Please clarify. It means what, specifically?
ugarit?
look it up.
those are hebrew names that appear in the bible, and have different origins. the names of those places in arabic are something else entirely. (check one for "silly and superficial," according to faith's standard)
Wrong. It's all part of the historical trail connecting Allah with moon god.
quote:
Exd 16:1 And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.
the two names in question are
‘- (midbar-sin) and
(sinay). they are
HEBREW names, and appear in the
HEBREW bible, exactly as they do in the english. (only people tend to translate midbar as "wilderness" or "desert.")
it is called something else in arabic, which translates to "marsh." since i can't read arabic, i can't tell you what it is. but it's not the same word as "moon."
the symbols of the crescent moon come to islam by way of the ottoman empire. it was the sumbol of the empire, not the faith. (check two for "silly and superficial")
Strawman. It's also corroborating evidence that Allah=moon god.
how is that a strawman? it's not corroborating evidence
if the symbol comes from something else.
why no mention in the bible? out of curiosity, only.
Pure yada. No reason for it in the Bible. Another strawman.
use the word correctly, buz.
quote:
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
it's not an imaginary opposition. it's a legitimate question. why no mention of the arabic moon cult in the bible? "they didn't think it was very important to include" is a good answer. but it kind of limits the importance you can ascribe to the cult.
It has everything to do with corroborating evidence. Your strawmen and unsubstantial responses here are not even worth my time in response. You're denying and pshawing all the evidence here with your silly responses.
From here on, I'm only going to respond to whatever appears to have any significance at all.
no, buz, these are pure academic criticisms. the post contains little to no actual evidence -- it talks about a historical cult, and then tries to make a case for a connection when none can logically be made.
It is part of the trail of Allah back to paganism. Pagans also had their supreme gods, for example the Hindu Brahma, et al.
yes, and ANY group that spoke ANY semitic language probably called one of their gods some variant of "il." we know the ugarits did, we know the akkadians/sumerians/babylonians/chaldeans did (elil), we know the hebrews did, we know that anyone who spoke aramaic (including jesus) did, and we know the arabs did. this point is
utterly meaningless. these gods are
not all the same gods, and you
cannot make the point based on this if you deny that allah and elohim are the same. either linguistic similarity and cognates are valid, or they are not.
And as I have shown over and over, el/elohim is generic for any god and only refers to the Biblical Jehovah by context and only context within the Bible. Allah has connections with moon god, but none with Biblical Jehovah.
the connection that "allah" has with the moon god is the same as "elohim" has with the ugaritic god. both are
the generic word for god. period. nothing more. you cannot make a point on the simple fact that two faiths happen to call their god "god."
But Mohammed's Allah is a proper name of his god which has a historical and archeological trail back to moon god.
no. it does not. muhammed's allah may or may not be a proper name, but the
title allah given to the moon god is not a name. it's a title. his name is
sin. that's like asserting that yahweh's name is elohim. it's not, it's yahweh.
But again, elohim is not the name of the Biblical god, Jehovah. Allah is the proper name of the Islamic god only.
right, but "el" is the proper name of the ugaritic god.
You admit Allah was pagan. Now we're getting some place.
allah means "the god" to anyone who speaks arabic. and that includes
everyone before muhammed, who spoke arabic. "allah" is god arabic-speaking christians, too. "allaha" is god to jesus christ, who spoke aramaic. "elowah" is god to jews. "allah" just means "the god." it doesn't matter
which god.
Now your job is to prove that Allah = the god/elohim, Jehovah
no, that is not my job. as you keep saying, that is not under debate in this thread. last time i answered one of your claims regarding this topic, you yelled at me for being off-topic.
try to stick to your own topic, buz.
and that Jehovah, like Islam's Allah emerged from the moon god.
we have another thread for exactly that purpose. well, not exactly that purpose: you'll notice that no one is contending that elohim/
yahweh came from sin, the moon god. that statement would a bit more ridiculous for judaism than it would be for islam -- we have much, much better candidates for that.
oh, btw, even though this isn't one of them: moses was from egypt. do you know the egyptian word for "moon?"
yah.
The crescent moon is so the symbol of Islam. Get a grip!
no, buz, it isn't. islam can have no symbols, as allah commands in the qu'ran. the crescent moon was the symbol of the ottoman empire, not the faith.
The stuff I've declined to spend my time on is nothing but rhetoric. Arach says something, anything, regardless of substance so as to wishful think he's refuted. LOL. I've got more important stuff to do than reply to yada.
yada is hebrew for "knowledge."
and no, buz, it's not rhetorical. i've demonstrated sever faults in the logic. they're making a link based
solely on the fact that sin was called "the god." that is a weak position, and badly argued.
is any god called "god" also the moon god, sin?
™ Version 4.2