• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much time do we really have?

mikeb768 said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you don't understand now.

Are you only not happy with me calling somebody tentatively an agologist?

Or is it that you don't believe that it really is Maurice Bucaille who you have been slamming and that the author of the arcticle linked to (Jochen Katz) "manage[d] to fit so many mistakes into just the first two paragraphs" by quoting this Maurice Bucaille?

In case of the latter, these words:
This Haman does not appear in the Bible, while he is mentioned six times in the Qur’an: sura 28, verses 6, 8 and 38; sura 29, verse 39; and sura 40, verses 24 and 36.​
are really Bucaille's words.


In case it is the former, ... Well ...

mikeb768 said:
Maurice Bucaille was an author, and French medical doctor, there is a link to a documentary about the mans life in the OP. He is mainly known for his book "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge".
Click to expand...

... This does little to reverse my judgment. An apologist, a figurehead, or whatever exactly.


(And thanks for the link to the doc, but I am not the most avid watcher of linked to videos. I have often music playing or watch other stuff already while reading and posting.)
 
Last edited:
Lord Emsworth said:
I am not sure what you don't understand now.

Are you only not happy with me calling somebody tentatively an agologist?

Or is it that you don't believe that it really is Maurice Bucaille who you have been slamming and that the author of the arcticle linked to (Jochen Katz) "manage[d] to fit so many mistakes into just the first two paragraphs" by quoting this Maurice Bucaille?

In case of the latter, these words:
This Haman does not appear in the Bible, while he is mentioned six times in the Qur’an: sura 28, verses 6, 8 and 38; sura 29, verse 39; and sura 40, verses 24 and 36.​
are really Bucaille's words.

In case it is the former, ... Well ...

... This does little to reverse my judgment. An apologist, a figurehead, or whatever exactly.

(And thanks for the link to the doc, but I am not the most avid watcher of linked to videos. I have often music playing or watch other stuff already while reading and posting.)
Click to expand...

So the Hoax is that someone thinks that Maurice Bucaille may have said that "Haman dose not appear in the Bible", although we don't know this for sure and the name Haman actually is found in the Bible.

OK, but how is any of this relevant to the OP/current discussion?
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
"Hindsight/confirmation bias"? Maybe you can be more specific?
Click to expand...

It's simple - unless a prediction:

* occurs before the predicted time,
* is specific and unmistakably clear,
* is about something novel (ie, not "the sun will rise tomorrow"), and
* is widely publicized/recorded

it is worthless.

Shoehorning "predictions" into vague texts after the fact is not impressive in the slightest. All such acts really reveal is that one's faith is wavering and it is a desperate attempt to continue to believe the unbelievable.
 
mikeb768 said:
So the Hoax is that someone thinks that Maurice Bucaille may have said that "Haman dose not appear in the Bible", although we don't know this for sure and the name Haman actually is found in the Bible.

OK, but how is any of this relevant to the OP/current discussion?
Click to expand...
According to your own citation he said
This Haman does not appear in the Bible, while he is mentioned six times in the Qur’an: sura 28, verses 6, 8 and 38; sura 29, verse 39; and sura 40, verses 24 and 36.
Click to expand...
He may be trying to cover up Muhammad's blunder. You will recall that Muhammad identifies his "Haman" as a minister of Pharaoh, but in fact Haman is a character in a biblical story about the Royal household of King Xerxes I of Persia. Faced with this, a religious apologist might well try to argue that there were two Hamans, one in the Bible and a different one in the Quran. Thus we have "this" Haman or "that" Haman.

I've seen a similar thing done by a Christian apologist. John places the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus at the beginning of his public ministry (which such an act would have brought to a sudden and premature end!) while the Synoptics more plausibly put it at the completion of that time. One apologist calmly asserts that he did it twice (to save the inerrancy of the gospels), once mentioned in the Synoptics, but not in John; and once mentioned by John but not the Synoptics. One could therefore talk about "this" cleansing, or "that" cleansing. I think that may be what's happening here.
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
It's simple - unless a prediction:

* occurs before the predicted time,
* is specific and unmistakably clear,
* is about something novel (ie, not "the sun will rise tomorrow"), and
* is widely publicized/recorded

it is worthless.

Shoehorning "predictions" into vague texts after the fact is not impressive in the slightest. All such acts really reveal is that one's faith is wavering and it is a desperate attempt to continue to believe the unbelievable.
Click to expand...

So of the things mentioned so far, which do you feel fit into the category which you have described?
 
Craig B said:
According to your own citation he said He may be trying to cover up Muhammad's blunder. You will recall that Muhammad identifies his "Haman" as a minister of Pharaoh, but in fact Haman is a character in a biblical story about the Royal household of King Xerxes I of Persia. Faced with this, a religious apologist might well try to argue that there were two Hamans, one in the Bible and a different one in the Quran. Thus we have "this" Haman or "that" Haman.

I've seen a similar thing done by a Christian apologist. John places the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus at the beginning of his public ministry (which such an act would have brought to a sudden and premature end!) while the Synoptics more plausibly put it at the completion of that time. One apologist calmly asserts that he did it twice (to save the inerrancy of the gospels), once mentioned in the Synoptics, but not in John; and once mentioned by John but not the Synoptics. One could therefore talk about "this" cleansing, or "that" cleansing. I think that may be what's happening here.
Click to expand...

The name "Haman" was not known (as it pertains to Egyptian History) until the decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphics in the 19th century. When the hieroglyphics were decoded, it was understood that Haman was a close helper of the Pharaoh and was "the head of the stone quarries."

In 1799, much to the delight of historians and other learned people, the mystery of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics was solved by the discovery of a tablet called the "Rosetta Stone." This amazing find dated back to 196 B.C. The importance of this inscription was that it was written in three different forms of writing: hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified form of ancient Egyptian hieratic writing) and Greek. With the help of the Greek script, the ancient Egyptian writings were decoded. The translation of the inscription was completed by a Frenchman named Jean-Françoise Champollion. Hence, a forgotten language and the events related in it were brought to light. In this way, a great deal of knowledge about the civilization, religion and social life of ancient Egypt became available to mankind and this opened the way to greater knowledge about this important era in human history.

Through the decoding of hieroglyph, an important piece of knowledge was revealed: The name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions. This name was referred to in a monument in the Hof Museum in Vienna. This same inscription also indicated the close relationship between Haman and the Pharaoh.200

In the dictionary of People in the New Kingdom, that was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers."201

The result revealed a very important truth: Unlike the false assertion of the opponents of the Qur'an, Haman was a person who lived in Egypt at the time of the Prophet Moses (as). He had been close to the Pharaoh and had been involved in construction work, just as imparted in the Qur'an.

[Quran 28:38]
Pharaoh said, "Council, I do not know of any other god for you apart from Me. Haman, kindle a fire for me over the clay and build me a lofty tower so that perhaps I may be able to climb up to Moses' god! I consider him a blatant liar."

References:
200. Walter Wreszinski, Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien (Egyptian Inscriptions from the K.K. Hof Museum in Vienna) (Leipzig: J C Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung: 1906).
201. Hermann Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, Verzeichnis der Namen (The Egyptian Family Names, Listing of the Names), Verlag Von J J Augustin in Glückstadt, Band I,1935, Band II, 1952.
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
Ive yet to find a "quranic prediction" that was not just a post-hoc rationalisation.

Then again, the same can be said for the bible, so dont feel bad.
Click to expand...

I don't feel bad in the least. I'm just a little curious as to how you are able to rationalize your position?

Or maybe you don't bother/believe it necessary to rationalize? Maybe you just place your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and hum loudly to yourself?
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
I don't feel bad in the least. I'm just a little curious as to how you are able to rationalize your position?

Or maybe you don't bother/believe it necessary to rationalize? Maybe you just place your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and hum loudly to yourself?
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose one would earn the right to say that once one has carefully read and considered the points of view of everyone who has responded to or disagreed with the OP.

Prophecies aren't prophecies if you justify them after the fact.
 
mikeb768 said:
I don't feel bad in the least. I'm just a little curious as to how you are able to rationalize your position?

Or maybe you don't bother/believe it necessary to rationalize? Maybe you just place your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and hum loudly to yourself?
Click to expand...

hahaha, hardly.

Do you not agree that, as we learn new things through science, people try to find passages in the quran that fit?

Ive yet to see a prediction vocalised *before* science confirmed it. The earth is round? Yeh, the ancient greeks knew that, as did many other cultures..... Embryology? Retro-fitted to passages after modern embryology.

I should state for the record that I used to work with a (very nice) muslim who believed all this nonsense, and had him regularly bringing me yet another instance of "science confirming the quran". Never once did I see anything remotely fitting the requirements of an actual prediction.

Now, do you have any?

ETA: Remember - people had to read the passage and interpret it as a specific prediction *before* the science was confirmed...... if you need to know the science in order to interpret the passage, it is a fail.
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
In 1799, much to the delight of historians and other learned people, the mystery of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics was solved by the discovery of a tablet called the "Rosetta Stone."
Click to expand...
No it wasn't! This is nonsense. It was "solved" much later when the text was finally deciphered.
Through the decoding of hieroglyph, an important piece of knowledge was revealed: The name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions. This name was referred to in a monument in the Hof Museum in Vienna. This same inscription also indicated the close relationship between Haman and the Pharaoh.200
Click to expand...
Details please.
In the dictionary of People in the New Kingdom, that was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers."201
Click to expand...
Details please.
The result revealed a very important truth: Unlike the false assertion of the opponents of the Qur'an, Haman was a person who lived in Egypt at the time of the Prophet Moses (as). He had been close to the Pharaoh and had been involved in construction work, just as imparted in the Qur'an.
Click to expand...
Please show me this astounding source that gives details of Moses' activities in Egypt. An extra-Biblical reference to Moses!
 
mikeb768

I have now looked up a source discussing this Egyptian "Haman". It is http://rationalislam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/haman-and-man-in-red-underpants-tmitru.html
" ... Several years later, when I was able to read the profession written in hieroglyphs on the stela, I observed that the determinative joined to the name had emphasised the importance of the intimate of Pharaoh.” (Again this is incorrect. In addition the Islamic site that has been pushing these lies, islamicawareness.org, has had to change its story many times in in the face of irrefutable evidence of Bucaille's intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
 
mikeb768

You appear to be using this as a source. I provide a link so that any interested person may look at it and assess the quality of scholarship reflected therein. http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605502.0

ETA Here's part of the text.
The symbols of the ancient Egyptians used to write the words are called “hieroglyphs.” The ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Mayans and Aztecs used to use the writing of hieroglyph. The Hieroglyph is a writing which is composed of primitive pictures and signs that represent ideas about various creatures and objects. Despite the efforts of giving proper meanings to the pictures, hieroglyph is a very complex writing.
Click to expand...
And here is a discussion of the matter from another point of view, providing images and analysis of the hieroglyphs in question. http://www.hzfojiao.info/answering-islam/islamic_awareness.html
 
Last edited:
Lord Emsworth said:
Mhmmmm, no?
http://books.google.de/books?id=vsYPT9zZy3cC&lpg=PR5&hl=de&pg=PA192#v=onepage&q&f=false
Just look at it. The link should take you directly to Page 192.

:confused:

(Also: Source of a quotation =! originator of an argument)
Click to expand...

OK, so it seems Maurice Bucaille may have made a mistake by not realizing that name Haman is actually found in the Bible.

Maurice Bucallie has never made the claim that he was infallible. The only person who is infallible is the Pope, as we all know. Although I wonder if the actions of Pope Benedict XVI (who has since resigned as Pope), are still believed to be infallible (post resignation) by some?

But what does all of this have to do with anything?
 
devnull said:
hahaha, hardly.

Do you not agree that, as we learn new things through science, people try to find passages in the quran that fit?

Ive yet to see a prediction vocalised *before* science confirmed it. The earth is round? Yeh, the ancient greeks knew that, as did many other cultures..... Embryology? Retro-fitted to passages after modern embryology.

I should state for the record that I used to work with a (very nice) muslim who believed all this nonsense, and had him regularly bringing me yet another instance of "science confirming the quran". Never once did I see anything remotely fitting the requirements of an actual prediction.

Now, do you have any?

ETA: Remember - people had to read the passage and interpret it as a specific prediction *before* the science was confirmed...... if you need to know the science in order to interpret the passage, it is a fail.
Click to expand...

If you go back and look at the OP, you would see that the thread does not actually have anything to do with Science.
 
Last edited:
Frozenwolf150 said:
Yes, I suppose one would earn the right to say that once one has carefully read and considered the points of view of everyone who has responded to or disagreed with the OP.

Prophecies aren't prophecies if you justify them after the fact.
Click to expand...

How does someone "justify a prophecy after the fact"?

Can you provide us with an example?
 
Craig B said:
You appear to be using this as a source. I provide a link so that any interested person may look at it and assess the quality of scholarship reflected therein. http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605502.0
Click to expand...

Huh, interesting. The "people" page at that site is basically a who's who of the Qur'an-alone movement, including the same Rashad Khalifa whose numerological nonsense the OP cited earlier.

Are you a Qur'aniyyun, mikeb768?

mikeb768 said:
Maurice Bucallie has never made the claim that he was infallible. The only person who is infallible is the Pope, as we all know. Although I wonder if the actions of Pope Benedict XVI (who has since resigned as Pope), are still believed to be infallible (post resignation) by some?
Click to expand...

Papal infallibility doesn't work that way.
 
A'isha said:
Huh, interesting. The "people" page at that site is basically a who's who of the Qur'an-alone movement, including the same Rashad Khalifa whose numerological nonsense the OP cited earlier.

Are you a Qur'aniyyun, mikeb768?

Papal infallibility doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

Ah No, as you can see in the chart which is provided in the OP all of the red sections have been taken from Hadith.

So do you have some insight into the Catholic understanding of "Papal infallibility"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom