quran miracles - headache

[The.question]

Hello,

I am new here and I registered because I have a question about one of those quran miracles. Most of them I consider to be complete bullshit but there is one which still gives me trouble to get my head around. In short it goes like this.

The title "pharaoh" was introduced around 1400 BCE to refer to egyptian Kings. Before that, the rulers of egypt were simply called "king". Although the bible uses both terms (king/pharaoh) interchangibly, regardless to which period in egypt the stories are referring to.

In opposite to that, the quran uses in the Story of Joseph which refers to an egyptian ruler around 1700 BCE only the word "King" to refer to the ruler of egypt and NEVER the term "pharaoh".
On the other hand, in the story about moses (around 1300 BCE), the quran uses the word "pharaoh" to refer to the ruler there.

Since mohammad lived in the 7th century he could have not possibly known that, since the egyptian empire has fallen long time ago and the the time between mohammad and this historical fact is just too long; furthermore the historical documents the arabs used were the bible and tora in which the terminology is wrong,
but somehow the quran manages to be on spot with the terminology throughout the entire book. So how can this be, what rational explanations are there for that?

Thank you for your help, really appreciate it.

[Minimalist]

"Pharaoh" is an English derivation from the Greek pharaō ( and also Latin.)
The Egyptian phrase began as pr-aa a reference to the king's palace and the Greeks took it from there. It is safe to say that no Pharaoh was ever called "Pharaoh" by an Egyptian.

Further the word "king" is Germanic in origin which makes it a cinch that it was not used in ancient Egypt. So, we are dealing with multiple translations of words over many centuries but rather than a specific word we are dealing with the concept of a ruler being put into words, in different languages.

So I find this an exceedingly poor argument for anyone to hang their hat on.

[The.question]

"Pharaoh" is an English derivation from the Greek pharaō ( and also Latin.)
The Egyptian phrase began as pr-aa a reference to the king's palace and the Greeks took it from there. It is safe to say that no Pharaoh was ever called "Pharaoh" by an Egyptian.

Further the word "king" is Germanic in origin which makes it a cinch that it was not used in ancient Egypt. So, we are dealing with multiple translations of words over many centuries but rather than a specific word we are dealing with the concept of a ruler being put into words, in different languages.

So I find this an exceedingly poor argument for anyone to hang their hat on.

Maybe i misunderstood what you are saying, but here is what wikipedia is saying: "The earliest instance where pr-aa is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who reigned c. 1353–1336 BCE, which is addressed to 'Pharaoh, all life, prosperity, and health!.". pr-aa become then pharaoh or "firawn" in arabic. This is the word the quran uses, and it uses it only when talking about the ruler at the time of moses. It is never used in the Story of Joseph.

I suppose that it was at least among the more educated people common knowledge that the ruler of egypt was reffered to as Pharaoh, firawn or whatever the word became in different languages. Same with the word King or Malik, the Quran seems to use the words perfectly to its meanings and usages of these eras.

I personally believe so far that this is all a very very unlikely coincidence

[Minimalist]

Confirmation bias.

In the instance you cited, "pharaoh" is a (much) later translation. The Egyptians have left written records. Pr-aa morphed into "pharaoh" as a result of much later writers who spoke different languages.

Try to remember that there is not a shred of evidence that there ever were any masses of hebrew "slaves" in Egypt. Zero. Nada. Zilch. "Moses," "The Conquest," "The Ark of the Covenant," "The Exodus," etc., is all fiction.

It's a story made up much later. See Israel Finkestein "The Bible Unearthed" and Donald Redford "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" for more details. The crib notes version I could give you here will not do you much good.

[The.question]

Confirmation bias.

In the instance you cited, "pharaoh" is a (much) later translation. The Egyptians have left written records. Pr-aa morphed into "pharaoh" as a result of much later writers who spoke different languages.

Try to remember that there is not a shred of evidence that there ever were any masses of hebrew "slaves" in Egypt. Zero. Nada. Zilch. "Moses," "The Conquest," "The Ark of the Covenant," "The Exodus," etc., is all fiction.

It's a story made up much later. See Israel Finkestein "The Bible Unearthed" and Donald Redford "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" for more details. The crib notes version I could give you here will not do you much good.

I agree, it is indeed most likely all pure fiction. There is even a verse in the quran in which the Pharaoh threatens people with the crucifixion, although crucifixion was invented 1000 years later. So this would be a clear historical error there.

But i still cannot see how your objection refutes the Claim. It does not really matter if the original word was "Per aa". The fact is, that this word was originally used to address, as you said, the kings Palace and only later the king directly "Thutmosis III", oficially with Siamun. I agree that the egyptions did not call their ruler "pharaoh" but something like per aa, but still, pharaoh or firawn is the right Translation of that word. Therefore it is somehow for some very weird reason used in the absolut correct way in the quran.

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

You must see what is the arabic word used for (king).

[Minimalist]

pharaoh or firawn is the right Translation of that word.

No. Pharao is the Greek derivation of pr-aa and firawn is the arabic derivation of Pharao. Pharaoh is English.

[The.question]

You must see what is the arabic word used for (king).

the arbaic word is "malik" malik = king
the arabic word in moses story is "firawn" firawn = pharao

pharao(greek) = pr-aa(egyptian)
king/malik = nesut/nisut (egyptian)

so at the time of Joseph (if he actually existed) the quran uses the word "malik=king=nesut", in the moses story the quran uses the word "firawn=pharaoh=pr-aa". I do not understand how it is a viable objection to say that it is wrong just because the quran does not use the original egyptian word.

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

You must see what is the arabic word used for (king).

the arbaic word is "malik" malik = king
the arabic word in moses story is "firawn" firawn = pharao

pharao(greek) = pr-aa(egyptian)
king/malik = nesut/nisut (egyptian)

so at the time of Joseph (if he actually existed) the quran uses the word "malik=king=nesut", in the moses story the quran uses the word "firawn=pharaoh=pr-aa". I do not understand how it is a viable objection to say that it is wrong just because the quran does not use the original egyptian word.

I remember one of my Islamic Education Teacher, said us " One of king of Egypt named firawn! He do not know Firawn was not one person and many kings of egypt named firawn.
I think Mohammad thought friawn was one king who name was firawn!!

---

Also with what evidence you say king of Egypt in Joseph date was not a pharao?

[paulpablo]

Knowing something happened after it happened isn't a miracle.

But here's a response to the claim anyway.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...joseph.htm