outhouse
Atheistically
LOL
How funny it is, you have not cited or sourced a single one.
Opinion, is all you have offered since the start of the thread, and one refuted right winged opinion by Assman
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?
- Thread starter Zulk-Dharma
- Start date
LOL
How funny it is, you have not cited or sourced a single one.
Opinion, is all you have offered since the start of the thread, and one refuted right winged opinion by Assman
outhouse
Atheistically
Ridiculous.
Here is the source.
^ The Orientalists,The Bible & The Qur'ân: A Brief Review Of The Bible Borrowing Theories (Islamic Awareness) - A Muslim review and critique of the notion that the Qur'an depends on earlier sources.
You are no one with no credibility to talk down to said source.
Zulk-Dharma
Member
Rubbish. If we have 1000 sources to an event in a time span of 200 years after the historical event, we don't need some annother one coming 600 years later - especially, when it claims to retell/refer the story, not being an eye-witness account. It's simply logic, something that you seemingly lack which will make sense why you don't understand this.
The rest is just unbelievably stupid, I don't even bother to debunk it - it does it on its own.
Zulk-Dharma
Member
It's common knowledge on the Gospel-part. None of what I stated is opinion here, I've referred to actual sources, Assman gave simply his conjecture - none of what is accepted.
I've yet to see any credible sources from you, that is not Wikipedia or debunked.
Islamic Awareness is some blog website created homemade - none of it is academic. You keep going with your conjecture and apologist defenses.
Ironic.
Stop polluting the thread.
outhouse
Atheistically
Does not apply at all to the paragraph I posted, How honest is it that you took that from another paragraph?
Zulk-Dharma
Member
You've quoted no paragraph, if you did, I've yet to see a source from the statement.
outhouse
Atheistically
From your link YOU posted It only applies to the adam and eve section. Mistake or dishonest?
This comparison on the name/kind of tree between Qur'an & Bible needs
We were not discussing tree. Failed attempt again.
outhouse
Atheistically
What about this source, you magically know more then he does?
[1] Philip K. Hitti, Islam and the West: A Historical Cultural Survey, 1979 (Reprinted), Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, New York, p.15.
The sources of the Qur'ân are unmistakable: Christian, Jewish and Arab heathen[1].
[1] Philip K. Hitti, Islam and the West: A Historical Cultural Survey, 1979 (Reprinted), Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, New York, p.15.
The sources of the Qur'ân are unmistakable: Christian, Jewish and Arab heathen[1].
Zulk-Dharma
Member
Stop polluting the thread. And the citation supports nothing of what you're saying, that it "plagiarize" from the Bible. It actually supports my point, Quran is directly referencing chronicles from the Bible.
Now, get off my thread or stay on topic - I will report you next time if you continue.
outhouse
Atheistically
How honest is that?
Qur'ân is directly dependent on the Bible
Dependent and referencing are not the same.
outhouse
Atheistically
Please report away, this is a public forum in which you do not get to come in and proselytize your opinion unchallenged.
Zulk-Dharma
Member
He supports my statement, the sources of the Quran - indicating it's referencing the chronicles from the Bible and not "plagiarized" as you wrongly claimed. However, I'll say , yes, I know a bit more than* him. There were no Christians there, only Jews, Mandaens, Manicheans, Magians and Arab paganism - little about Christianity was known from Syria and Yemen.
outhouse
Atheistically
Then please go edit it and try to correct these mistakes YOU perceive, and see how that works out for you.
Zulk-Dharma
Member
None of what you said is fact, they are subjective conjectures from poorly soured articles. I stated some facts here.
Alsop, public forum does not excuse you polluting the thread with off-topic posts - I need to call you out on that one.
In his context, it is.
outhouse
Atheistically
He does not use the word referencing. He said the source was the bible.
The sources of the Qur'ân are unmistakable: Christian, Jewish and Arab heathen[1].
Plagiarize | Define Plagiarize at Dictionary.com
Examples from the web for plagiarize Expand
- When students plagiarize using half-baked sources they perpetuate an endless recycling of ignorance.
outhouse
Atheistically
Koran makes claim of moses historicity.
So your saying the Koran is useless and has no historical credibility for moses????????????
Zulk-Dharma
Member
I hope this is trolling. The article admits itself with mistakes. I could edit it, but it's waste of time. I study the history from primary credible sources, not some open source "encyclopedia" full of rubbish conjectures.
outhouse
Atheistically
YOU STATE opinion only and have only provide one right winged obscure source. Assman.
outhouse
Atheistically
NO.
I quoted an article in an encyclopedia.
You then tried to sneak in a discrediting statement from another paragraph that did not apply to the one I posted in any way. How honest is that?