Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

Why do you try and make God look like an ignoramus? He is NOT!

God does not speak to anyone through prophecy. He is BEYOND that means. If you really believe God Himself wrote these pages, why does it not give the exact day and time down to the very second? This is very well in the means of God and it is like NOTHING to him. Why is it so vague?

To think God would make a prophecy extremely vague, when he could've fulfilled it right down to the letter with EXACT WORDING, is making God out to be a fool.

God is not a fool. You have been deceived. :wave:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Britain was once apart of the Roman Empire.

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

In The Quran itself, within some of its chapters, it foretells events in the future that have come true; these are more commonly known as “prophecies”.

It tells the story of the Exodus from Egypt, in which Moses and the Hebrews enslaved to the Pharaoh of the time escape -

“We delivered the Children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh and his troops pursued them, aggressively and sinfully. When drowning became a reality for him, he said, “I believe there is no god except in the One whom the Children of Israel have believed; I am a submitter. Too late! For you have rebelled already, and chose to be a transgressor. Today, we will preserve your body, to set you up as a lesson for future generations. Verily, many among mankind are totally oblivious to our signs.” (Holy Quran, from 10:90 to 10:92)

As you can see from the above passage, The Quran prophesises that the body of the Pharaoh will be preserved for future generations.

This was proved correct when the mummy of Merneptah (the Pharaoh of the Exodus) was discovered well preserved in 1898, and it can be seen on display in the Royal Mummies Room of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.

Even though, this event occurred over 3000 years ago (more than 1600 years before Muhammad) according to both archaeological and Biblical data, the author of The Quran predicted that the body of the Pharaoh would be preserved as a sign for future generations, which is nowhere to be found in the Biblical version.

Dr Maurice Bucaille (who was chosen to examine the mummy) covers the above prophecy in detail in his book. Please refer to the Bibliography.

Originally Posted by ChairmanMeow

Your arguments have been proven to be nonsense over and over in this thread. The book of daniel is filled with horrible false prophecies and historical inaccuracies.

For example, the book of daniel was not written during the babylonian exile; evidence in the book itself points to it being written closer to the 2nd century BC, rather than the 6th.

Reasons for this, from here:

(1) It is listed in the Writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 BCE).

(2) Parts of the book (2:4-7:28) were written in Aramaic, which suggests a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.

(3) The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents of Babylon in the 6th century BCE.

(4) The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with 6th century BCE Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official in the employ of King Nebuchadnezzar.

(5) Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8:16 and 9:21 and Michael in 10:13, 10:21, and 12:1 ). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.

(6) The absence of Daniel's name in the list of Israel's great men in Ecclesiasticus.

(7) Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king's name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.

(8) In 2:2 the king's wise men are called "Chaldeans". But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, "Chaldean" would have referred to a nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer.

In addition, Nebuchadnezzar never suffered from a mental illness, rather it was a gentleman named Nabonidus.

From here: According to Daniel's story, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar suffers from a mental illness, and lives isolated for seven years, until he acknowledges the power of the one God. From cuneiform texts, nothing is known about Nebuchadnezzar's mental health. The original story must have centered on another royal patient: Nabonidus, about whom rumors like this did circulate. Moreover, several details return in the Prayer [of Nabonidus], where Nabonidus is the sad hero: the period of seven years, the isolation, the ultimate recognition of the power of the supreme God. Since the authors of Daniel consistently avoid mentioning Nabonidus, it is likely that one of them is responsible for the change of names.

And I'm not even going to mention Darius, "king of the Medes," which you probably already know is nonsense.


As for false prophecy, the book of daniel is full of that, too!

This is in reference to Ptolemy and Antiochus "the beast." As you can probably guess, this never happened. The book of daniel is a conglomeration of historically inaccurate ideas and myths. This is only one example of pages upon pages of false prophecy contained in the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people
The Turks are not Europeans. Though they are a candidate country for the EU, this does not make them European as a culture. 97% of the land area of Turkey lies in asia minor -- the culture of the Turks is a combination of Oğuz Turkic, Anatolian, Ottoman, and lastly, western cultures. The Turks are a predominantly secular muslim people that originated in central asia.

Stop shifting the goalposts. Shoehorning, special pleading, ad hominem, and red herrings are not valid debate tactics.

Originally Posted by Agenda07

Simply wrong. Parts of the British Isles were conquered by the Romans, but large parts of Scotland and the whole of Ireland (which was part of Britain during the days of the British Empire) were not under Roman Rule. There was never a unified 'Britain' until centuries after the Western Roman Empire had fallen.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And yet 94% of Turkish DNA is related to Europeans and people of the Near east...they are a Indo-European people just like Europeans. And if they are not European then why are they a canidate country in a European Organization? (duhhhh)

Originally Posted by juergen

It's not my intention to stop you two from debating, and maybe something has changed in the meantime, but weren't you arguing in favor of prophecy, specifically vague prophecies a few threads back, Self-Mutation?

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

Britannia, Britain, potayto, potahto...

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Roman peoples were latin, Celtic, Greeks, Germanic. These people dominate the world today....they are the people and inheritors of the Roman empire....everyone knows this already or should.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics demand evidence