Posted on 10/23/2001 8:39:39 AM PDT by spycatcher
Pre-Islamic Arabia's religion was one of superstition. Belief in jinns (genies), curse casting, magic stones, totems was the norm - and it was against this background that Allah arose. Although the Quran is claimed to be a heavenly writing with no earthly source, evidence of these very sorts of cultural influence is found in such places as Suras 55, 72, 113 and 114.
Animism, the belief that spirits inhabit rocks, trees and other elements was also very commonplace. Some of these stones were venerated and used as a focal point for the worship of a particular tribal god. No surprise, Muhammad's family had just such a stone for their own tribe - a black stone, in fact, that they kept at the Kabah (where the tribal idols were set up). The pagan rites of bowing toward Mecca, making a pilgrimage to the Kabah, running around it seven times, kissing it, then running to the river to throw stones at the devil all found there way into Islamic practice.
The final piece of the puzzle was in found in the religion of the Sabeans, an astral religion that worshipped the moon god and planned their religious rites around the lunar calendar. One such rite was fasting from crescent moon to crescent moon, a practice which would also be adopted by Muhammad.
If these things were not present before Muhammad received them from Allah (who himself is the moon god of Muhammad's tribe), why did Muhammad not have to explain what those words meant in the Quran? How would people have known who Allah was? ( or: what a jinn was? what the Kabah was? what the word Islam meant? etc.). Even the word "Islam" which many believe to mean "submission" was not an original word. In Arabic it was a secular term that denoted the strength and bravery of a desert warrior (a definition that accurately reflects the war-like tribes that founded Islam with bloodshed).
The Moon God
"Allah" is from the compound Arabic word "al-ilah" or in english "the god". Allah was known before Muhammad's time without a doubt. His name has been found in pre-islamic writings and other archeological finds. At the Kabah in Mecca over 350 gods were worshipped, but it was built especially for the chief deity - the moon god. Allah was the personal title of the moon god. Allah was married to the sun goddess. They produced three daughters, whose worship Muhammad would later make the mistake of condoning. The crescent moon symbol of Arabia came from this god.
Muhammad's family revered this particular god, and it is this idol that Muhammad declared to be the only true god. So, Allah - far from being the revealed God of the Bible as Muhammad would have us believe - is nothing more than an amplified pagan idol. Muhammad did not re-make the pagan god, he simply removed the lower deities from the rites of worship. That is why he never had to explain who Allah was. By definition, an idol converted in the 7th century into a new god cannot be the sama God revealed thousands of years earlier to Biblical prophets!
Go to your link. You'll see that 0120 comes from 0119. Here's 0119:
0119 'adam {aw-dam'}
of unknown derivation; TWOT - 26b; v
AV - dyed red 5, red 4 ruddy 1; 10
1) to be red, red
1a) (Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites)
1b) (Pual)
1b1) to be rubbed red
1b2) dyed red
1b3) reddened
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to cause to show red
1c2) to glare
1c3) to emit (show) redness
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to redden
1d2) to grow red
1d3) to look red
Yes it was. The Hebrew word translated into Adam has a root meaning of "ruddy complected". Do you think the bible was written in English? How is it that Adam's family became white if Adam wasn't white?
You've given me four Old Testament verses to hold up a spurious claim. Four verses out of how many?
I've given you the root meaning of the Hebrew word translated into Adam. All it takes is one or two, let alone four. If Adam's family was white, then in all probability he was white let alone the root meaning of his name.
My apologies if I was presumptious re: your claims.
Thanks. It's one thing I can't stand is when someone puts words into my mouth when I said nothing of the sort.
It just appears that you have this fixation with proving something that doesn't matter.
It does matter. It's important for the world to know who God's people are so that as many as possible can come to know Jesus and follow his ways and therefore also become Abraham's seed in spirit.
I don't care if Jesus was white, black or orange. He's Jesus.
But it's important. It's important for people to see the blessings of knowing God. Is there any doubt that Adam's family have received the most blessings? When you see the Chinese killing their own people wholesale, non-Israelite middle easterners killing their own people wholesale, Africans dying en masse, Indians of the Americas with their struggles over the last 500 years, India Indians dying in floods, Southern Asia and Indonesia with their strife and compare that to the relative internal peace and prosperity of the descendants of Abraham in Isreal, the U.K., the U.S., and parts of Europe, as many people as possible should know there's a reason for that and that is to one degree or another, we try to do things God's way. When we stray from God's way, then there has been strife, and there will be strife again when we stray too far (Jacob's trouble). But for now, there's no doubt which way is the right way. It's the ultimate Conservatism.
LOL No, what I mean is a conservative conserves. You can't go farther back than the beginning.
Some of the concordance meanings are derived, I believe. Reading the bible, it would appear that when the term "daughters of Adam" is used that that meant all of mankind, but I think it was Satan's attempt to disrupt God's plan for the Messiah, though, and Satan was going after a particular family, Adam's family. Adam was created on the eighth "day", the races were created thousands of years earlier on the sixth "day". Chapter 2 of Genesis starts out by saying that the heavens and the earth were finished and God rested on the seventh "day". And in verse 5 it continues with the word "and" and then says there was no man to till the field. So after the sixth day mankind creation, he needed another man to till the field (that's what Jesus is, a reaper of men), and so he created Adam. There's not that many generations from Adam to David so being that Adam is the patriarch of just one family of mankind, it's highly probable that he was of a certain race. And that race happened to be the ruddy complected one, or part of the ruddy complected one. It's not a racial superiority thing, because the bible says that all you have to do to be one of Abraham's seed (spiritually) is to believe and follow Jesus' ways as best you can.
Two commandments?
In Islam_40 Hadith of an-Nawawi 13 __ Not one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what he desires for himself.
In modern times, 33 generations could only be 660 years. Not that long considering the thousands of years of human existence.
We could point to a black man and say "His lineage came from Adam, that means Adam was black". Right? Nope. Not a conclusive argument.
That's not what I said. I said combining Adam's name with the fact his sons were ruddy complected with the fact that that gene isn't dominant over other pigment genes makes it almost a certainty that Adam was ruddy complected.
We can't say one way or another from the Bible.
I can simply from his name.
And if you don't believe everyone came from Adam, the Bible doesn't specify either way, and again you can't get any solid conclusion from the Bible.
Yes it does. Adam was created when God knew it was time to bring on the reaper of men.
It's an assumption that David had the same skin complexion as Adam did. Also consider David didn't live where Adam did, and environment has a hand in altering complexion at times.
But not over just a few generations.
This makes the argument even weaker. Also, Adam already has a base definition (First Man) and a descriptive definition (Mankind, which would make perfect sense since Adam is the father of mankind).
Like I said that was derived. The author of the concordance was a human scholar.
Also [0119], though where [0120] is contrived from, is simply not used for Adam (which wouldn't make much sense using it anyways since Adam's complexion is really never mentioned). It's a different word with different a different meaning.
Combine it with the other evidence though and a clear picture emerges.
I searched for the term "daughters of Adam", but only one verse has "daughters" and "Adam" together (Gen 5:4 - And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:). Where are you getting this verse?
Genesis 6.2. Look at the Hebrew word for man (the actual Hebrew words up above the English) for Gen 1.26, Gen 2.5, and Gen. 6.2 and you'll see they're different. Strong called all three 0120 but maybe he shouldn't have.
What are you talking about? This is what the Bible says: (Gen 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. The next verse telling what day it is: Gen 1:31 - And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.) There is no mention of races being created.
Well there are races on the earth, they've been here for tens of thousands of years, and so put two and two together. :^) We have all the generations of Adam even down to today's kings. That's just not enough to develop the races into the diversity we see today. And the bible doesn't duspute that. It says God rested and then created Adam. The word "and" in Gen. 2.5 is a huge word.
Incorrect. If you read the passage in context, you'll find the reason there was no man to till the earth because man didn't need to till the earth (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 2:6 - But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.).
When God needed a "tiller", he was talking of the Messiah, a tiller of men.
Adam was the one whom the races where made from...all of them.
How do you explain that huge word "and" in Gen. 2.5 then? It says God rested and God needed a husbandman and so he created Adam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.