The cover art looks exactly the same, but the bar codes are different.
I looked up the barcodes and both still look like the same item.
Is there any significant difference between the two games?
The one on the left is a sealed copy. The one on the right is a pre-owned copy.
Front covers
Back covers
Links to UPC lookups:
https://www.barcodelookup.com/811949034120
https://www.barcodelookup.com/811949031631

Hello Everyone,
I was at a Co worker home helping set up a new Tv and he asked me to check out his theather room and he mention his had to replace his subwoofer , Well we put a movie and it sound good of course to my ear because i dont have a theather but but then he mention on this a certain part of the movie the old sub would shake the floor and sound deep, but the new ones dont have the same outcome. I check the wiring and the volts and everything seem to be hook up good but then again I am no expert. When i was checking his cables i saw that the Hardon and Kardon AVR147 and Mfct date was 2006 which to me its seem outdated my only though its that that might be the problem. Here are some pictures. ( subwoofer are PS1400, PT 800) JBL brand.
Anyways any thoughs , Or advice let me know.
Thanks
https://preview.redd.it/gef7vgu4kvyc1.jpg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=637324993e7716e704c3b06ed19d62ae8c5f9b3d

Of Egyptology, methods and madness. This is a response to the misuse of Egyptology in the video “The Qur’an and the Secrets of Egypt”.
​

1. The sky and the earth weeps for you

The first claim of the video is that the Quran in 44:29 “quotes a pyramid text directly” with the phrase “the sky and the earth weeps for you” of a pyramid text, presumably revealing knowledge of ancient Egypt, that shouldn’t have been available.
​
There are, however, a number of problems. It’s worth noting that, there is, to my knowledge, no such pyramid text, in which heaven and earth weep for a deceased Pharaoh, nor is any reference provided. Presumably, the text in question is the below pyramid text:
​
​
https://preview.redd.it/78d0aptdgtyc1.png?width=372&format=png&auto=webp&s=79ae522ffbbf4129b69834a6da3f52323fc2382d
​
In this text, which singles out the Pharaoh specifically (representative of the divine?), the phrase “heaven and earth wept” isn’t found, but only “the sky weeps”.
The Quranic text, in contrast, doesn’t single out Pharaoh; rather, according to the video, it refers to “Pharaoh and his supporters” (the Egyptian army? Cf. Ex. 14:28; 15:4) that neither the heaven nor the earth wept for.
​
In a further methodological note, I’d argue that in order to argue for knowledge that couldn’t otherwise have been known, one must eliminate all other alternatives that rely on fewer and less miraculous assumptions. Thus if such a feat could also have been accomplished by a human author, around this time, then, on a methodological level, it refutes the assertion that it can be explained only by recourse to supernaturally revealed knowledge.
A similar phrase is found in a rabbinic text, Lamentations Rabbah 1:23, usually dated to the 5th or sixth century (e.g., The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, p. 409), which reads “she [the daughter of Zion] weeps and makes heaven and earth weep with her”.
​
​
https://preview.redd.it/zb5kqb20htyc1.png?width=627&format=png&auto=webp&s=774d84eed9e6522e621f256058bba0cea294f351
​
https://preview.redd.it/n63j5qw0htyc1.png?width=1004&format=png&auto=webp&s=fe8ce7e9ef0a5e1877b74d9e99eea5eb5ebfae3f
Rather, it’s methodologically much more reasonable to conclude that such an expression was available and thus no reason to posit knowledge of ancient Egyptian texts, or, as implied by the title, that the Qur’an knows of long lost “Secrets of Ancient Egypt”.
​
As for the pyramid texts themselves, the utterance 553 is one of the longest of the pyramid inscriptions. Interestingly for the claim, it did not end up incorporated into the coffin texts of the middle kingdom and book of the dead of the new kingdom. Some of the pyramid utterances did in fact get written into those corpus and were thus used until Christianity took over. Interestingly, of the texts found in pyramids, inscription 553 containing the sky crying is only found in the pyramids of Pepi I and II.

Source "On the east w d of Pepi I's 'waiüng' room, Utt. 553 1353-1369, a resurrection text found only in this pyramid narrates the process by whidi the deceased king rises from his supine state and begins the journey to the sky"

​
We do find some instances from the pyramid corpus in later tombs but I have not been able to find any instance of the 'sky cried' (utterance 553) in any of them. I have also not been able to find any instance in the era of Rameses II (people have a hardon for him as Moses' Pharaoh). Although, given what I said before, that actually doesn’t matters regardless. But for something that is supposed to be a ubiquitous idea it is strange that such an idea is almost completely absent for 3000 years of Egyptian history? On the contrary, it seems like 'the sky wept' was simply a small moment of poetic inflection for a sparsely used piece of writing and not some core of Egyptian belief.
​
Another text that may be pointed to is this:

"Countries and regions weep for thee, the zones weep for thee as if thou wert Sesheta, heaven and earth weep for thee, inasmuch as thou art greater than the gods, may there be no cessation of the glorifying of thy Ka "

(which can be found here: http://attalus.org/egypt/isis_nephthys.html; bold emphsis mine)
​
The problem is that we're dealing with a hymn addressed to a deity (Osiris). So, based on this text, the weeping of earth/sky wasn't supposed to be for Egyptian people in general, unlike what the Quran may suggest. Also, the text was written around the 4th century BC, so the original hymn's composition probably postdates the proposed epoch of the Exodus (13th century).

2. Using a word correctly (?)

As a whole I just don't get how this is even arguably a miracle. But hey I love dealing with batshit crazy claims.
​
The claim used by these apologists is that the word “Pharaoh” as found in the Bible, is misrepresentative of the actual term used at the time, which they claim was simply king. Then, they will resort to the Qur'ān, which instead uses the term “king” (Malik ﻣَﻠِﻚ) to assert that the Bible was wrong on this issue, while the Qur'ān miraculously preserved the correct terminology. Historians believe that the word Pharaoh is a compound of the words Ra (the sun or the sun-god) with the article Phe (the) the produces Phera which means "the sun" or "the sun god" according to this, the king of Egypt was believed to be the earthly representatives of the deities and the title Phera (sun god) gave the king royal authority that was directly derived from the gods.
​
The historian J. Gardner stated in his book, The Ancient Egyptians, that it is possible that the kings of Egypt had this title before the new kingdom. Showing that Exodus 6:11-13 could be doing prolepsis (which is a figure of speech that assigns an event or name to a time that precedes it), where it is told that the Prophet Moses called the Pharaoh the king of Egypt. The Biblical use of Pharaoh reflects the connotative usage of the term. That is why the kings were called under such a title.
​
The most likely Pharaoh of the Exodus would be Rameses II (with some minor debate, it may have been Thutmose III or Amenhotep II, but this is a different discussion) this is for a variety of reasons. For starters, Seder Alam dates the Patriarch Joseph to the 1400s BC, we know Seder Olam's calculations are correct for it places the Exodus in the 1200s BC, and academics handwaved it until they discovered that Ramesses II lived in the 1200s and that Genesis 47:11, etc. mention Ramesses II. So the term Pharoah was being used in the new kingdom, and Joseph was from the middle. But that was not where people are wrong, Joseph was actually during the start of the new kingdom when the term was being used. There are a few reasons for this: first, if we suppose Moses lived during the time of Ramesses II, then that means that whether the time between Moses and Joseph is 215 years or 400 years, Joseph would still have died when the New Kingdom started, also the Jewish chronology places him to be at the start of the New Kingdom despite this, which started at 1570 BC, Ramesses II died at 1213 BC; so the Patriarch Joseph would most likely have lived during the time of the beginning of the New Kingdom, when the term Pharoah was being used.
​
It should also be noted that the word “Pharaoh” (Par‘ōh פַּרְעֹ֑ה) in Hebrew, by definition referred to the kings of Egypt, so even if the title of Pharaoh was not used at the time of the writing of the Torah (which I have demonstrated being extremely unlikely), Biblical authors would in no means be in error by using this verb. This is likewise the word's definition in English.
​

• See this post by someone else as well.

3. The Size of the Exodus

This is just ignorance of the Biblical scholarship on the issue.

• On Page 160, of, Mitchel Modine's, Numbers; A Pastoral and Contextual Commentary it states:

"...the final numbers betray a significant discrepancy, lending credence to the earlier suggestion that these numbers are most likely idealised."

• Realistic Estimates put the Exodus at between 15,000 and 30,000 people.
• Mendenhall (1958) estimated around 20,000, as an example.

These are consistent with statements made in Deuteronomy 7 that the Israelites were the "fewest of all peoples". Unknowingly, the Quran is the same as the Bible on this term. There is no "correction".
​

4. Capital Punishments

A further claim of the video concerns “capital punishments” and that the Quran, in using the term “crucifixion” in an ancient Egyptian setting, reveals knowledge of ancient Egypt, from about 06:31. Crucifixion, in the Quran is used in an ancient Egyptian setting in connection with both Joseph (Q12:41) and Moses (e.g., 7:124) The argument seems to be, that in antiquity the term “crucifixion” designated variously “crucifixion, impalement, suspension” and so the Quranic term (Arabic صلب/ṣlb) fits “impalement”, as such a punishment is known from in ancient Egypt.
​
First, it might be worth pointing out that the Quranic punishments of being “crucified” as well as having “hands and feet cut off from opposite sides” were known and could also be applied in Muhammad’s time as Q 5:33 indicates.
However, a number of important issues of historical linguistics are omitted from the discussion. For example, a careful reading of Chapman’s book reveals that as a term for “penal suspension” the root צלב / ṣlb (=Arabic صلب) in the Semitic languages is never actually securely attested with the meaning of “impalement” in antiquity, as it’s envisaged in the video. This is further corroborated when the examples cited by Chapman from the dictionaries are carefully analyzed.
​

• That is, none of these examples obviously refer to impalement nor are any clearly distinguished as such by the context or language.
• Moreover, from Chapman’s book as well as examination of other data, it’s clear that ṣlb as a term for “penal suspension” in the Semitic languages itself isn’t securely attested before the common era and that its etymology is obscure.

Apart from a lack of argument that the Quranic usage specifically represents the kind of impalement envisioned and aside from the argument’s obvious circularity, the methodology and argument as actually presented is, in my opinion, rather hard to follow:

• If the Quran, uses the term “crucifixion” no differently and within the same range of meanings for “penal suspension” as otherwise used in antiquity, that is, when the Quran was written down, how does this prove the Quran had special knowledge of “secrets” of ancient Egypt?

​

5-6 Pharoah's Identity and Rameses II.

The majority of this section is just appropriating the Quran to find out the identity of the Pharoah. In other words, its apologetic nonsense.

• See my post here on why it is physically impossible for the Quranic Pharoah of Moses to be Rameses II.

7. Pharoah's Body

The Quran mentions nothing about mummy preservation or even Fir’awns identity. That is just a post hoc interpretation. It just says that his body will be used as a sign for those who inherit from him. The Quran actually says that the children of Israel are the one who succeeded from him (26:57-59, 44:24-28) and so that is who the reference is geared at.
​
So essentially, the children of Israel will see him after he’s drowned as a sign of gods power.
This incident is actually mentioned in the Bible: Exodus 14:30-31;

That day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. And when the Israelites saw the mighty hand of the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant

Extra fun, read Ibn Kathir and it’s pretty much saying the same thing. For starters though, Rameses II wasn't drowned. He had salt on his body as the majority of Pharoahs had their body preserved using Natron salt. Rameses II was buried in the Valley of Kings, no drowning.
​

8. The 10 Plagues

There's no historical evidence of them happening, so that isn't my problem.
​

9. The Sale of Joseph

This claim, from about 21:00, is that the Quran in 12:20, in discussing the sale of Joseph with “Dirhams counted” ( دَرَاهِمَ مَعْدُودَةٍ), exhibits knowledge of ancient Egypt, that could otherwise not have been known.
​
Apparently, because Dirham denotes both “a unit of silver coinage or weight” and ancient Egypt had weight units that could be used for silver (specifically sh’ty are mentioned), the Quran exhibits miraculous historical knowledge of ancient Egypt.
​
As with the previous claim of “crucifixion” the argument and methodology here is very hard to follow. Again, a number of important points of historical linguistics are omitted. Dirham”, used in Q 12:20 (plural), is ultimately derived from Greek Drachma.
​
​
https://preview.redd.it/ml4dk95rptyc1.png?width=397&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6c3ff8ba9f164b10a44365cf74e7d3caef9f218
https://preview.redd.it/2312z9xrptyc1.png?width=1004&format=png&auto=webp&s=8910ad9183df1b1af0669868f1ce098369777e96
The earliest attestation of Drachma as a monetary term, comes from the 5th century BCE Gortyn Law code, more than a millennium later than when Joseph lived according to the video.
​
https://preview.redd.it/9rahkokuptyc1.png?width=545&format=png&auto=webp&s=e101c9a3daeab9cbfdddf6134d3c13e77163b76f
https://preview.redd.it/jq39xxovptyc1.png?width=511&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3c47695ac602accfb861da7d62b89e15722a732

• As Greek coinage is thought to have been developed a little earlier, it’s likely that it existed as a monetary term at an earlier date in the first millennium BCE. Beyond that, however, there is, to my knowledge no evidence.
• Thus, as it appears in Q 12:20, the term is derived from Greek and was widely in use in antiquity both before Islam and throughout the Islamic periods, as pointed out by two different entries in the Encyclopedia of the Quran.
• The Quranic usage suggests simply a literary expression of an insignificant amount (cf. the hapax الزاهدين ) no fineness or weight indicated and with regards to the monetary situation generally reflects the 7th century Hijaz.

​
https://preview.redd.it/e5m5ia39qtyc1.png?width=466&format=png&auto=webp&s=e1b6b2582b7f8ae5f794792ed6f5dde26dd94217
https://preview.redd.it/2ucebzy9qtyc1.png?width=1440&format=png&auto=webp&s=d39ee92841f76af7c1c4d5033790bf279fdab541
https://preview.redd.it/ljsjz6saqtyc1.png?width=1002&format=png&auto=webp&s=4069b1966683345236927804b15e1d6a6d43b8bd
It’s difficult to see any distinctive connection to ancient Egyptian standards, use of ancient Egyptian terminology, or any other departure from usage, one might expect in late antiquity, that might serve as evidence of Quranic knowledge of ancient Egypt. Thus, if the gist of Q 12:20 is simply an expression of low value whether coins or silver to be weighed and the Quran uses the term “dirhams” as otherwise known in its late antique milieu...

• How does this, in any way, demonstrate that the Quran miraculously reveals secrets about ancient Egypt?

​

10. Haman

Haman = High Priest of Amun?
​
The idea looks seductive at first glance. Those high priests not only were specialized in constructions but also had important political power... just like Haman! And the name Amun (amana in Ancient Egyptian) sounds pretty close to Haman. Neat! Where's the problem?

1. Nowhere does the Quran indicate that "Haman" is supposed to be a title rather than a name. Nor does it even indicate this wicked character was named after a deity. Also, despite the presence of the name "Amun" in the Biblical descriptions of Egypt (as "No-Amon", a reference to the city of Thebes), the Quran does not connect it to Haman's name.

2) The narrator's evidence for Haman's priesthood is based on an assumptive interpretation of the passage where Pharaoh wants to see Moses' God and orders Haman to build a tower. Indeed, nothing indicates in the Quran that Pharaoh's ascension to the sky (a) was supposed to be spiritual and post-mortem rather than physical; (b) reflects a traditional Egyptian belief, rather than the fantasy/delusion of a specific pharaoh.
​
However, the desire of ascension can be easily understood as a Biblical topos. Indeed, the connection between the sky and the divine also existed in the Middle East, and Judeo-Christian texts and traditions have used this desire as a depiction of arrogance (Tower of Babel, the unamed king in Isaiah 14,...). Even assuming the Quran were aware of a post-mortem ascension for Pharaoh, why should this make Haman a priest to the Quran's author? For all we know, the latter may just as well have thought that Haman, as a builder, had consulted priests to ensure his buildings would be suitable to Egyptian rituals, without being a priest himself.
​
Of all the roles performed by Haman (military leader, chief of construction,...), why does the Quran omit to specify the one which is arguably the most prominent and hardest to guess (ie, his religious function, his priesthood) ?! This omission is all the more strange as his priesthood would also have been a useful detail for the admonishing dimension of Moses' narrative : given that high priests were believed to give oracles from the gods, it would emphasize Haman's role as a dangerously misguiding and pseudo-prophetic figure.
​
3) The character of Haman doesn't come out of the blue. We can find a possible source of inspiration in the Bible: namely, the Haman from the Book of Esther. Their names are identical, they both have political functions (vizir under Xerxes/a high-ranked official -possibly a vizir- under Pharaoh), both are responsible for the construction of a high structure (50 cubit high gallows/ high building) and both are hostile to Jews/Israelites (the Biblical Haman planned to exterminate Jews in Persia and had Amalekite ancestry, the Amalekites being the archetypal enemies of Hebrews in the Bible). So, from a literary perspective, it's not hard to see why this character would have been transposed into Egypt as Pharaoh's assistant and Moses' opponent; and it wouldn't be the first time the Quran modifies a Biblical passage.
​
So, in addition to similarities, we also have a credible motive for a Biblical inspiration. As such, why should we believe that the Quranic Haman is based on a High Priest of Amun rather than a re-purposed Biblical figure?
​
As for Haman, the word that is being described is not ham but hem. That part is being deliberately misrepresented to try and fudge the data. And in full the title that he had was ḥm nṯr tpj n jmn, not even ḥm jmn let alone ḥ jmn. And in none of the documents that I've seen has he ever been referred to as ḥm jmn. So there are some massive linguistic issues to try and make such an argument. But more importantly, the argument of arabization is nonsensical as the source of this story is not from the Arabs but supposedly from god.
​
It does not make sense that Allah could reveal a new story but not get the actual names and titles correct. So, this is again not a sensible argument. There are also additional points that can be made. For example, if this was a statement of servant of Amun, it is quite odd that in 28:38 Fir'awn says that he knows no god for the Egyptians but himself yet in the very same verse he would then be saying 'oh servant of amon'!!! So again we see that the argument presented is nonsense.
​

If that wasn't enough nonsense, refer to 5/6. My post very clearly eliminates any relationship of Rameses II and Bakenkhonsu.

I love wacky apologetic claims, although I find issues when there is literal misinformation.

Haas v Verstappen with an old hardon