping, and just as assuredly it does have an Arabic cognate. However, the Arabic word for weeping comes not from the root 'b-k-k' (from which comes the Becca that is the object of our attention), but from 'b-k-y'. Thus, the Biblical valley of baka is related not to Bakka, but to 'bakaa,' which means "to wail or weep". Mixing up two distinct words which bear no connection to each other is not going to help any Jew or Christian in proving Yerushalim as the location of the Kaaba.
Let's now talk about the valley of "balsam trees". From heraldmag.org:
The trees called in 2 Sam 5:23,24 (Revised Version, margin) "balsam-trees" were certainly not those which yielded this substance, for there are none in the Shepehlah but there are both mulberry trees and terebinths in the district between Rephaim and Gezer. When used as a perfume the name basam seems to have been adopted, but as a medicinal remedy it is called tsori.
A mulberry tree certainly does not yield balsam, and we see from the above source that there are no balsam yielding trees in the Shephelah, where our eager evangelizer locates the 'valley of balsam trees'. Why then does he fib that there is "such a place located within the Valley of Rephaim"? I am certain that this an example of pure, unadulterated ignorance rather than a deliberate attempt at deceit, but ignorance doesn't count as virtue. It's time our zealous evangelist pick up a more reliable Bible translation than the one that doesn't know balsam trees from baka. Talk about barking up the wrong tree.
Whether it is the valley of weeping (which interpretation appears to be the preferred choice among Jews and Christians) or the valley of whatever trees, the Hebrew 'baka' is related to the Arabic 'bakaa' and not Bakka, and our Christian buddy has been chasing the wrong word. As such, his entire "compare, identify and fib" exercise has taken a tumble. Let me now return the favor of identification.
Noting that the valley of Baca is actually less than 5 miles away from Jerusalem
Our missionary started by observing that "The Quran says that this house was built in Becca". Now, by his own admission, Yerushalim and the Biblical valley of baka are two separate locations with roughly five miles between them. Our good Christian will possibly concede that two places with five miles between them cannot be the one and the same place (unless this is some sort of Holy Duality), and will readily admit that the baka valley and Yerushalim are two separate locations. If he identifies Becca as the baka valley, then he has admitted that Becca and Yerushalim are two separate locations, and has ruled out Becca's identification as Yerushalim. We are not even halfway through and we have already proved, using his own conjectures, that Becca cannot be identified as Yerushalim.
Cross-questions: We have seen that the Hebrew 'baka' and the Arabic 'Bakka' come from different roots. If you still have an insane wish to identify the word 'baka' with Bakka, do you concede that your scribes made a witting or unwitting error in transcription? Further, if you identify the valley of baka with Becca, and accept that the House of God is in Becca, then you admit that not Yerushalim but the valley of baka is the place where you should find the Temple. Why then do you revere Yerushalim rather than the baka valley? Given that Yerushalim has been immersed in idolatry for thousands of years, doesn't it make Biblical sense to forsake Yerushalim and instead try your luck with the baka valley?
Bonus cross-questioning: Let us suppose that the Biblical text correctly reads "balsam trees". This creates more problems for Jews and Christians. We have seen that balsam yielding trees are not found in the Shephelah, and one deduction will be that the Jews and Christians are looking for the baka valley (and thus the Temple) in the wrong place (doubly wrong in the case of the Temple). The other possibility is that whoever wrote the Bible didn't know shit from Shinola, and penned the Bible all the same. Which of these two options do you prefer?
(To be continued)
- Wed 14 Apr, 2010 4:31 am
Post subject: Re: Incomplete Quran and location of Kaaba
Reply to 7, 8 and 9: We previously saw, based on the writer's own conjectures, that Becca cannot be identified with Urushalim. Now our clever Christian has finally realized that while the structure of the Kaaba was raised by Abraham and Ishmael, the object of Jewish and Christian attention was, according to the shaky Bible, constructed during the reign of Solomon, and therefore in no way can the Kaaba be identified with the temple which he so very reveres. As such, our clever Christian was all along chasing his own tail, and as assessed, cluelessly running in circles.
It is dumb on the part of any Christian to keep offering Biblical myths as an apology. I can sympathize with the repeated and desperate attempts on his part to push the case for the Bible, but damning assertions by leading Jewish archaeologists do not allow me to offer anything more than sympathy:
The biblical stories should thus be regarded as a national mythology with no more historical basis than the Homeric saga of Odysseus's travels or Virgil's saga of Aeneas's founding of Rome.
Whether or not we discover anything in favor of Homer and Virgil, Yahweh's Bible is beyond hope. Let us see some proof for the Isaac-bound-on-Moriah fable; till then our evangelist has my sincere sympathies.
What, then, about the temple ruins at Urushalim? While archaeology has dissociated Urushalim from Solomon's Temple, it is an accepted fact that the ruins at Urushalim belong to the temple constructed by Herod, the very same one who, in a display of dogged loyalty to Augustus, dedicated another temple to goddess Roma. Educating goes on. Our evangelist might take a murderer's temple as his sacred place, Muslims are satisfied with the House of God.
It will perhaps thrill our evangelist to learn that the Quran does not contain the finicky and self-destructing myths of the Bible, and that "Holy Urushalim" is not a Quranic concept but an import from Judaica.
Cross-questions: Can you point out the verse where Becca is called Urushalim? Can you provide a single verse from the Quran that tells us that the station of Abraham is in Urushalim? Can you point out the verse in the Quran which tells us about Abraham and Isaac going up the Mount Moriah? Can you at least find the sacrifice of Isaac in the Quran? Now that it's clear that Muslims revere the House of God, and you revere the temple built by Herod, could you explain your infatuation with everything idolatrous? Given that Herod also dedicated a temple to the goddess Roma, does it not make clear the foundations of his temple, which you have adopted? What explains your penchant for murderers and idolators? Does it not make clear the idolatrousness of a people clinging to their own devilry? Can you, on the other hand, provide a single verse from the Quran which tells us that Solomon built the Kaaba at Urushalim? Or that Herod or some other murderer built the Kaaba there? How about a verse that tells us that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba at Urushalim?
Bonus cross-questioning: Can you prove, even on the testimony of the Bible itself, that the place where the Isaac-bounded-for-sacrifice fable is supposed to have occurred is in Urushalim? Can you provide at least one explicit Biblical verse towards this end? And when you fail to do so, can you prove beyond doubt, using as many verses as you want, that Urushalim is the location of this myth?
(To be continued)
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.17 © 2001
phpBB
Group