It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Islam Come From Babylon?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


I think that's a bit tricky to quantify. Worshipping the sun, a sun-god or trinities (triads) was quite popular as well.

Quite right and have no quarrel with that statement but I am concentrating on Islam and It's father god Sin. Most certainly the Sumerians had many other gods but as was stated before, the moon god Sin was the father of all gods in the land of Shinar when Abram came upon the scene. If the scholars are correct, the many eras of the Sumerian cultures had different gods as well as other peoples had their pantheon of gods. The god [Sin] of that day was the Father god of all gods in the land of Nimrod.




posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

So if Islam doesn't stem from Christianity, why is there and empty grave in median next to Muhammad's grave, where jesus will be buried after he returns to earth as the messiah and conquers the antichrist?


edit on 25-9-2017 by fatkid because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer


The sun is needed to support life on this planet not only its light but also the heat it provides. So the sun can easily penetrate this "alleged" wall of water you speak about, not only that but mention of the stars and the moon dating back to the Sumerians, Enoch days, grandson of Adam.

The Masoretic text of Genesis [1611 KJV] tells us that the star which we call the sun was not placed in the universe till the fourth era of creation. God showed His light when He said "Let there be light" on the second era of creation. The grass and trees of fruit were created in the third era while there was no sun. The trees produced fruit from the creation light and not the artificial sun. The sun was then placed in the universe on the fourth era of creation. As you can see the trees and grass were not only created before a sun was placed in the universe, they also produced in the same third era. This plainly shows us that the sun is not needed for that third era. Tradition tells us that as the sun was then placed in the heaven that God withdrew His creation light to the point that the sun became the predominate light for this world.

The canopy of water which did surround the world was the result of God dividing the waters and created the firmament.
Genesis 1:6-8
(6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
(8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

I don't know what your source tells you but the Masoretic text is very clear that this world was completely engulfed in water till the flood. You are correct in that the sun was seen as light but that the moon was not seen by the antediluvian people. I can prove this by cloud coverage at night. A very cloudy night will absolutely hide the moon completely. Most all clouds are nothing but water even though the density will vary. By the same observance you can have the same clouds during the day and you will not hide all of the light. It will all vary with density of the clouds but the results are the same.


edit on 25-9-2017 by Seede because: separation of paragraph



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

If the antediluvian people never saw the moon what is "the great light that rules the night" that is mentioned a couple lines after the separation of the firmament, two "eras" before man was even created, unless you are claiming the antediluvian were not man.

ALso what does any of this have to do with your OP?



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: fatkid


If the antediluvian people never saw the moon what is "the great light that rules the night" that is mentioned a couple lines after the separation of the firmament, two "eras" before man was even created, unless you are claiming the antediluvian were not man.

I had asked that same question many years go and was taught that most people who read the bible and even outside literature will assume that what they read is all in the order of happenings. The Hebrew bible came down in three distinct groups of literature or at least was codified as three groups of literature. Torah is not the work of one man but was gathered from many different sources of the twelve tribes traditions. While it was gathered under the guidance of Moses, it was not all of his works or writings. Moses was born about 2500 years after the creation and compiled Torah in the last days of his life.

The Genesis accounts in Torah are at times repeated by several authors and we are not told who these authors are. If you read Torah in the order of the dates presented you will find that there was 1656 years from creation to the flood. That is according to the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia. So even though the world was created with the greater and lesser lights does not mean that everyone or anyone could see it for the 1656 years that it was not visible.

A good example would be that of the Ethiopian's. The Ethiopian bible is the oldest bible on record and have given us the only complete literature of the works of Enoch. Enochian literature discloses much more of creation than the written Torah teaches but then the oral Torah being taught along with the written Torah is about equal with Enochian literature. The oral Torah is now in written form and if one wants to delve into the creation he/she should read both written Torah and the oral Torah which is now in writing.

Getting back to the antediluvian period. I agree that the sun could be seen as in a greenhouse environment but also time was still there as night time arrived. Now none of us can really tell what the density of the canopy of water was and there is a possibility that as the earth cooled for the night that the moon light might have been visible or very faint. I know that there have been studies and models of this and some years ago I read some papers of this study. The thing that really stuck in my mind was that the rain lasted forty days and forty nights and this amount of water had to be beyond my understanding.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

A few things,

You shouldn't cite a reference and then tell others that the reference you cited isn't reliable because of the source when they use it.

If you are using a timeline of 1656 years then the "era" would have to be one literal day, so you are saying nobody could see the moon for one day while there were clouds in the sky.

Also, what does this have to do with your OP?

It would be 1656 years from Adam to the flood, not creation.
edit on 26-9-2017 by fatkid because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede


originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Seede


My point being that it is not a valid claim that you can blame the Ottoman Turks for this type of symbolism throughout the world today.


Can you please show us an Islamic mosque that featured the Crescent Moon and Star symbol prior to the Ottoman Empire? Hint: None.

The Crescent Moon and Star symbol exists within Islam today because the Ottoman Empire was the very last and most recent multinational Islamic Empire. Of course facets of the last and most recent Islamic Empire would exist up until today! The last and most recent of anything carries influence into the future.

 



The God El was introduced as the contender of the god Sin and was never adopted as a god of the Ka'aba.


Wrong!

Allah, the Arabian cognate for El, was always known as the "Father of the Gods" over the polytheistic pantheon of Arabia, just as El held this position in the Canaanite Religion.

For example, prior to Islam's creation,.... Islam's Prophet Muhammad's father was named, "Abdullah", which translates to; "Servant of Allah". This name also predates Muhammad's father.

Furthermore, the word "Allah" is used in place of "El" and "Elohim" in the Arabic translations of the Tanakh and Bible.

 



al-Lat ("The Goddess"),... al-Uzzah ("The Mighty"),... and Manat


That is just more proof of Allah! In pre-Islamic Arabia, these three goddesses were known as the "Daughters of Allah", which further verifies that Allah has always been the "Father of the Gods" just as El.



originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic


I think that's a bit tricky to quantify. Worshipping the sun, a sun-god or trinities (triads) was quite popular as well.

..... the Sumerians had many other gods but as was stated before, the moon god Sin was the father of all gods in the land of Shinar when Abram came upon the scene. If the scholars are correct, the many eras of the Sumerian cultures had different gods as well as other peoples had their pantheon of gods.





You are getting closer.

"Back in the day," there weren't too many fully internationally standardized religions. Instead, each individual city-state had their own primary deity of worship within their own pantheon. The neighboring city-states had their own culture of religious worship that both differed and were related to that of their neighbors, so on and so forth.

Therefore, in the land of Ur and Haran, Sin/Nanna was worshipped as head of the pantheon, while in other regions of Mesopotamia, Enlil was known as the "Father of the Gods". For crying out loud, Enlil was Nanna's own father, and even recognized as such in Ur and Haran.


It's also interesting to note, that, al-Alat has been cross-correlated with the Canaanite Asherah. Depending on region, al-Alat was either the consort or daughter of Allah, while Asherah has been well documented as being the consort of El. Furthermore, al-Lat/Allat/Elat was a common title for Asherah.



edit on 9/26/17 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Sahabi

Just like how Yahweh was one of many tribal gods in the region at the time



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: fatkid


Also, what does this have to do with your OP? It would be 1656 years from Adam to the flood, not creation.

What has this to do with the OP? Well I was being polite and answering DeathSlayer on page two. Also it is covered in the OP in the explanation as to the god Sin's origination. His birth in the minds of men had to have started after the flood of Noah beings that he could not have been seen in the antediluvian period. That led to the explanation as to why Sin could not have been seen till the post flood period.

The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia marks the creation as to when the creation was finished and Adam was created. The reason for this is that no one actually understands the lengths or eras of the days. The world is thought, by some scholars, as to be about 35 to 50 percent smaller before the flood and being so the rotation would be much faster in rotation. That would then mean the days or eras from one light to another light would be vastly different.

I use only one set of dates and have found that when you read other opinions you may run into a vast assortment of dates and can cause a lot of confusion to your understanding. The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia cites that Adam and the end of creation marks day one of our existence. That means that there were 1656 years from the finished creation to the flood. Adam finished the creation of this universe and that is counted as day one of all terrestrial creation.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Still don't see the relation to your OP



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: Seede
At night time a mist would surround the planet giving life its daily drink of water. In the morning when you walked outside at first light you could see the dew everywhere because it never rained in the "old days" not until after the flood did not start raining.


It is a theory that it rained only after the flood is just that a theory.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Once man was made and he began to till the earth then God allowed it to rain, up until then it was a mist that watered the plants. Adam tilled the ground by the sweat of his brow to receive his bread, Cain tilled the ground and presented the first fruits of his tilling.

I maintain that it rained after God created man who thereafter tilled the ground. It is one o the few disagreements I have with Young Earth theory believers. I believe that the original Earth, called Eden before Gen 1:3 did not have any water one it. If the throne city Lucifer and his angels was allowed to be completed water would have flowed from the throne of God's only begotten Son.

It was that throne that Lucifer tried to exalt above the the throne of God. This has been the earths purpose since the beginning a place for the throne of his son, Jesus Christ and it will still will be. You will notice in Revelation 21 it says there will be no sea on the new earth.

Rev 21:1 ¶ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 22:1 ¶ And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
This was as it was when the old earth was first created and before God flooded out the work of Lucifer and his angels and for the water coming upon this planet before its time. Originally the earth was created before their was water according to the chronological order as seen in Proverbs 8.

Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
The reason for the Bible is no to give us so much about God and things from Everlasting to Everlasting but to give us the wisdom on how men might be saved and God have a people after his own heart to serve him and enjoy him forever more.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Seede

So if Islam doesn't stem from Christianity, why is there and empty grave in median next to Muhammad's grave, where jesus will be buried after he returns to earth as the messiah and conquers the antichrist?
The LORD God Almighty, Jesus Christ will never die again, so the empty tomb you speak of is a moot point. But if allowed to open Mohamed's tomb and you will find his bones are still there, and that he never did ride into heaven upon an steed from the mount of the Rock in Jerusalem.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

The firmament was not just a division of water, but one that divides man from God, that is the reason at the end of its section it does not say it was good. In the end vs 32 all that was done to make earth habitable for man is said to be very good. And indeed for sinful man cannot live in the presence of a Righteous God.

Another reason for the firmament is to keep darkness contained so it could not corrupt any more of the abode of God than it already had. This corruption was brought in via Lucifer/Satan when inequity was found in him. the truth is in the word of God when the Bible is consider in the context of the whole 66 books. The purpose of the earths creation was and still is for the very purpose of exalting Jesus Christ.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: fatkid

Man before Noah's flood (a second flood and apart from the first one found in Gens 1:2) could see the Sun, moon and stars. There is no discounting that fact, it is the young earth believers who do not believe there was a gap of unaccountable time between Gens 1:1 when God created the Heaven (singular) and the Earth, and Gens 1:2 when God destroyed by a flood, by releasing waters from its decreed place known as fountains, the throne city which Lucifer and his angels built. It is my hypothesis that Lucifer and his angels were the ones set to build this throne city for the Son to be exalted on (Prov 8:22-25) when iniquity was found in him.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: fatkid

Yahweh is a Greek word fitted to meet the requirements of Alexander the Great when he commissioned them to translate the five books of the law into Greek. Before then it did not exist, except in the mind of modern scholars so called.

Before Moses time God was only known as the God Almighty. God Almighty inspired Moses to write the five books of the Pentateuch, which preserved to them (Israel) the history of man up until his calling out of Israel. And it was by inspiration that the term representing JEHOVAH which was the Hebrew for LORD as translated by the AV translators. Only when God Called Israel out of Egypt did he reveal his name JEHOVAH.

Yahweh is modern Scholars creation so they can rewrite the words of God as they saw fit. But God said he would preserve his words for ever to every generation, and to this current Generation the trade language is English. Find it and you have all the words of God in your hand,believe it and you shall have more wisdom than all those so called scholars who like to use Yahweh instead of LORD/JHVH/JEHOVAH.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sahabi


Can you please show us an Islamic mosque that featured the Crescent Moon and Star symbol prior to the Ottoman Empire? Hint: None.

www.essaouira.nu...
mvslim.com...



The Crescent Moon and Star symbol exists within Islam today because the Ottoman Empire was the very last and most recent multinational Islamic Empire. Of course facets of the last and most recent Islamic Empire would exist up until today! The last and most recent of anything carries influence into the future.

Not a valid reason at all. As is shown the Ottoman Empire was dissolved in 1924 which was ample time to change the Islamic iconography. Also some modern mosques as well as other architecture are displaying the very same symbols that the Ottoman Empire has shown prior to 1924. I don't buy that at all.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

Quite right and have no quarrel with that statement but I am concentrating on Islam and It's father god Sin.

The thing is that if you want to argue that Islam's father god is the moon-god whose name is Sin primarily because of the symbolism Islam uses, something similar can be said about religions that use the cross in some capacity in their religion. It's a little odd to argue that the father god of Christendom is the god Tammuz just because the cross had its origin in ancient Babylon. Known as the "Tau" (looks like a T), it was the symbol of the Babylonian sun god Tammuz (there were various shapes of the Tau). There are other ways of reminding people of the origin of their symbolism without going as far as telling them who they worship according to you, cause your words will mean little to a muslim who thinks the name of their God is Allah, when that is just the Arabic word for "God". The bible mentions "that what the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God" anyway at 1 Corinthians 10:20.


Jehovah: Insight, Volume 2

...
The personal name of God. (Isa 42:8; 54:5) Though Scripturally designated by such descriptive titles as “God,” “Sovereign Lord,” “Creator,” “Father,” “the Almighty,” and “the Most High,” his personality and attributes—who and what he is—are fully summed up and expressed only in this personal name.—Ps 83:18.
...
Importance of the Name. Many modern scholars and Bible translators advocate following the tradition of eliminating the distinctive name of God. They not only claim that its uncertain pronunciation justifies such a course but also hold that the supremacy and uniqueness of the true God make unnecessary his having a particular name. Such a view receives no support from the inspired Scriptures, either those of pre-Christian times or those of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In the Hebrew Scriptures the New World Translation contains the divine name 6,973 times, because the translators took into account, among other things, the fact that in some places the scribes had replaced the divine name with ʼAdho·naiʹ or ʼElo·himʹ. (See NW appendix, pp. 1561, 1562.) The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests to its importance to the Bible’s Author, whose name it is. Its use throughout the Scriptures far outnumbers that of any of the titles, such as “Sovereign Lord” or “God,” applied to him.

Noteworthy, also, is the importance given to names themselves in the Hebrew Scriptures and among Semitic peoples. Professor G. T. Manley points out: “A study of the word ‘name’ in the O[ld] T[estament] reveals how much it means in Hebrew. The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs. . . . When a person puts his ‘name’ upon a thing or another person the latter comes under his influence and protection.”—New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1985, p. 430; compare Everyman’s Talmud, by A. Cohen, 1949, p. 24; Ge 27:36; 1Sa 25:25; Ps 20:1; Pr 22:1; see NAME.

John 4:22 (NW, Jesus speaking)

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.

He was speaking as a member of a people to whom Moses had said: "Listen O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deut 6:4)
"we worship what we know", i.e. not a nameless God like Allah or an unknown God like the Trinity. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls it “the central mystery of Christian faith”. Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.

The engrafting of the Trinity was a masterstroke of the antichrist, for this doctrine shrouded God in mystery and blurred his relationship with the Son. (John 14:28; 15:10; Colossians 1:15)

Source: The Antichrist Exposed

Notice the commentary about John 4:22-24 in the video below around 5 minutes:

edit on 27-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Did you read your own link? It plainly supports what I've been saying this entire time:


"Marbled domes, wide arches, corridors and the minarets along with the crescent moon are the symbols of a mosque across all the diverse Muslim cultures."



"Faisal mosque came under a lot of criticism from conservative Muslims for abandoning the traditional symbols of Islamic architecture."



"The mosque was designed by a Turkish architect Vedat Dalokay"



Although symbols and images were forbidden by Muhammad, and even though the Crescent Moon and Star symbol wasn't adopted until the most recent Islamic Empire,.... according to your logic and reasoning, Jesus must have personally formulated both the Fish and Cross symbols and ordered that they be placed in synagogues, churches, and used throughout Christendom,... Jesus must have been the one who specified that the mythos of Sol Invictus be included with his teachings,... and it must have been Jesus who moved the Sabbath to Sunday.


edit on 9/27/17 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Sahabi



There are other ways of reminding people of the origin of their symbolism without going as far as telling them who they worship according to you, cause your words will mean little to a muslim who thinks the name of their God is Allah, when that is just the Arabic word for "God". The bible mentions "that what the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God" anyway at 1 Corinthians 10:20.

I think I hit your nerve here and that you are taking this to a new level. It is not only the iconography that is presented in this discussion but other factors as well that leads to evidence that Muhammad was not as who he is said to be. I have read this forum for quite a long time and I have read a lot of Christian bashing from several sources. Particularly that Jesus was not the Begotten Son of God. That offends many Christians as well as my thread has offended you, but that is the purpose of debate. I believe I have shown evidence that Muhammad was not as he was depicted as being and that he was indeed a cultist from the Babylonian era. I can not prove that he was as I suspect simply because his belief has been redesigned to suite the needs of those who want to believe that this human was somehow a special agent of the God of Abram.

There also is literary evidence [not proof] that Abram was at one time the very same faith as was Muhammad. We very well know that Abrams father was a cultist and that Abram struggled with this belief. We also know, by Islamic literature, that Muhammad supposedly cleansed the Ka'aba from well over three hundred gods but kept one god with the black stone in the Ka'aba. This is the very same black stone ritual of the Babylonian moon god Sin that is honored today in the very same Ka'aba and by millions of people.

One very important thing to consider is that Islamic faith hinges upon the Hebrew faith but that the Hebrew God did not make any covenant with Ishmael at any time. The covenant was with Abram and with Isaac but never with Ishmael. In that respect is the main reason that Muhammad cannot claim any legal form of authority in the Hebrew mind. I realize what the Quran says and I realize what the book of Hadiths teaches as I also realize that there is nothing that substantiates
the Hebrew conception that this Islamic Muhammad can claim to be a Hebrew prophet. Yes I said Hebrew prophet. Why? because if this Muhammad is of the same faith as Abram then that means that he would have been a prophet of the same God as Abram. It would then be impossible for Muhammad to have been a prophet of a different God would it not? If Abram was about 2500 years older than Islam then Hebrew would be the pattern would it not? I believe that is the reasoning of Islam that I understand.

Another thing that should be addressed is that there are 27 letters in the NT. Out those twenty seven let6ter Jesus is mentioned 923 times in 26 of the 27 letters. All with the assumption that He [Jesus] is the Begotten Son of the same God as Muhammad claims to have. Yet Muhammad denies the 26 letters and the 923 references by denying that Jesus died and was never the son of his [Muhammad's God]. That is the predominate factor of contention between Christianity and Islam. Yet Christianity has overwhelming evidence from thousands of MSS in comparison to the Islamic MSS. You cannot turn a blind eye to all of this without sorting the evidence and realizing that Islamic faith is very flawed.

My opinions of course--



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede
There's something odd going on with your quotation, it says "a reply to Sahabi" but it quotes my words. Your thread has not offended me but perhaps that part of your response is really for Sahabi. There doesn't seem to be any logical justification for bringing up that subject based on my comment to me at least. Did I give you any indication of being offended in my comment or the part that you quoted? Or that your thread or commentary hits a nerve as you described it earlier?
edit on 28-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join