7/7/2021 0:00:01
What is the Torah? And who has the legal and logical right to define the meaning of the Torah?
Between religious text and human sciences
When talking about scientific historical reading, we will in fact find before us two mentalities.
The first mentality… is the one that relies on the religious text as a primary reference in its analysis, thinking, and understanding of history, and rejects the texts of the human sciences and believes that relying on them as one of the research tools makes the religious text lose its truth and turns it into a misleading journey far from the truth.
The second mentality…is the one who relies on the human sciences and texts of world history as a reference in his analysis, thinking, and understanding of history and issues of religion, and rejects the religious text and believes that relying on the religious text as one of the research tools loses the research’s scientific character and transforms it. To a journey of faith far from scientific truth.
When we reflect deeply on the analysis of this contradictory phenomenon, and search for the age and reasons for the emergence of these two mentalities in reality, we will find the following:
And so
– The time of appearance
The first mentality is considered older than the second mentality. The first mentality is an ancient phenomenon in human reality, and it preceded the second mentality, while the second mentality is a relatively recent and recent phenomenon in human reality…. Or it can be said that the first mentality is an ancient phenomenon in our societies, while the second mentality A recent phenomenon in our reality.
– Reasons for appearance
The first mentality appeared in our societies with the revelation of the divine religious text as a cognitive truth to explain the reality of believers… while the second mentality appeared with the emergence of the human sciences as knowledge and sciences to explain human reality.
– Scientific level
The second mentality is considered richer in quantity and quality than the first mentality at the scientific level, because the second mentality depends on a very large amount of renewable cognitive reference texts in interpreting reality, while the first mentality depends on only one fixed reference text in understanding the world, and this thing grants the mentality. The second is a level of legal right that is higher than the level of the legal right of the first rationality in explaining phenomena, until it came to the point that the second rationality made itself as a fixed substance, and made the first rationality and the things associated with it (religion – the religious text) as a substance that is variable from the fixed and based on By studying it as a human phenomenon that requires explanation… despite the fact that the first mentality is the oldest in reality and is based on one fixed, unchanging text, while the second mentality is the new and modern in reality and is based on variable, unchangeable texts, and accordingly the mentality must be The second is a subject taught by the first mentality, but perhaps the reason is because the human sciences came chronologically after the religious text. Therefore, the religious text does not have words, definitions, or references to the human sciences. It is a fixed, non-renewable text in its words and terms that is not known to us by the words of the second mentality and its texts that He relies on it, and this reason gives the second mentality scientific legitimacy in that it is the constant and the other is variable.
Now……. If we try to study the causes of these two mentalities, considering that they are a phenomenon that existed at the same time, we will arrive at many explanations, but they are organized according to a duality, as if they were causes that emerged from a duality in a sequential manner, the first of which cannot be determined.
Scientific research methods are one of the reasons for creating this phenomenon.
Because it depends on the issue of separating the subject from the object as a scientific necessity to approach the truth, and this duality (subject and object) has become inherent to students of the human sciences, in ridding any phenomenon of faith and reading it in an objective language, and this matter made the second mentality reject the approach of the first rationality, in Interpreting the world, because it is a non-scientific mentality that does not separate the subject from the object, but rather rejects the religious text of the first mentality as an article of faith, non-scientific, and non-cognitive, while the first mentality rejects this approach and purifies its faith in understanding the religious text.
A strange case, because the religious text can be considered a humanistic text by the second mentality that contains scientific knowledge and should not be rejected on the pretext that faith distances the researcher from the correct scientific view.
Human history…is one of the reasons for creating this phenomenon.
Because it is based on the issue of the history of before the birth and after the birth, and this duality (before the birth and after the birth) in which two mentalities exist, we find that the first mentality is present abundantly and intensely in the time and history of after the birth, while the second mentality is present abundantly and Intensively in the time and history of before Christ, as if the first mentality was born chronologically after the second mentality, or as if the religious text appeared chronologically after the texts of the human sciences. The first mentalization came chronologically after the second treatment in reality.
This historical situation in which the two mentalities exist is what caused the separation of the two mentalities, and it is what gave the second mentality the fixed, scientific level with a human dimension, and gave the first mentality the variable level of faith with a non-human dimension.
A strange situation………..because the first mentality is older than the second mentality, and the religious text is older than the human sciences…….that is, it is assumed that the first mentality exists extensively and greatly in a period of time. History before Christ, and the second mentality is present extensively and greatly in the time after Christ…that is, the second mentality came after the first mentality chronologically…but the opposite happened.
So, the methods of research and history… are what produced the two contradictory mentalities, separated them cognitively and scientifically in understanding phenomena, and made the two not meet.
Many have come to believe…that there are issues that require one specialized mentality to understand and solve them, and specializations should not be mixed, to provide a convincing scientific answer…issues such as understanding a linguistic matter require a specialist in linguistics. To clarify it and provide a convincing scientific answer… and this thing has a great deal of truth, and I believe that these two mentalities can apply this matter to get out of any conflict and contradiction, as each one is in his specialty.
For example
The first mentality does not have the right to issue fatwas on humanitarian issues and on history that exists in the time before Christ, and the second mentality does not have the right to issue fatwas on religious issues and on history that exists in the time after Christ.
The reference texts of the first mentality (religious text) do not have the legitimacy to interpret issues and history from before Christ, and the reference texts of the second mentality do not have the legitimacy to interpret issues and history after Christ.
The first mentality does not have the right to force the second mentality to adhere to the intellectual method that it follows, which links the subject to the object in interpreting human sciences texts, nor does the second mentality have the right to force the first mentality to adhere to the intellectual method that it follows, which calls for separating the subject from the object in interpreting the religious text.
But the truth is…we see the presence of the two mentalities side by side in an ongoing debate over intellectual and historical issues related to religion, and each mentality claims that it is its field of specialization.
For example……….there is the Zionist Old Testament narrative about the history of Palestine and the region that the colonial West brought, and you find a constant presence of the two mentalities here, and each mentality has an interpretation that opposes the other.
And in this particular place in this example… we find the second mentality playing a role that is strange and contradictory to what it is accustomed to. For example, it uses a method that does not belong to it and uses texts from outside its circle as a human reference, and wonders why and why in This particular place? .
And here a collision occurs with the second mentality, but it is a collision of a different kind than the previous one. It is as if there is a hidden mind that was able to penetrate the second mentality and make it change its approach easily and smoothly and without opposition or pushback from it, and in a striking, strange and strange way. Confusing .
how ?
In most cases of discussion of the topics of the Old Testament book that deal with the history of the region, we will find that the second mentality suffers from great difficulty in separating the subject from the subject. It relies on the religious text as a scientific, human reference for interpretation, and deals with belief in this text as being among the tools of the method. Scientific research.
For example……. This mentality deals with the Book of the Old Testament (the religious text) as a human cognitive and historical text, not a religious one, and it completely believes in the information contained in this religious text, its definitions and names, and relies on it to interpret reality, and You treat belief in this religious text (the Old Testament) as if it does not affect the scientific method.
Example :
A researcher specializing in the human sciences, including (anthropology, linguistics, history…), he publishes an article on the subject of the geography of the Old Testament and calls it (the geography of the Torah)……and he says that he is convinced that Jerusalem is not the Jerusalem that the Torah talks about. But he believes that Jerusalem is another Jerusalem, which is Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is an ancient sacred spatial condition associated with religions.
But when we tell him……….. that the Torah is not the book of the Al-Yahoud, but rather it is the written script in which the word of Allah was written and from which the Muslim memorized the Qur’an.
The researcher’s response will be…… [The Torah, the Bible, and the Qur’an are sacred books for those who believe in them, but I see them as books of religious literature. I study them like studying any literary novel, taking into account the specificity of each book,,, meaning what I apply to them other than the scientific method in analyzing literary texts Which is subject to all the human sciences, such as philosophy, psychology, geography, history, anthropology, sociology, philology, and the internal curricula it contains for the science of religions, such as the history of religions, the anthropology of religions, the sociology of religions, the sociology of religions, the geography of religious representation, the philosophy of religions, or religious theology.
The important thing is, my friend…….. I am not an amateur in the field, meaning a diploma in social and cultural anthropology and a master’s degree in comparative religions, and those with whom I spoke above are my teachers,,, Si Sufyan, head of the history department at the Faculty of Arts, Sousse, Si al-Nasser, my teacher, who taught me the science of religions, and Safwat Safi. My friend is a Palestinian researcher on the subject of Biblical geography, and none of us have anything to do with faith. It is a personal issue that does not concern us in scientific research. With my appreciation for your research efforts, which does not concern me and may concern believers.]
Here you are surprised at the reasons for this contradiction in his scientific method in this particular case that he has and most of our researchers.
He deals with the religious text of the Al-Yahoud as a humanistic cognitive text, and includes it among the texts of the human sciences that are considered his authority, and he believes in this text and its terminology and nomenclature without the process of separating the subject from the subject, which violates the scientific method…while when It is about clarifying the truth of the Torah from a text in the Qur’an… It tells you: “The matter of faith does not mean scientific research, but rather it means believers.”
Weird and strange
What is the explanation for this contradiction?
If we look carefully, we will find that the reason is the following:
This researcher comes from a Muslim environment that believes in the Qur’an, but when he enters the university, and learns the methods of scientific research, and the necessity of separating the self from the subject in order to be a true scientific researcher, he begins to deal with the text of the Qur’an as a text of faith and not as a text of scientific knowledge, and he tries with all his might to separate it. His belief in the texts of the Qur’an while reading, studying, analyzing and interpreting things and phenomena to be a true scientific researcher.
But the problem is when a religious text other than the Qur’an is presented, and it resembles the Qur’an, which is the book of the Al-Yahoud of the Old Testament, and it is not the religious text of his family and environment, meaning he was not born with religious belief in this text, and this text did not have strong faith authority over him and his environment. He will not deal with the book of the Old Testament with the same extreme difficulty and strict approach with which he deals with the Qur’an, nor will he deal with it as a religious text, but rather he will deal with it with ease and acceptance as a human text, within which there is scientific, cognitive, and historical human value, and this book will become Within the field of references of human texts that he uses to understand reality, especially since the book of the Old Testament appeared chronologically and historically before the Qur’an BC, according to human history, which he considers a scientific reference text.
Thus, the religious text (the Qur’an) becomes for him a matter of faith, not a scientific one, and he should not rely on it in scientific research, because they are texts of faith, and faith must be separated from the subject, and the religious text (the Old Testament) becomes a matter of knowledge, not a matter of faith, for him. It must be relied upon in scientific research, because they are human historical and geographical texts of knowledge, especially since the scientific method has been applied to them and he does not believe in it religiously, that is, he fulfills the condition of the scientific method here, so faith is separated from the subject…..and because The stories of the Qur’an are similar to the stories of the writers of the Old Testament, but there is a linguistic and rhetorical difference between them… The stories of the Qur’an have turned into texts of faith that have no relation to interpreting reality, while the stories of the Jewish writers have turned into cognitive texts that have a scientific relationship to interpreting the history and geography of reality.
Thus, the Qur’an became the subject of faith that plays a deceptive role in man when interpreting reality, and it became a scientific necessity according to the scientific method to separate it when interpreting the world, and the book of the Old Testament became the real realistic subject that explains reality, and it became necessary to consider objective reading in Interpretation of the world
The religious text (the Qur’an) has become the subject that must be separated from the subject, which has become the other religious text (the Old Testament).
This strange and contradictory situation exists among most of our researchers, and in this particular place that deals with the historical Zionist narrative and the book of the Al-Yahoud… If you look and read their productions, you will find that most researchers specializing in the humanities have one mind. And exactly one approach, like the previous example.
They have a wrong, unscientific, and subjective way of thinking.
What is correct?
My criticism will be from their approach, not from our approach.
1- As long as the two texts are of a single divine structure, as is known to everyone, these researchers must deal with any religious text other than (the Qur’an) or (the Old Testament) at the same methodological and cognitive level, or deal with them as a single religious textual phenomenon in time and time. Spatially, cognitively, religiously, historically and geographically.
That is, they must separate the text of the Qur’an and the Old Testament from any subject, and consider them as texts of faith only…..they do not have any scientific or cognitive value, and the references of the two texts are not binding in studying any phenomenon, and the terminology of the two books should not be used in defining the world.
Example :
Any text found in the Old Testament must be dealt with in the following manner:
– If the text was talking about (a city called Jerusalem in Palestine that was the capital of the Al-Yahoud and had a temple in it)…. then it must be treated as a text of faith only, and not a scientific, cognitive, human text, and that text has no relationship to objective historical and geographical truth.
In other words…..that text does not express at all the existence of an ancient objective geographical fact called Jerusalem, nor does it express at all the existence of an ancient objective historical fact about the presence of Al-Yahoud there, and it does not mean the existence of a real building that existed in that land called the Temple.
Belief in religious text should not be mixed with objective truth. It is just a text and nothing more, and there are believers in it, and it does not mean that it is binding on any other person.
– If the text speaks that (the book of the Al-Yahoud is called the Torah), then this text must be treated as a text of faith linked to the faith of followers of the religion that believes in the book of the Old Testament, and not as a scientific, cognitive text that contains objective, factual information.
In other words… that text does not mean at all that the book of the Al-Yahoud is called the Torah as an objective scientific fact.
2- They must consider themselves of the second mentality, and these texts are not from their field of specialization and should not be considered scientific references, but rather texts of faith, and the issues of those texts are internally linked to those who believe in them according to their approaches, and these researchers should not impose their approach in trying to understand the issues of those texts. Because these texts have a special approach that the first rationality deals with, relying on the authority of faith, which prevents the separation of the subject from the object. The issues of the religious text are related to that approach and not to the second mentality approach, and that approach should not be considered an unscientific approach.
This makes us ask our question:
So who has the right to talk about the Torah and define it?
I believe that the topic (the Torah) is within the scope of the first mentality, and not within the competence of the second mentality, because it is a private topic and not general so that we believe that it is a topic whose interpretation can be found within the texts of the human sciences, which are the references for the second mentality.
If the question is related to the subject of man in the religious text, then it can be said that the subject of (man) is within the scope of attention of humanities texts, and then the second mentality is legally entitled to issue a fatwa on the matter of (man).
But the word (Torah) is a private, unknown word and not a general, well-known word like (man), and it was mentioned in a religious text, and the definition of this word is originally linked to the religious text and his definition of this word, and is linked to belief in the religious text and that it is correct, and that This religious text has scientific and cognitive value for those who believe in this religious text, and it is not scientifically valid to try to define this word from texts in the human sciences, as it has no relation to the religious text, and it is not valid to go to a text outside the religious text to search for a definition of the word, and any researcher He searches for an interpretation of the word from outside the religious text. He is an unscientific and non-objective researcher, and he will never reach the true meaning of the religious text if he tries to intervene in a field that is not his specialty.
This is the sound scientific method that anyone should follow when researching.
Now we come to our important question: What is the Torah?
We have a special approach, and this approach somehow puts us in a place between the two previous mentalities, because we cannot rule out the religious text as a scientific and cognitive value, and we cannot rule out recent results in understanding historical issues. And this place we are in is the reason that made us talk about this topic…….. after we observed the mentality of our society in understanding the meaning of the Torah, which we found to be two mentalities.
We are faced with two mentalities: the first mentality that believes in the Qur’an, and the second mentality that believes in Greek history and the human sciences and their theories… and every mentality has a method and reference texts… that is, every mentality has a method that is the reason for its conviction and perceptions.
If we try…to search for the meaning of the Torah in cooperation with the second mentality, we will find that this mentality always publishes topics revolving around the book of the Al-Yahoud and wrapped in a cover of human sciences that gives it an elitist dimension and scientific cognitive value in the eyes of some.
But we see… that she is playing a misleading role through her research and articles in a way that supports the Zionist narrative and prevents the first mentality from understanding its religious reference text.
This makes us look for the reason.
We also talked about the fact that this mentality is intensely present in the time before Christ, and it considers that time and history to be its field of knowledge, relying in its explorations on historical texts and human sciences.
Therefore, this group has general characteristics that distinguish them. For example, they absolutely believe in the West’s translations of the region’s inscriptions, and they believe in reference texts written by Western scholars, and they have no doubt that the history written and written by the West is very true, and they believe in the space of Greek mythology. They live inside it, and believe that it is a real world that existed in reality and that man lived in it in ancient times, and they believe that the human sciences are what explain objective reality.
And for this reason…..you find this mentality believes in mythological religions and considers them within its field of human scientific knowledge in interpreting current religions, but it deals with current religions within the field of faith that is far from science. And this is noticeable.. This mentality is always found within the theater of Ishtar, Adonis, Osiris, Isis, Amun, Sargon, and Gilgamesh as a scientific and cognitive context, and it is what pushed the current religions to exist in reality, meaning that today’s world emerged from that religious context.
Why am I talking about this thing?
Because we will find it somewhat difficult to find a common point in order to cooperate with this mentality in knowing the meaning of the Torah.
I think it is logical……….. that this mentality should believe that the subject of the Torah is a purely religious doctrinal aspect, and it has a presence today and is never absent and is not mixed with doubt, and this presence is present in the Holy Qur’an, even If this group does not believe in the text of the Qur’an as a scientific and cognitive text, then it does not matter whether it believes or does not believe, because it is a text specific to a belief.
So……..this mentality must be subordinate to the religious text if you try to understand the meaning of the Torah, rather than being ahead of it in imposing the historical argument. That is, the text of the Qur’an is binding even on them in understanding the subject…. because it is a text that speaks about a very specific subject and not a general subject, from within its cultural structure, that is, it is a primary, basic text and this group has no other text that gives them the advantage of talking.
We may agree here…….but there will be a problem.
Why ?
Because this mentality may believe that it has the legitimate, scientific right to speak on this subject and impose its argument, and even ridicule because others follow it in the conversation….. Because this group owns the field of knowledge that existed in the pre-Christian world, and believes that it is their personal property. And no one should infringe on it with new terms and new interpretations, its field of specialization and it has a legal argument for its temporal precedence over the first mentality, whose special field is the time after the birth, which talks about the Torah.
where is the problem ?
The problem is that we are trying to link two contradictory worlds, the world before Christ and the world after Christ. The problem is that we are trying to link two contradictory names, which are hieroglyphs and the Torah… and it is certain that this connection will cause a violent and intense conflict, between two mentalities, between two imaginations. Between two times, between two ideas. Between two references, between two sources of information, between two methodologies.
In other words….there is no point of engagement from which one can start, to build a cooperative ground with the second mentality in order to reach a satisfactory or convincing result. Because this common point does not exist, it is natural that the first response of this group to this issue is strong rejection and perhaps ridicule.
What is the solution ?
I believe that there is no logical and satisfactory solution except only one solution, which is to abandon and abandon everything we own, from science texts, religious texts, references, postulates, books, sources, texts, and history…….. We make the reality in front of us our book and our only reference, and we use our reason, logic, and physical evidence.
I think it is a logical and satisfactory solution to the second mentality.
now
If we contemplate the reality of the second mentality in our societies… through our popular memory, we will actually find that the first mentality is older than the second mentality. The second mentality is relatively recent, or let us say, recently entered our societies after the entry of colonialism and Western occupation, and after the emergence of modern education that was established. The occupation established it in most of the region, after scientific missions from the region traveled to the West to study these sciences.
The second mentality appeared specifically after the translation of an ancient sacred religious text in our land that may have fallen within the jurisdiction of the first mentality.
The evidence is that all the human sciences that we read today appeared approximately 250 years ago and most of their pioneers were Western scholars. …And that age is the same as the approximate age of the entry of the West as invaders and occupiers into our land, and it is the same as the approximate age of the Western occupier’s translations of ancient religious writing in Misr.
That is, this second mentality…is approximately 200 years old in our reality, meaning that the age of the emergence of this mentality is after the West’s occupation of the region, and after the occupier’s translations of the writings of ancient Misr.
If the second mentality is 200 years old, then the first mentality is very older…. That is, the age of the religious text is older than the age of the printer’s books that wrote all the modern human sciences.
■ The first question for the second mentality:
Before Napoleon’s invasion of Misr, what did the people of Misr call their ancient writing found in Misr?!
A very logical question… isn’t it?!
Is it possible that a long and broad people lives in a land filled with inscriptions of ancient writings, and lives next to many huge temples filled with many writings and many graves full of writings, and does not know the name of this writing, or does not have a local name for it? His culture is hers?!
Ok…in Misr there are Muslims and Al-Nasarah, and let us say according to Roman times (before and after) that Islam came after Christianity, so that the Zionist mind does not accuse Islam of obliterating consciousness… Question:
Is it possible that neither a Muslim nor a Christian knows the name of these inscriptions and writings? …..The Christian does not even know the name of the inscriptions, does not even know how to read them, and does not know anything about them.
Do not tell me that its name is hieroglyphics, as this is a Greek name and not an Egyptian name at all… This is a purely Greek name and not the local name for that writing.
Does it seem like a logical process… for a different and separate cultural structure to come from a far away place and impose its own name on an element within a different cultural structure, and have its name adopted as a scientific method?!
Unscientific and illogical
At least………….There is something convincing and logical among the people of Yemen in their retention of a local name for their ancient inscriptions (Musnad), even though it is not the correct name, and its name is recorded in ancient books written by people from Yemen.
Is it possible that all the history books that have reached us about the history of ancient Misr…the Fatimid, the Abbasid, the Ayyubid, the Mamluk and the Ottoman, and there is no reference, clarification or detail in them about these writings and… The inscriptions, or about their meaning or local name?!
Does it make sense for me to go to China and tell them that their script is called Peruvian script, and then the Chinese will adopt it?
Your scientific mind should really excite this topic, make you think, ask questions, and research… and do not allow a reference text in printed books whose true age you do not know to come to you and impose on you its own name and its own logic. .. If you are truly a scientific researcher and have sound logic.
How is it possible that these large inscriptions, which Misr is drowning within, are given an external name and not a local name?
This is the largest cultural and scientific fraud ever carried out in history.
correct ?
■ The second question for the second mentality
What is the doctrine?
Doctrine, whatever it may be… in any time or place, is a superstructure… Doctrine is a form of the highest form of consciousness. Superstructures are solid and very strong structures that never disappear from societies. Superstructures give their effect to the new reality with time. Superstructures run parallel to history, imposing themselves and their impact on the new reality… The superstructure never disappears.
Doctrine does not appear suddenly at all… It has an ancient, continuous, and uninterrupted context, and it remains constant and does not change at all… Because it is an answer to one question… which is the question of existence… The beginning and the end……. Only knowledge accumulation occurs about the doctrine.
So…..the question is very, very logical:
Where did the doctrine that the West extracted from Egyptian inscriptions disappear, and said that man in Misr knew that doctrine?
Logic says… If the ancient Egyptians really had known that ancient religion… today, in a certain, logical and natural way, you would see in Misr or any place in the region a religious group that still worships those gods that the West extracted… and they practice it. The same ancient rituals that were practiced in ancient Misr, as mentioned in history books written by the West about the religion of Misr.
But what is completely illogical… is that there is not even a mustard seed of everything the West wrote that remains to this day or has an impact… and there is absolutely no trace of this doctrine… not even the size of a newborn ant. In fact, the names of these gods are not found today on the tongue of any person in Misr… and they emerge involuntarily from the collective unconscious.
And this illogical matter… made many people always replace the idea of searching for a logical answer… by presenting the always usual superstitious idea… that Islam disappeared and came to erase all of that world, and this Zionist logic makes us respond with a logical answer:
I call on all Al-Nasarah in Misr to abandon the Christian religion, the religion of Napoleon, and return to the worship of Amun, Aten, Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and practice the rituals written by the West until we are sure that there is a trace of that doctrine, and that they are truly the owners of that history and time.
Now….very simple logic
If… the Egyptian today does not know the name of the writing of his ancient ancestors, and another person different from the Egyptians and from a different culture came and gave them a name for the writing of their ancestors… and he is the one who gave it a new form and value before the world. …and it was not the Egyptians who gave it to the world, and he extracted the contents of those inscriptions for the Egyptians, and what he extracted had no existing impact on reality… because… those ancient inscriptions found in Misr belonged to a people from another planet and It does not exist on Earth and has no relation to humans in Misr or any humans on Earth.
This is common sense…right?
But there is another very, very sound logic
If…the doctrine is a superstructure, that is, a higher form of consciousness. It is a very solid and strong structure that never disappears from societies, and since the superstructures add their influence to the new reality with the passage of time, that is, they move in parallel with history, imposing themselves and their impact on the new reality, and they have an ancient, connected context… it is. The belief of the Egyptian today must be present in the inscriptions of his ancient ancestors. It is certain and conclusive that the belief of man in Misr must be recorded in the writings of his ancient ancestors. The extension of the belief and language of man in Misr today must have come from the inscriptions of his ancestors.
Now……..let us forget time and history books, abandon the story of religions, and get out of the imaginary time…and get out of the world of books, and try to integrate with the current reality and not separate from it, and think about the reality of Misr and… Logically and scientifically:
In Misr, there are people with two religions…two beliefs.
Two religions: Islam and Christianity
The people of Misr hold two religious texts…the Holy Qur’an and the Old Testament, and the two books are written in two different languages, namely Arabic and Jabeti…but they talk about almost the same issues and topics to a large extent.
And from a look at reality……. the two religions seem to be made up of one component… but what is illogical… is the existence of two different languages for the texts of two religions from one Allah and dealing with almost the same topic.
Meaning
We have two books that are somewhat similar in the stories of the prophets, but they differ in style and language…and they seem to be of a single origin that came out of Misr.
If we consider the reality of Misr……. we will find in Misr three religions, not two religions… Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, because the Christian religion carries with it the same book as the Jewish religion, but in a language different from Hebrew.
The logical question is: Why did this reality in Misr require the appearance of two holy books that contain 40% sacred religious stories from prophets that are similar and in two different languages?
Illogical…..at all
Logic and pure sound reason say:
One religion out of the two must be the religion that has its extension linked to the ancient writings in Misr and is the original and true context of the ancients……… and the language of the book of this religion must be the language of the writings of ancient Misr… …. That is, the inscriptions of Misr will not come from one of the two languages, either Arabic or Greek or Jethbetic.
Is there a humanitarian, cognitive and scientific text that speaks about this reality?
If we search…we will find that the Qur’an is a religious text, but it talks about this reality and gives it its true names very clearly.
He follows
.
.
.
.