Muhammads knowledge divine or learned?

[Britedream]

I working on my Ph. D in archaeology with my thesis on Syria-Palestine (Biblical Archaeology). If you want I can break the word down in Hebrew and Ancient Egypt with cross reference to the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew... How the word is applied, the variation on the word.

You are reading a Bible in English using English words only. You are not reading it in Hebrew nor cross referencing it with Ancient Egypt. Look at Strong's Concordance then I will break down the word for you.

I do not beleive I asked what are you working on, but I told you at the time of Joseph, the ruler is called king and not Pharaoh, but you said there are the same, thinking the ruler was a native ruler , but when I showed the history that sides with Quran, you relized that you emited a hot air, what did you do, you started Putting words that have no value to the subject.

 

[outhouse]

Then why do you answer with this.?.

"There was not "nothing"."

Your factually wrong.

Because I do not know, does not mean it was from nothing.

Claiming I do not know is much better then repeating ancient mens mistake of saying "god did it" every time they did not know.


A super massive black hole could have exploded, and created the universe, that possibility is on the table.

 

[outhouse]

with Quran,

.

is not credible to use for earlier history.

here someone with experience is telling you the book is wrong.

 

[Britedream]

Your factually wrong.

Because I do not know, does not mean it was from nothing.

Claiming I do not know is much better then repeating ancient mens mistake of saying "god did it" every time they did not know.


A super massive black hole could have exploded, and created the universe, that possibility is on the table.

But you claim that "There was not nothing."
How did you come to know that there was not nothing?.

 

[outhouse]

But you claim that "There was not nothing."
How did you come to know that there was not nothing?.

Read Lawrence Kraus, he has a book out describing nothing is actually something.


Google is your friend here.

 

[Shad]

I do not beleive I asked what are you working on, but I told you at the time of Joseph, the ruler is called king and not Pharaoh, but you said there are the same, thinking the ruler was a native ruler , but when I showed the history that sides with Quran, you relized that you emited a hot air, what did you do, you started Putting words that have no value to the subject.

No you did not. However you are talking to someone who uses Hebrew in their work, how each word works in context and the etymology behind each... It is easy to refute your claim with a basic understanding of Hebrew...


Alright you asked for it.

Pharaoh (English) - Egyptian: pr+‎ˤ3 ("house" "great, big"). So the root word is not King, so far so good. The word would be palace of a ruler in English.

The rulers of Egypt never had a word for King. There is a Horus name in which the ruler is the earthly embodiment of the God Horus, son of Ra and Hathor. This is to establish the ruler's divinity as a God and Son of Ra. The second name is NEBTY (two ladies name) in which the claim of representing the "heraldic" goddesses of Upper and Lower Egypt; Nekhbet (PR WR) and Wadiet (w3ḏyt). Third(Praenomen) is the Golden Horus name which is a sign of superiority over Set or eternal, the transliteration are in dispute. added to this name is NSWT, ITY (BJTY) and combined literal means "He of Sedge and Bee" which is transliterated in English to King/Lord of Upper and Lower Egypt. The transliteration is imposing an English meaning in the translation not found with the native language. The last name is their own name with ms-n or ZA RA. There is in fact no direct word for King in Egyptian as the ruler was in fact a God.

Now in 1350 BCE pr+‎ˤ3 became pr-aa under Akhenaten. This is due to metonymy in which a word for an object, pr+‎ˤ3, is used to identify the whole object or related object. In this case it become synonymous with the ruler of Egypt as pr+‎ˤ3 was the house of the rulers of Egypt, thus pr-aa. So the word has a different meaning but sounds similar. An English example is of metonymy in English is. "The pen is mightier than the sword". The pen is about written words not the pen itself. The sword is about military aggression and force, not a literal sword. So pr-aa became a title for the ruler of Egypt. Now this is where Hebrew comes into play.

In Hebrew par‘ó is both used as King of Egypt and as an identification of the person holding this position. Similar to how President is used to refer to the person with the title while still being a title itself. "The President's speech" "Obama became President". So the Hebrew Bible is 100% accurate in it's use of a Hebrew word for King of Egypt as a title and in direct reference to the person holding this title. If we want to get technical the Quran is wrong as there was no such rank as King of Egypt in the Egyptian language. There can be no par‘ó of Rome, Persia, Babylon as the word is directly tied to the rule of Egypt.

There is also the words melek and malak which means King, reference to the ruler of Egypt in Exodus 1:8, melek . More so the Hebrew word became the root word for the Greek Φαραώ, which became the root word for Latin's Pharo, which become the root word for English's Pharao and current word Pharaoh.

Whomever started this nonsensical claim needs to take a basic language course of their native tongue for a grade 11 and 12 level. They should learn how to use a lexicon. They should also look at the text in Hebrew not English...

 

[Britedream]

Do you see how long did you go to twist things as usual to meet your need.

If a king came and took over your country he is a king whether you have a word in your language for king or not , you are not bring something new to me, go back and read what I have posted. "Egyptians called these kings "rulers of foreign lands," translated in Egyptian as "hega-khase".

But what do they call them in the foreign lands?.

 

[Shad]

Genesis 41:46

וְיֹוסֵף בֶּן־שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה בְּעָמְדֹו לִפְנֵי פַּרְעֹה - (melek) מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרָיִם וַיֵּצֵא יֹוסֵף מִלִּפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וַֽיַּעְבֹר
בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

That was easy enough.

Hega-khase is a transliteration and is treated differently than ruler of Egypt as detailed previously. I assume you do not understand what transliteration is. Hence your own link "The kings claimed themselves pharaohs with all the regalia and tradition attached to that title and the more than hundred years they ruled northern Egypt was mainly a time of peace and prosperity." Pharaoh being the title of rulers of Egypt during a period when it was not.So in your link how can they claim a title which did not exist until after they were conquered by the Egyptians? There is a difference in the Egyptian language between the ruler of one place and the ruler of Egypt. Just as in Hebrew there is a word directly link to the Egypt as a place, person and king of...Hebrew was not formed until the 10th century so the use of the word in sentences is in reference to a person not a title. So for example when the wordin is used Genesis 41:46 it is in reference to that person as if his identify was common knowledge. Again this is linguistics methodology in which a word has a context and time reference meaning. An few English example follow. "I think the President of the United States so invade Mexico next week" In this context there is only one obvious person I am talking about, Obama. "I think the President should invade Mexico in 2020" In this context there is no oblivious person I am talking about. This is applied to the Bible in the same way. That the reader will know exactly who in reference to Joseph is Pharaoh. Both the Bible and Quran fail to provide any historicity behind the identification of these "Kings" and "Pharaoh". This is expect as both men are part of memo-narrative charter myth from the emerging proto-Isrealite people in Canaan with Canaanite roots.

 

[Ingledsva]

I just searched and found this on the net. I did not check it.

[AL-QUR'AN 55:19:20]
In the Arabic text the word 'barzakh' means a barrier or a partition. The Arabic word 'maraja' literally means 'they both meet and mix with each other.' Early commentators of the QUR'AN were unable to explain the two opposite meanings for the two bodies of water, i.e. they meet and mix, and at the same time, there is a barrier between them. Modern Science has discovered that in places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has ita own temperature, salinity and density. {Principles of Oceanography, Davis, pp. 92-93.} Oceanologists are now in a better position to explain this verse. There is a slanted unseen water barrier between the seas through which water from one sea passes to the other. But when the water from one sea enters the other sea, it loses its distinctive characteristic and becomes homogenized with the other water. In a way this barrier serves as a transitional homogenizing area for the two waters. This scientific phenonmenon mentioned in the QUR'AN was also confirmed by Dr. William Hay who is a well-known marine scientist and Professor og Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, U.S.A.

This is wrong, or I should say being misrepresented by a Muslim apologetics site.


These waters definitely mix. Salt water is more dense. In fact it is the world wide mixing, and movement of denser water sinking, and less dense mixed surface ocean water moving in to replace it, that creates our world currents. They constantly mix at the surface and then sink.



*

 

[outhouse]

Do you see how long did you go to twist things as usual to meet your need.

If a king came and took over your country he is a king whether you have a word in your language for king or not , you are not bring something new to me, go back and read what I have posted. "Egyptians called these kings "rulers of foreign lands," translated in Egyptian as "hega-khase".

But what do they call them in the foreign lands?.

Israelites were factually never in Egypt. Sorry.

 

[Britedream]

This is wrong, or I should say being misrepresented by a Muslim apologetics site.


These waters definitely mix. Salt water is more dense. In fact it is the world wide mixing, and movement of denser water sinking, and less dense mixed surface ocean water moving in to replace it, that creates our world currents. They constantly mix at the surface and then sink.



*

please read all my post regarding this . Thank you.

 

[Desert Snake]

'divine'?? That technically means a deity in religious speak, does anyone think this?

 

[Britedream]

Genesis 41:46

וְיֹוסֵף בֶּן־שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה בְּעָמְדֹו לִפְנֵי פַּרְעֹה - (melek) מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרָיִם וַיֵּצֵא יֹוסֵף מִלִּפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וַֽיַּעְבֹר
בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

That was easy enough.

Hega-khase is a transliteration and is treated differently than ruler of Egypt as detailed previously. I assume you do not understand what transliteration is. Hence your own link "The kings claimed themselves pharaohs with all the regalia and tradition attached to that title and the more than hundred years they ruled northern Egypt was mainly a time of peace and prosperity." Pharaoh being the title of rulers of Egypt during a period when it was not.So in your link how can they claim a title which did not exist until after they were conquered by the Egyptians? There is a difference in the Egyptian language between the ruler of one place and the ruler of Egypt. Just as in Hebrew there is a word directly link to the Egypt as a place, person and king of...Hebrew was not formed until the 10th century so the use of the word in sentences is in reference to a person not a title. So for example when the wordin is used Genesis 41:46 it is in reference to that person as if his identify was common knowledge. Again this is linguistics methodology in which a word has a context and time reference meaning. An few English example follow. "I think the President of the United States so invade Mexico next week" In this context there is only one obvious person I am talking about, Obama. "I think the President should invade Mexico in 2020" In this context there is no oblivious person I am talking about. This is applied to the Bible in the same way. That the reader will know exactly who in reference to Joseph is Pharaoh. Both the Bible and Quran fail to provide any historicity behind the identification of these "Kings" and "Pharaoh". This is expect as both men are part of memo-narrative charter myth from the emerging proto-Isrealite people in Canaan with Canaanite roots.

Claiming something and being something are two different things.

But Pharaoh is only a title applied to the native rulers.

Those kings are not native so this is what Happen to them from the link I posted to you.


"however, the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt by native princes"

"The Hyksos were unable to quell the feelings of Egyptian nationalism"

" They were recognized by later Egyptians and listed as legitimate kings, but no tombs from these half a dozen rulers have been found and their personal names were non-Egyptian."

So they were called kings, the can't gain the title Pharaoh, they are not native, and that is my point. it does not matter how much you are spinning.

 

[Shad]

As I said Pharaoh is an Egyptian term not a Hyksos term. Your site further corroborates as does your reply. That ruler of Egypt is in fact treated differently than a ruler which is foreigner. You have also failed to address anything about my Hebrew comments. You have agreed with my Hyksos point and failed to address my point about Hebrew. Both the Bible still fail to even identify the ruler himself. So regardless the point is moot.

I looked at the word "maraja" in arabic meaning reference, and has many different meanings, one is to mean mix, another one to mean separate, if you use the word to mean mix as the poster did, then it would be interpreted the same way he did, but if you take it to mean separate, then of course, other meaning will arise.

The word being addressed is برزخ which in fact means obstacle, hindrance,separation or barrier. Non-sequitur. مرج is He released, there is no mix or separate in this word.

 

[Britedream]

As I said Pharaoh is an Egyptian term not a Hyksos term. Your site further corroborates as does your reply. That ruler of Egypt is in fact treated differently than a ruler which is foreigner. You have also failed to address anything about my Hebrew comments. You have agreed with my Hyksos point and failed to address my point about Hebrew. Both the Bible still fail to even identify the ruler himself. So regardless the point is moot.




The word being addressed is برزخ which in fact means obstacle, hindrance,separation or barrier. Non-sequitur. مرج is He released, there is no mix or separate in this word.

This is what you were saying before:

"Both are the same thing, Pharaoh is the title for King of Egypt. It means King of Egypt and has since 1300 BCE."

you are saying above, any ruler of Egypt is called Pharaoh.

This what you are saying now:

"As I said Pharaoh is an Egyptian term not a Hyksos term. Your site further corroborates as does your reply. That ruler of Egypt is in fact treated differently than a ruler which is foreigner."

Notice in your statements above, your are talking about the term.
now you are saying here that the Pharaoh, applied to the native.

Amazing!.


Indeed the term may mean special thing to the Egyptians, there may be some holiness to it. One of thing that Moses is sent to Pharaoh, is to refute his claim to be God, and for Egyptians not worship him.
This is probably why the Egyptians were building the Pharaoh's graves like that.

So the term is not applicable to anyone rules Egypt. calling them kings very well fit the norms.

Let us see what else is amazing.

"Non-sequitur. مرج is He released, there is no mix or separate in this word."

I can understand you may misunderstand a phrase, But denying a meaning of a word while it exists, that wipes out your credibility. here is a shot , you can see the meaning and you can see the reference that you can go to and find this meaning at.

مرَجَ :
مرَجَ يَمرُج ، مُرُوجًا ومَرْجًا ، فهو مارج ، والمفعول ممروج ( للمتعدِّي ) :-
• مرَجتِ الدابّةُ انطلقت ترعى في المَرْج .
• مرَج السَّوائِلَ : خلطها :- { مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ يَلْتَقِيَانِ } .
• مرَجَ الراعي الماشيةَ : أرسلها ترعى في المرج
• مرج لسانَه في أعراض الناس : أطلقه في ذمِّهم واغتيابهم .
• مرَج البحرين : خلّى بينهما ، فصل أحدهما عن الآخَر :- { وَهُوَ الَّذِي مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ } .
المعجم: اللغة العربية المعاصر

 

[vskipper]

I do not beleive I asked what are you working on, but I told you at the time of Joseph, the ruler is called king and not Pharaoh, but you said there are the same, thinking the ruler was a native ruler , but when I showed the history that sides with Quran, you relized that you emited a hot air, what did you do, you started Putting words that have no value to the subject.

To be fair I do believe I remember hearing something about a time frame when Egypt was not ruled by pharaohs in the sense we think of now. Also it might be worth noting that there is explicit mention of the Israelites living in an area that was outside of proper Egypt. Also the Israelites, originally, were simply a family.

Also I am curious what evidence there could possibly be of the Israelites being in Egypt if they took their possessions with them? Not to mention those same possessions would have been taken all the way to Israel. This is to say nothing of the damage that would have been left by the plagues. As for Egyptian records there is no reason for them to have kept records of that.

To me looking for archeological evidence (or lack of) is as logical as looking for archealogical evidence of Abraham. Abraham was a singular individual that traveled with his family. What would you possibly find? (Not to mention he came before the great flood)

 

[Shad]

This is what you were saying before:

"Both are the same thing, Pharaoh is the title for King of Egypt. It means King of Egypt and has since 1300 BCE."

No this is my failure to communication.

If you look at what I posted in Egyptian this will clear it up. The above comment is transliteration. So the term applied to the King(English) of Egypt as a title. This is metonymy as noted in my other comment. The word became a short form honorific title of addressing the ruler. An English example with context for ruler is White House. "The White House supports the bill". I am using White House instead of President. There is contiguity between these words since the White House is the residence of the President. "White House" thus means President who is the ruler(leader).

"As I said Pharaoh is an Egyptian term not a Hyksos term. Your site further corroborates as does your reply. That ruler of Egypt is in fact treated differently than a ruler which is foreigner."

Pharaoh (transliteration) is an Egyptian term. On your page it was the same term in English. However since the name given to the Hyksos did not contain the same root words as per my Egyptian comment about what signifies a Egyptian rule. "Foreign ruler" is not treated the same as Egyptian rulers. Foreign ruler is not the same type of ruler in Egpytian

Notice in your statements above, your are talking about the term.
now you are saying here that the Pharaoh, applied to the native.

(transliteration in brackets)

It did apply to the natives as foreigner use different hieroglyphs and transliteration format fonts. There is one shared glyph which is used to signify ("over, of, rulership") which acts as a determiner between ruler and the place ruled over. HqA (ruler) xAst (foreign land, desert, hill country). nsw bity (King of Upper and Lower Egypt), reference previous comment for a literal translation. Separately nsw (King of Upper Egypt) bity (King of the Lower).

Amazing!.

Given the my replies you bet

Indeed the term may mean special thing to the Egyptians, there may be some holiness to it. One of thing that Moses is sent to Pharaoh, is to refute his claim to be God, and for Egyptians not worship him.

Think in terms of the Caliph or Pope. A person who is not Muslim/Christian can not gain the title legitimately. It just does not match as both are religious titles. Likewise when the Hyksos took Lower Egypt they were never called rulers over Lower Egypt using hieroglyphs. They were also called invaders, pirates and all sorts of names a group would use to demonize an invasion and occupation. This is why you see the heavy use of divinity as identification linked with rulership titles. If someone was not linked with divinity they could not be considered proper rulers which merit those titles.

This is probably why the Egyptians were building the Pharaoh's graves like that.

It was really about the idea that the material was not separate from the spiritual. This is why you see the heavy use of divinity as identification linked with rulership titles. The two worlds were linked physically which passage between the two seen as normal. The pharaoh dies taking material good into the spiritual world while become a unique god separate from previous Horus identities. Rich is life, rich in death.

So the term is not applicable to anyone rules Egypt. calling them kings very well fit the norms.

As pointed out above it is not the same thing between foreign and native ranks.

I can understand you may misunderstand a phrase, But denying a meaning of a word while it exists, that wipes out your credibility. here is a shot , you can see the meaning and you can see the reference that you can go to and find this meaning at.

I looked up the word you listed on several lexicons and translation of the Quran. All of which support what I said. Unless I was wrong about which word you were talking about you are going to have to provide a source for me to accept your translation.

 

[Shad]

To me looking for archeological evidence (or lack of) is as logical as looking for archealogical evidence of Abraham. Abraham was a singular individual that traveled with his family. What would you possibly find? (Not to mention he came before the great flood)

In this you are wrong. While you are right that Abraham is one individual, although he did lead a group of people, this is different tthan pre and post Exodus. The Hebrews were in Egypt for several generations and multiplied. There is nothing found in Egypt which can be tied to the Hebrews. During the Exodus there is an issue with no records of slaves fleeing from Egypt into the Sinai. There is no record of the plagues of the Bible. No evidence of 40 years in the Sinai. (Off-Topic) Archaeology has been able to tract nomad groups in many places all over the world including nomad in the Sinai. There is no evidence of an invasion, a conquest. There are no unique settlements which can be identified as Hebrew until the 10th century BCE and this is an assumption due to lack of pig bones. The only external record is from the 12th century BCE in which Egypt invade Canaan destroying several settlements which contradicts the Biblical accounts. There is a period is a period of over 5 centuries in which we can not distinguish Hebrews from Canaanites or Egyptians.

 

[Ingledsva]

please read all my post regarding this . Thank you.

I did read your post, and posts on such by people before you, and the link, which tries to distort known science, to make it fit an ancient scripture that is just wrong.




*

 

[Britedream]

I did read your post, and posts on such by people before you, and the link, which tries to distort known science, to make it fit an ancient scripture that is just wrong.




*

What link are you talking about?