And as far as insects, depending on species, reproductive rates can very easily destroy crops. Not because a god is punishing humans, but because of conditions that allow that species to thrive. Cockroaches outnumber humans and are faster at reproduction and make more offspring more often than humans. So it is very easy to see how other insects can and do do the same things. Cicadoidia also commionly knnown as Cicadas, often swamp locations for periods of time before they move on.

---

It is extremely common inside and outside religion, that humans make up and exaggerate events they observe but don't understand. 

"Frogs falling from the sky", ok, wind, because of a rain wrapped tornado, or a rain raped microbursts. If a strong enough wind can pick up an 18 wheeled truck and toss it around like a toy, certainly it can pick up light frogs.

(May 17, 2020 at 2:06 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(May 17, 2020 at 1:52 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nonsense. How is a rain of frogs a ‘plague’ in the modern sense? Or an invasion of insects? Or a river turning to blood? Even the ‘plague’ that killed the livestock and the firstborn are not well enough described in the OT to qualify specifically as ‘plague’ in the modern sense.

Nice try, bro. You talk of the "modern sense" of plague as it was some obscure case of rarely seen diseases, the plague in its modern sense is the same plague that caused the deadliest pandemics in history, including the Black Death.

I guess you are the ones trying to make words as loose and meaningless as possible to rule out prophecies. This same tactic performed by your ancestors is what made you lose the words of Jesus entirely, to be left with the song of songs........

In the first prophecy you tried to shoehorn into accuracy, you claimed that Muhammad had to use language his followers understood. In the second, you insist that ONLY the modern, specific definition of plague is applicable (you did this when you dismissed the cholera epidemic).

You can’t have it both ways.

Boru

And not that I have studied the Hawaiian mythologies, while I do now about Pele, the fire god, it also wouldn't surprise me to find out they had mythologies about why it snows on Hawaii's highest peaks. I do know in reality the reason it does snow on Hawaii's highest peaks depending on conditions and time of year, is because the air is colder at higher altitudes. Any peak in Hawaii higher than 10,000 feet can experience snow.

(May 17, 2020 at 3:06 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: So to sum up 

Building tall shit is  not prophetic
Competing to build tall shit is nothing new nor beyond imaging 
Nothing in the prophecy points exclusively to Arab states 
Mo could have been more detailed  and there is no reason to think people would not have gotten it 

The Dictionary the thing you freaking use to define words says plague is ANY diseases that kills lots of people (cholera)
Lot's of people died in Medina to  diseases
There is no specifics in the prophecy that describe what disease counts (symptoms )
The Ancient world clearly didn't restrict the word to a specific disease or disaster 



I award Klor 0 out of 2 points

No shit. This would be like arguing taller people are more important than shorter people because they are taller. 

Humans were building shelters long before the first cities. Things got taller, not because of a god/God/deities. Buildings got taller because technology improved.

(May 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 17, 2020 at 2:06 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Nice try, bro. You talk of the "modern sense" of plague as it was some obscure case of rarely seen diseases, the plague in its modern sense is the same plague that caused the deadliest pandemics in history, including the Black Death.

I guess you are the ones trying to make words as loose and meaningless as possible to rule out prophecies. This same tactic performed by your ancestors is what made you lose the words of Jesus entirely, to be left with the song of songs........

In the first prophecy you tried to shoehorn into accuracy, you claimed that Muhammad had to use language his followers understood. In the second, you insist that ONLY the modern, specific definition of plague is applicable (you did this when you dismissed the cholera epidemic).

You can’t have it both ways.

Boru

It would have helped if Mo had of bothered to describe the plague he was talking about 

And what Klor is trying to argue is the idea everyone just knew what it meant because it had been around awhile . Of course this doesn't work nor does his accusation your saying the plague was obscure something you never said .

(May 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In the first prophecy you tried to shoehorn into accuracy, you claimed that Muhammad had to use language his followers understood. 

And the language he used is quite accurate. For the gazillionth time, it's the translation that lacks accuracy, in this case, we should look at all the variants of the hadiths to get the whole meaning.

(May 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In the second, you insist that ONLY the modern, specific definition of plague is applicable (you did this when you dismissed the cholera epidemic).

This "only specific definition" is the most widely accepted definition of the disease, which happens to be the most widespread, deadliest pandemic  in human history. And Muhammad predicted that THE disease responsible for the deadliest pandemics won't touch Medina, and he was right. Not an easy one after all.. huh?

Defining plague as any disease who spreads fast is really loose, and when we know that its specfic meaning was described before Muhammad was even born, we can rest assured that that it's what he meant.

Quote:And the language he used is quite accurate. For the gazillionth time, it's the translation that lacks accuracy, in this case, we should look at all the variants of the hadiths to get the whole meaning.

So you keep repeating in vain 

Quote:This "only specific definition" is the most widely accepted definition of the disease, which happens to be the most widespread, deadliest pandemic  in human history. And Muhammad predicted that THE disease responsible for the deadliest pandemics won't touch Medina, and he was right. Not an easy one after all.. huh?

Not according to the thing we use to define freaking words .And again one city not getting one disease is not a prophecy sorry . Actually it's extremely easy because it was just done .

Quote:Defining plague as any disease who spreads fast !is really loose, and when we know that its specfic meaning was described before Muhammad was even born, we can rest assured that that it's what he meant.

Nope it's a good definition you simply don't like it because it undermines your apologetics . And again you have yet to prove that specific meaning nor did Moh describes he deises he was talking about so no this just you assuming a lot because it's  suits your apologetics . oh and you left out AND KILLS LOTS OF PEOPLE !!!

(May 17, 2020 at 3:21 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(May 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In the first prophecy you tried to shoehorn into accuracy, you claimed that Muhammad had to use language his followers understood. 

And the language he used is quite accurate. For the gazillionth time, it's the translation that lacks accuracy, in this case, we should look at all the variants of the hadiths to get the whole meaning.

(May 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In the second, you insist that ONLY the modern, specific definition of plague is applicable (you did this when you dismissed the cholera epidemic).

This "only specific definition" is the most widely accepted definition of the disease, which happens to be the most widespread, deadliest pandemic  in human history. And Muhammad predicted that THE disease responsible for the deadliest pandemics won't touch Medina, and he was right. Not an easy one after all.. huh?

Defining plague as any disease who spreads fast is really loose, and when we know that its specfic meaning was described before Muhammad was even born, we can rest assured that that it's what he meant.

Once again. YOU do not get to retrofit definitions or science and reach back in time and claim anyone in antiquity had any modern understanding. It doesn't work when you do it, or when a Christian does it, or when a Jew does it, or when a Hindu or Buddhist do it. AND TRUST ME, I've been online debating religion for almost 20 years and have debated the fallacy of mixing science and religion with every major religion's followers and they all pull this bad logic.

NOBODY IN THE WORLD back then had any clue as to what DNA/RNA are. NOBODY back then anywhere in the world of any religion  had any clue.

Just like the word "atom" coined by the ancient Greeks only meant back then, "The smallest thing one could imagine". Saying "Earth stuff, water stuff, fire stuff, air stuff" is what they  meant by "atom" back then. That DOES NOT the same language scientists use today when scientists say "atom". Today's scientific meaning means, "Electron, Proton, Neutron".  Otherwise if we go by your bad logic, the Greek polytheistic gods are real because they were the first to use the word "atom".