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.

 

Jospeh son of Jacob (Israel) and Imhotep

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Hm, well according to Simcha he says the hyksos were actually the hebrew tribes, you'd have to watch the exodus decoded to get his entire point of view.

Don't forget that Ishamael's mother Ha'agar was an egyptian herself, probably obtained when Abraham went into egypt and decieved the pharoah into bedding Sarah which caused YHWH to rain down curses and plagues on him for bedding a married woman in which he then paid Abraham to take his woman and go away. Abraham purposely introduced Sarah as his sister but i think he did it on purpose knowing what would happen because this was after he pledged to serve YHWH. When i read that part of genesis about the things Abraham had done i got the feeling he was a conman because he did alot of things i find questionable. He didn't just trick 1 king he tricked 2, Pharoah and "Babalak" (what some christian churches call him because we can't pronounce his name)who Abraham then built a well for in Be'ersheba as a covenant of peace.


Which begs the question - since Abraham was "the Friend of God", and God showered Mercy on him and made him the father of the believers - whether this is even possible?

Abraham as a righteous PROPHET of God could never have done such things --- thus, one should rather question that account in the Bible.

E.g.. which is more probable, that a prophet of God did such horrendous things, or that the scribes that wrote the Bible simply wrote the story that way?
edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


And the reason Abraham did this was because as the Bible says it like this, The princes of Egypt found her fair and told pharaoh, who then commanded her to go into his house. Abraham was afraid the Pharaoh would have him killed, the same as he was afraid of Abimelech, a Philistine king of Canaan, would kill him. Abraham was very wealthy.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Hm, well according to Simcha he says the hyksos were actually the hebrew tribes, you'd have to watch the exodus decoded to get his entire point of view.

Don't forget that Ishamael's mother Ha'agar was an egyptian herself, probably obtained when Abraham went into egypt and decieved the pharoah into bedding Sarah which caused YHWH to rain down curses and plagues on him for bedding a married woman in which he then paid Abraham to take his woman and go away. Abraham purposely introduced Sarah as his sister but i think he did it on purpose knowing what would happen because this was after he pledged to serve YHWH. When i read that part of genesis about the things Abraham had done i got the feeling he was a conman because he did alot of things i find questionable. He didn't just trick 1 king he tricked 2, Pharoah and "Babalak" (what some christian churches call him because we can't pronounce his name)who Abraham then built a well for in Be'ersheba as a covenant of peace.


Which begs the question - since Abraham was "the Friend of God", and God showered Mercy on him and made him the father of the believers - whether this is even possible?

Abraham as a righteous PROPHET of God could never have done such things --- thus, one should rather question that account in the Bible.

E.g.. which is more probable, that a prophet of God did such horrendous things, or that the scribes that wrote the Bible simply wrote the story that way?
edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


I didn't say the bible said Abraham was a conman, i said that was my interpretation of the matter. Youre taking my interpretation and applying it to what happened. I wasn't there to see what happened and all the details. It has been shown time and time again that God uses broken men and flawed men to bring him glory because were all sinners, not a one of us isn't anyone that says they do not sin is a liar and even Abraham was still a sinner. The only 2 men that were ever found worthy were Enoch and Elijah and while i don't know much about Enoch i know that Elijah had his faults too.
edit on 4-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Hm, well according to Simcha he says the hyksos were actually the hebrew tribes, you'd have to watch the exodus decoded to get his entire point of view.

Don't forget that Ishamael's mother Ha'agar was an egyptian herself, probably obtained when Abraham went into egypt and decieved the pharoah into bedding Sarah which caused YHWH to rain down curses and plagues on him for bedding a married woman in which he then paid Abraham to take his woman and go away. Abraham purposely introduced Sarah as his sister but i think he did it on purpose knowing what would happen because this was after he pledged to serve YHWH. When i read that part of genesis about the things Abraham had done i got the feeling he was a conman because he did alot of things i find questionable. He didn't just trick 1 king he tricked 2, Pharoah and "Babalak" (what some christian churches call him because we can't pronounce his name)who Abraham then built a well for in Be'ersheba as a covenant of peace.


Which begs the question - since Abraham was "the Friend of God", and God showered Mercy on him and made him the father of the believers - whether this is even possible?

Abraham as a righteous PROPHET of God could never have done such things --- thus, one should rather question that account in the Bible.

E.g.. which is more probable, that a prophet of God did such horrendous things, or that the scribes that wrote the Bible simply wrote the story that way?
edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


I didn't say the bible said Abraham was a conman, i said that was my interpretation of the matter. Youre taking my interpretation and applying it to what happened. I wasn't there to see what happened and all the details. It has been shown time and time again that God uses broken men and flawed men to bring him glory because were all sinners, not a one of us isn't anyone that says they do not sin is a liar and even Abraham was still a sinner. The only 2 men that were ever found worthy were Enoch and Elijah and while i don't know much about Enoch i know that Elijah had his fauts too.
edit on 4-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


Of course I can accept they may have had sins, but I can NEVER accept the OBNOXIOUS stories about the prophets of God written by the scribes in the Bible:

They made Abraham a liar and a deceiver,
They made Moses a genocidal maniac who orders the slaughtering of women and children
They made Noah an incestuous pervert who has sex with his own daughters
They made David an adulterer who even arranges to kill a man in order to steal his wife
They made Solomon an idol worshiper


Do you see a pattern here?


I can simply not accept this.

And btw, since "Muhammad copied from the Bible" - how come he did not copy a single one of these horrendous accusations against the prophets of God?

It would rather seem that the Source who revealed the Scripture decided to reveal the truth about them, that truth which had been grossly distorted by the scribes.


edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


Are you not aware that the christian bible and the hebrew accounts are the one and the same? The only book that wasn't put into the bible that isn't in the hebrew texts is the book of Jasher. Youre implying that Moses disobeyed God by saying that he didn't do as he was ordered. Do you not understand that Yah is a righteous and wrathful God? The dead sea scrolls confirm that the "bible" has not been changed.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Hm, well according to Simcha he says the hyksos were actually the hebrew tribes, you'd have to watch the exodus decoded to get his entire point of view.

Don't forget that Ishamael's mother Ha'agar was an egyptian herself, probably obtained when Abraham went into egypt and decieved the pharoah into bedding Sarah which caused YHWH to rain down curses and plagues on him for bedding a married woman in which he then paid Abraham to take his woman and go away. Abraham purposely introduced Sarah as his sister but i think he did it on purpose knowing what would happen because this was after he pledged to serve YHWH. When i read that part of genesis about the things Abraham had done i got the feeling he was a conman because he did alot of things i find questionable. He didn't just trick 1 king he tricked 2, Pharoah and "Babalak" (what some christian churches call him because we can't pronounce his name)who Abraham then built a well for in Be'ersheba as a covenant of peace.


Which begs the question - since Abraham was "the Friend of God", and God showered Mercy on him and made him the father of the believers - whether this is even possible?

Abraham as a righteous PROPHET of God could never have done such things --- thus, one should rather question that account in the Bible.

E.g.. which is more probable, that a prophet of God did such horrendous things, or that the scribes that wrote the Bible simply wrote the story that way?
edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


I didn't say the bible said Abraham was a conman, i said that was my interpretation of the matter. Youre taking my interpretation and applying it to what happened. I wasn't there to see what happened and all the details. It has been shown time and time again that God uses broken men and flawed men to bring him glory because were all sinners, not a one of us isn't anyone that says they do not sin is a liar and even Abraham was still a sinner. The only 2 men that were ever found worthy were Enoch and Elijah and while i don't know much about Enoch i know that Elijah had his fauts too.
edit on 4-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


Yes, that is what the Bible is very clear about, people then did bad things but through their bad deeds, they learned from it and repented. Abraham certainly had his reasons for doing what he did, but he at least acknowledged it. That is the message of repentance, to acknowledge what we did and atone for it.

Abraham was a patriarch, but he was still human at the same time. What we do not have is really what those people were thinking, we can only see their actions and by their actions we can judge them. When Abraham acknowledged that he was dishonest, he had to confess that dishonesty to God, pharaoh and to Sarah.

Elijah yes indeed have faults, one of them being a complainer after he won his battles. And he seemed to have some kind of arrogance because he thought he was the only one who did not bow to Ba'al. God had to remind him that God had 7,000 other people who did not bow to Ba'al and had them reserved.

What really makes me laugh is Lot, we know he was in Sodom, but yet called them brethren. I think he did what the men in Sodom did. His daughters got him drunk, and those daughters were apparently virgins, but had husbands. Those husbands did not go with them, and they had wine with them. Maybe Lot lied about his daughters, but the fact they knew how to seduce means they must have had some type of carnal knowledge. And the fact they were so easily able to concoct that scheme, means there must have been some type of relationship beforehand. Yet, the Bible calls hims righteous.

God uses men like that to accomplish His will. That is very true.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Of course I can accept they may have had sins, but I can NEVER accept the OBNOXIOUS stories about the prophets of God written by the scribes in the Bible:

They made Abraham a liar and a deceiver,
They made Moses a genocidal maniac who orders the slaughtering of women and children
They made Noah an incestuous pervert who has sex with his own daughters
They made David an adulterer who even arranges to kill a man in order to steal his wife
They made Solomon an idol worshiper





edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


Moses never ordered slaughtering women and children, that was Joshua. Noah never had incest with his daughters, that was Lot.

And for every one of those actions, there was some type of punishment from God for it.
edit on 1/4/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 





And btw, since "Muhammad copied from the Bible" - how come he did not copy a single one of these horrendous accusations against the prophets of God?


Because he didn't know the truth? Even the hebrew lamented serving God, thats what the book of Lamentations is all about. All those 40 years they roamed around in the desert they named "The Provocation" because all during those 40 years they provoked him constantly and he rained down meteors on them, and caused the ground to open beneath them to swallow them up and inflected them with leprousy. You seem to not understand who the God of the Jews and Christians is...which is why we keep telling you that your Allah is not Yahuwah.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Of course I can accept they may have had sins, but I can NEVER accept the OBNOXIOUS stories about the prophets of God written by the scribes in the Bible:

They made Abraham a liar and a deceiver,
They made Moses a genocidal maniac who orders the slaughtering of women and children
They made Noah an incestuous pervert who has sex with his own daughters
They made David an adulterer who even arranges to kill a man in order to steal his wife
They made Solomon an idol worshiper





edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


Moses never ordered slaughtering women and children, that was Joshua. Noah never had incest with his daughters, that was Lot.

And for every one of those actions, there was some type of punishment from God for it.
edit on 1/4/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)


Yes, exactly. Joshua did what had to be done and yes he was a zealot.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 





And btw, since "Muhammad copied from the Bible" - how come he did not copy a single one of these horrendous accusations against the prophets of God?

which is why we keep telling you that your Allah is not Yahuwah.


Exactly right. Allah is merely one of the moon gods of pagan Arabia.

RIYADH: The Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities (SCTA) announced Sunday that Saudi archaeologists have discovered an ancient hieroglyphic inscription mentioning an Egyptian pharaoh on a rock near the ancient oasis of Tayma, Tabuk province. The discovery, about 400 km north of Madinah and northeast of the ancient Nabatean site Madain Saleh, marks the first confirmed hieroglyphic inscription discovered in the Kingdom. "The rock was bearing an inscription of King Ramses III, one of the kings who ruled ancient Egypt from 1192 B.C.to 1160 B.C.," said SCTA Vice President for Antiquities and Museums Ali Ibrahim Al-Ghabban at a news conference on Sunday at the Commission on National Museum.


Why didn't Mohammed know that Rameses was found in Saudi Arabia?

Tayma is mentioned in ancient Assyrian texts dating back to the 8th century B.C. and referred to numerous times in the Hebrew Bible. Babylonian King Nabonidus spent 10 years in Tayma. His royal complex is currently being excavated. Last year a fragment of a cuneiform text mentioning Nabonidus was discovered there.


Why would that be ignored by Mohammed?Could it be that Egyptian pharaohs were Sun Worshipers, or those that worshiped Ra,and Ra could not be venerated as a moon god, seeing as how he was a sun god. Even if the Hebrew Ya was based in Egyptian worship, that would still mean that Allah and Yaweh were not the same being.

King Nabonidus was Babylonian and worshiped Sin, the moon god.

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god. In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god. This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism. In 1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha, that she had uncovered a temple of the Moon-god in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple. An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered. This was later confirmed by other well-known archeologists. The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad's day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al- ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.


Abraham was commanded to leave Ur, and not follow the idol religion of the moon god. Mohammed followed the moon god, that means Allah and the God of Abraham are not the same.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I would like to point this out in my above post before people misunderstand my intention, I said "Even if...". That means even though people might find similarities or even if people want to make the comparison...that was what was meant in the "even if".

There are similarities found within both, and Yah has been named in inscriptions along with Israel in Egypt. This is what I will say, the Jews worshiped God through revelation without the need for making an idol or worshiping anything natural. There were those who rebellious and did, but we find they did not reconcile those with God.

I believe God is the Most High but people deified themselves. That is why the pharaohs of Egypt had so many statues and steles claiming they were god and the people were to worship the men as gods. Eventually, over time, people were drawn to a particular aspect of God and chose to deify that aspect, without understanding or acknowledging that we should worship God for all God is, not just an aspect.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I would like to point this out in my above post before people misunderstand my intention, I said "Even if...". That means even though people might find similarities or even if people want to make the comparison...that was what was meant in the "even if".

There are similarities found within both, and Yah has been named in inscriptions along with Israel in Egypt. This is what I will say, the Jews worshiped God through revelation without the need for making an idol or worshiping anything natural. There were those who rebellious and did, but we find they did not reconcile those with God.

I believe God is the Most High but people deified themselves. That is why the pharaohs of Egypt had so many statues and steles claiming they were god and the people were to worship the men as gods. Eventually, over time, people were drawn to a particular aspect of God and chose to deify that aspect, without understanding or acknowledging that we should worship God for all God is, not just an aspect.


Exactly. in fact when we look at the Paleo hebrew language. The world for Yah is a character of a man standing with his arms stretched out and open wide in the shape of a Y to the sky in worship and this is what many do when we praise God with Halell'u'Yah "Praise be to God". Not to mention the fact that God told Abraham his name was Yah not Allah.
edit on 4-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Ah we have slid way off the topic we need to bring this back to Joseph. The interesting thing i find is that you can find statues of Imhotep in key areas in egypt so clearly he must have be venerated by some egyptians as well. In fact it wasn't until Joseph's death when the hebrew found themselves being enslaved by the egyptians.

It's a travesty the way the modern egyptian government makes archeaologists bury their digsites and then allow farmers to plant crops on them, it makes it very hard to find hebrew artifacts that were left behind around Goshen. The hebrew peoples would have settled in the fertile areas near the nile where irrigation could be done for their crops, yet far enough from the river when it's seasonal floods would arise. The egyptian authorities make it very hard to gather evidence in support of the jews claims but evidence is there and Simcha has found it. He even found the location of the true Mt Sinai which is near an egyptian airbase. Right down to the tombs of the elders on the mount, and the stone where Moses struck water from the rock and they left geoglyphs ontop of the summit and many rocks have petroglyphs of Menorah on them.

I recommend anyone that has an interest in archeaology and biblical archeaology to check out The Exodus Decoded:

The Exodus Decoded



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Exactly right. Allah is merely one of the moon gods of pagan Arabia.


I will only say this: EVERY Scholar on this planet agrees that Jesus Christ called God "Allah".
Therefore Jesus too worshiped the moon God according to you.

And I will leave with this:


And of His signs are the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship. - Qur'an, 41:37


G'day to you both.

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Exactly right. Allah is merely one of the moon gods of pagan Arabia.


I will only say this: EVERY Scholar on this planet agrees that Jesus Christ called God "Allah".
Therefore Jesus too worshiped the moon God according to you.

And I will leave with this:


And of His signs are the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship. - Qur'an, 41:37


G'day to you both.

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


Apparently you just don't read the history of the Quran. The only scholars who say that are forced by Islam.


According to Middle East scholar E.M.Wherry, whose translation of the Koran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p.36). "In ancient Arabia, the sun-god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah (op.cit., Islam, p.7) "The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to the other titles that could be given to him. "Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called 'the daughters of Allah'. These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. "The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities" (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1977, pp.50-51).


Your own minarets and flags contain the ancient pagan symbol of the moon god.


In ancient Syria and Canna, the moon-god Sîn was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times, the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasise all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sîn and the stars were their daughters. For example, Ishtar was the daughter of Sîn (Ibid., p.7).


While you like to believe Allah is the same as Yaweh, too much history proves differently.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 


And one more thing that demonstrates they clearly are not the same person. Yah is personal, meaning Yah desires a relationship with mankind on an intimate, personal level. Allah is separate, and keeps himself at a distance, never actually interacting with creation in any form.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy


(Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1977, pp.50-51).




You are quoting Robert Morey, a self-righteous bigot who hates everyone who is not "evangelist" like him.

Now, let me tell you something about the word Allah.

Read:

"I alone am Allâh. There cannot be, is no other and will never be One for worship but Me." (20:14)

Allâh is the mighty name of the Self-Existing and Self-Sufficient Being Who comprises all perfect attributes, Who is free from every weakness and defect, is alone worthy of worship, is without partner or peer and is the source of all Love and Grace. Unlike the word "god" in Arabic, the word Allah is never used for any other object or being. It is a substantive name, neither attributive nor descriptive and is inclusive of all His other names and attributes and has primacy over all other titles.

When Moses received his Divine mission he was addressed in the following words:

"Moses! Surely I am Allâh, the Lord of the worlds" (28:30, 27:9)
In these verses the Lord of the worlds, reveals Moses Who is speaking to him. The word Allâh is accordingly a proper name, whereas the "Lord of all the worlds" (Rabbul-Alamîn), is His first and foremost title. Allâh is a personal name (Ism al-Dhât) applied to the Supreme Being and distinguished from all other names which are called Asmâ’ al-Sifât, or names denoting attributes of God.

In the technical vocabulary of linguistics, the word Allâh is Jâmid, that is, it is not derived from any other word. In the pronunciation of Allâh, the letter ‘L’ is stressed. The word Allâh is not a construction of al-ilâh as some people think, but a different and an independent word. The first two letters Al in the word Allâh are an integral, inseparable part of the word. They do not denote the definite article Al of Arabic, which is equivalent to the English ‘the’. In Arabic, the prefix Al is added before the noun to emphasize the word in the sense of 'most' or 'all', for example al-Rahmân - the Most Gracious. Sîbwaih, the great grammarian, and Khalîl, the great linguistic, say, “Since Al in the beginning of the word Allâh is inseparable from it, so it is a simple substantive, not derived from any other word.”

If Al in Allâh were an additional prefix, the common exclamation yâ Allâh, (O Allâh!), would not be permitted according to the rules of Arabic grammar, as the form yâ al-ilâh or yâ al-Rahmân are not permissible in Arabic. Moreover, this supposition would mean that there were different gods - âlihah (plural of ilâh), one of which became gradually known as al-ilâh and was then contracted into Allâh. This supposition is not correct. Allâh has always been the name of the Eternal Being (Hughes: Dictionary of Islam), nor has the word Allâh ever been applied to anyone else but the Divine Being. The pagan Arabs had numerous ilâhs or gods, but none of them was ever called Allâh.

This being the proper name of the Supreme Being has therefore no parallel or equivalent in any other language of the world. The English word ‘god’ is applied to any religious object of worship. Most probably it is related to ‘good’ and origins from heathen mythologies. Jehovah, which is the Aramaic or Hebrew expression Ya Howâ, literally means most closely ‘O! That’ or ‘O! Thou’ used to address a Deity, the emphasis is on Huwa which is to emphasize an Existence, therefore it can hardly be a proper name. The use of Jehova in the New Testament by the Witnesses of Jehova is a new invention. In the original Greek version and older versions of the New Testament this name was never used and Jesus never employed the name "Jehova". Although most Christians are unaware of it, the Aramaic speaking Jesus also used the word Allâh (or ‘Allaha’). Christians speaking the Semitic languages still use it.

Deal with it: Jesus called God "Allah".
edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
“Alllaah” Not a contraction:

The English customary spelling “Allah” syllable as “al - lah” in English dictionaries and encyclopedias has often been misrepresented as to its etymology or nature of the word without any Arabic authoritive sources such as Arabic Dictionaries, Lexicons, or Arabic Scholars them selves. Due to its English customary spelling it is often viewed by western writers that the English transliterated letters “a,l,l,a,h” are a contraction of two Arabic words based on a linguistical prestige (in English not Arabic). Thus being ignorant of the fact, and the language it self, that the second “L” in Arabic script called “laam” is a double consonant letter. The first two letters “al” is perceived as the definite article (the), and the three following letters “laah” ( sometimes rendered in English as “lah” ) is the contracted Arabic word “ilaah (deity)” where the weak radical “a”, in Arabic called “alif” - pronounced as an “i” in “ilaah”, is dropped for a contraction.

Example:

1) al ilah (the deity)
2) al lah
3) al-lah
4) Allah

Based on this western hypothesis, and its manipulative fraudulent philosophy which is misleading, the word is assumed to mean ‘the god’ or ‘the deity’ denoting the supreme deity out of others as the main one. The double consonant “L”(laam) in the original Arabic has been edited in English exegesis of the word as a single consonant giving it a linguistical prestige in English as an “al ilah” contraction. This reason because, the double consonant “L”, which would be properly spelled with three L’s(Alllah) serves no purpose in English as it does in Arabic. If the customary English spelling of the name it self is transliterated back into Arabic it would spell “ alif, laam, laam, fatah, ha” reading “allah(a)” (Note: This word in Arabic has NO article) which would be a different word in Arabic meaning “Deification” whereas the name in its original Arabic is spelled as “alif, laam, laam, laam, alif maqsoorah, ha’a” reading “alllaah”. On the other hand, a contraction of the words “al-ilah” is not possible in the Arabic language because the grammar behind it does no permit it as will be shown in the reality of the words in their original language which have been manipulated in English. In The Arabic language when the second radical letter of a word is doubled, by stressing it, it either enhances the word or changes its meaning all together. When the Arabic word “ilaah”(deity) is pronounced as “illaah” by stressing its second radical consonant “L” to double “ll” it changes the meaning from “deity” to “except him” where the “h” consonant is converted into a masculine suffix pronoun. With the contraction theory of “al ilah” applied in Arabic, rather than in English, the second radical letter “L” in the Arabic word “ilaah” is doubled when the “i”(alif kasrah) is dropped to take the word “al” in order to contract “al” and “lah” in the Arabic language.

EXAMPLE:

1) al ilaah
2) al-llaah
3) alllaah



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Such an etymological contraction is not possible in the Arabic language in which the word would be meaningless therefore prohibited .
Alllaah Not A Title
The name however is never used or demonstrated in the Quran or Arabic literature as a title. As an attribute of and reference to Alllah surah(chapter) 114 ayah(verse) 3 in the Quran says: “ilahinnas” ~ God of mankind, which negates the existence of another deity for mankind to be worshiped.
In the Quranic Arabic text the word “ilaah”(deity) does not take a nunnation for an indefinite article to indicate “a deity of mankind”, nor the definite article(the) that would denote Alllaah as being the deity out of other deities.
If the name Alllaah in the Arabic language was understood as “the deity” the attribute “ilahinnas”~ God of mankind would of said “ilahin annas” taking the nunnation(in) to mean “A deity of mankind” or “al ilahinnas” with the definite article(the) to mean “The god of mankind” which would of corroborated with the name Alllah if it was understood or meant “ the deity” or “the god”.
However such a gross statement or its like demonstration is no where to be found in the Quran text or Arabic literature in reference to Alllaah In support, the renown testimony and article of faith in islam which is repetitively mentioned in the Quran as:
Laa ilaaha illaa alllah “There is no God except Alllah”
Maa min ilaahin illaa alllah “there is not a single deity(or other God) except Alllah”
If the name meant “the god” it would not have been used in such a statement, because “laa ilaaha illaa al ilaah ~ there is no God except the god”, and “ maa min ilahin illaa al ilaah ~ there is not a single deity(or God) except the god” is improper Arabic, absurd, and a contradiction to it self, whereas the name Alllaah would not have been possible to be used in such a statement in the Arabic language.
Alllaah No Definite Article
The name “Alllaah” in the Quranic Arabic text (and Arabic literature) is written in various grammatical forms which has been overlooked much less ignored by critics of the Islamic due to there lack of knowledge of the Arabic language.
These grammatical forms are: “lillaah”, “Alllaahumma”, “yaa Alllaah”, and “aalllaah”, which determine the nature of the word in Arabic. A noun prefixed with a definite article in Arabic cannot take an additional affix of a “yaa” vocative particle, a “m”(meem) magnifying particle, or a hamza’a interrogative particle, whereas the name Alllaah in many parts the Quran and in Arabic literature is found prefixed with a “yaa” vocative particle ~ “yaa Alllaah”, suffixed with a magnifying particle ~ “Alllaahumma”, and prefixed with an interrogative “hamza” particle ~ “aalllaah”. For example with the prefixed interrogative “hamza” in particle in 10:59 of the Quran
...Qul aalllaahu adhina lakum.
“Say(Muhammad)! Alllaah permitted you ?”
If “al” in the name Alllah was a definite article (the) the prefixing of the “hamza” particle instead of using the interrogative particle “hal” would not be possible or permitted, because the hamza interrogative particle prefixed to the name would have changed “al” to mean, people, folk, or family, as the Arabic word “aal” denotes rather than introducing the name into an interrogative. Thus it would have been meaningless and not used in such grammar.
The preceding ا = a consonant letter called “alif” is the uniform of the word in Arabic which is silent when the name is read suffixly to another word such as: عبدالله = abdu alllaah ~ servant of Alllaah, is read as “Abdullaah”, or the ا = a is absent all together in the possessive form of the word as لله = lillaah where the لِ = li denotes the possessive meaning: to, belonging to, or for, which is not a prefix to the word in Arabic.
In لله = lillaah , the possessive form of the word الله = Alllaah there is no written nor non written assimilated definite article, in which such a clusterized transitional reading of the word would be impossible in the Arabic language if there was a definite article.
The لّه = llaah is the suffix form transition of the word الله = Alllaah by the لِ = li conversion of its first “L” consonant for the possessive, in which a noun with a definite article cannot be suffixed to لِ = li. Only لِ = li can be prefixed to the article( al = the ) it self which is prefixed to a noun or an adjective word such as : al-quddus ~ The Holy One, with لِ = li prefixed to it as : lil-quddus ~ to the Holy One.
Hence, if “al” in Alllah was a definite article “li” could only be prefixed to it as “li-alllah” not as “lillaah” which would lose the article. The possessive form of the name as “lillaah” confirms that there is no “ilaah ~ deity” word contracted in the name, because the doubling of the second radical “L” consonant, as we said before ,of the contracted word “ilaah” with the dropped “i” for “laah” (as alleged) with the possessive “li” for “li-(i)llaah” would change the meaning of “ilaah ~ deity” to except he or it . Thus is meaningless and would be prohibited in Arabic because it would be absurd and making no sense whereas the possessive form “lillaah” of the name Alllaah would not be possible if such an etymological contraction of “al ilaah” existed.
Even so, an assimilated non written definite article is only possible with “li” when it is prefixed to a noun or adjective word with a “FIRST” radical “L” consonant in this case which is doubled by the prefixing of “li” to assimilate a definite article such as “lateef ~ most gentle” with “li” prefixed to it as “lillateef ~ to the Most Gentle(one)” which is the possessive form of “al-llateef ~ The Most Gentle(one).
To the contrary the un-doubled form of the part “llaah” without “li” is “laah(u)” which means “not him” that is not a noun or adjective but a phrase where as “li” cannot be a prefixed to it wherefore to assimilate a definite article. Therefore, the only possible way the word Alllaah in the Arabic language could take the possessive word “li”, if it had a definite article, or even if it was a contraction of “al ilaah”, would be “li-alllaah”. However ! There is no such thing and is remote there from.
The part “llaah” is only the suffix form transition of the word Alllaah by the “li” conversion of its first “L” consonant to make it a possessive noun. The double “Ls” of “llaah” in the Arabic language are inseparable in which “llaah” is the foundation of the name arabicized as Alllaah that engulfs much linguistical unlimited divine meaning.
These various forms characterize the word of being an ARABICIZED name , whereas with the form " Alllaahumma " being suffixed with the "meem" magnifying particle indicating the vocative and singular royal plural which cannot be used with no other word in the arabic language, clearly tells us that this Name is older than the Arabic language it self being derived from a former and more ancient language which constituted such a grammatical character which does not exist in the Arabic Language as we know it today with any other word.
Another example is how the Name never takes Noonation or Tanween. These are grammatical endings such as "un" "an" "in" which are not used with Arabicized words that are not originally arabic derived.
Such is the folly blunder of the “al ilaah ~ the god” contraction probability that has been exploited as a reality not knowing the nature of the word to ascribe such a thing.

Also. In Arabic there are many words that begin with “al” such as “alyasa” where “al” is not a definite article. “alyasa” is the arabicized form of the Hebrew name “Elisha”
"Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them both, so serve Him (alone) and be patient in His worship. Do you know any worthy of His (Alllaah’s) name ? [Qur'an 19:65]"
2) In Arabian pagan worship there was a supreme Idol called by the names Sin, Nanna, and Hubul which was known as a moon deity.
One of Morey's grave error here as he did not study the theology of the moon god which was called by various names Sin, Nanna, or Hubul in different parts of Arabia is the geneology of the pagan dieties.
In Makkah the moon god was called Hubul. Hubul was the son of Al-Uzza - whom was one of the daughters of Alllaah. Thus in pagan ideology Hubul would be the grandson of Alllaah [ma'aadhallah] and not Alllah him self.
More to add to this Hubul was not the supreme Idol at Makkah among the Idols. It was Al-Uzza, Manat, and Allat whom where designated al-aalihat ~ the plural femine of al-ilah.
Muhammad (s.a.w.) preached against the worship of the moon or the sun god in Makkah.
Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. 41:37



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





Two words that are very similar and have the same intent and purpose. This makes me think the God of the Jews, and subsequently the Christians, did not in any way place women in an inferior position. The concept of women as inferior is actually a Greek understanding, so therefore, when people accuse God of this, they are really looking at the Greek influence and not the Jewish influence.


You are right, and this also lends credence to 2 corinthians of someone injecting their opinions into scripture in regards to the women not being allowed to spread the word or preach.



Sorry I know this is off topic


I know this is not the popular opinion but I believe that the guidelines for the church that mention the role of women and men are very important. It is the interpretation of these roles that have been heavily abused.

Women are more emotional, typically more trusting and loving. It is because of this they are more likely out of love to be swayed by emotional good sounding arguments. This is part of a women’s beauty.

Man is more logical and discerning. What woman doesn’t want to be with a smart discerning man?

About marriage
I think that nasty word submission always gets confusing for both husband and wife. And to be honest it is all the husbands fault. We expect a biblical wife without being a biblical husband.

If the husband truly acted as a servant to his wife the way Christ served the Church, then I’m sure the wife would be more than happy to submit to her servant. In this way there would be ordered equality.

The Church
The bible calls the church the bride of Christ and, the bible says that man is the worldly head of the church and the women represents the body. A godly man who is acting as a servant to the church and women who submits to the church does create ordered equality in church.

Women God is asking 2 things from you, to be silent during the teaching at church and to cover your head so your beauty doesn’t hinder the service. Do you not realize woman that if you are married to a godly man and at church that if you ask questions your husband may be embarrassed that he could not fulfill his godly duties to you by answering this question. The man naturally wants to provide everything for his wife. By seeking answers from another man this questions the man’s ability to lead his family. Women, is it too much for God to ask that you show love and respect for the church and your husband by following these 2 simple instructions?

He asks of men to accept the responsibility for the church and to keep their hair short so that they remain clean and distinguished. Men do you not realize that you represent Christ. You are being called to an understanding of scripture so that your wife need not feel the need to embarrass you. Why should your wife need anything that you cannot provide her? You are the leader; do not make the mistake that Adam made. Be strong and lead your wife to do good by serving her as Christ served the church.

Men and women we are being called to not be like the Pagan’s who follow whatever is the will of their flesh. Men you are being called to lead your family as the representative of Christ on earth to the church and the family.
Women you are being asked to be loving, caring, emotional and beautiful. You are God’s most beautiful creation. When he says dress modestly and cover your hair at church it is because your beauty may detract from the service. Save your beauty for your husbands, while you are at church you are with God.

Men and Women of Christ are we not being called by God to set ourselves apart from others? If we can’t together follow simple instructions from God how can anyone trust our faith? Why do we continue to act like we are the same as non-believers following the same customs and rules as the world? Are we embarrassed by the father’s instructions?

1st Corinthians 11-16
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

edit on 4-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join