Who's talking here?
-
I don't know arabic so I can't tell you, but it certainly can't be God speaking because of this
"We descend not but by command of thy Lord" God descends not by the command of thy lord? Huh? So we don't even need to see angels in the Arabic to know that this isn't Allah taking. So the translators probably filled in Angels for perhaps some larger understanding of the context
-
Totally relevant. What, do you just call something you don't like irrelevant and suddenly, by default, it's irrelevant? I don't think so.
I say it's irrelevant, if it's true in the first place, because God swears by many things just once in the Quran.
so i still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. it just simply isn't there.
It does not matter whether who says who. The fact is, God is refered in the Quran (Which was inspired by Him) as the "Lord of..." many times. Refer to 754, God talks about Himself in that verse and numerous others.
-
I say it's irrelevant, if it's true in the first place, because God swears by many things just once in the Quran.It does not matter whether who says who. The fact is, God is refered in the Quran (Which was inspired by Him) as the "Lord of..." many times. Refer to 754, God talks about Himself in that verse and numerous others.
754 Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority) He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!
Actually, 754 is a very interesting verse. I knew that Allah referred to himself as I or we, but I never knew he referred to himself as "he". Wow, this just gets crazier and crazier. This is like someone who forgot to take their multiple personality disorder meds. Seems like Muhammad gets confused about who he's supposed to be from all that I, we, he, switching around.
-
I don't know arabic so I can't tell you, but it certainly can't be God speaking because of this
"We descend not but by command of thy Lord" God descends not by the command of thy lord? Huh? So we don't even need to see angels in the Arabic to know that this isn't Allah taking. So the translators probably filled in Angels for perhaps some larger understanding of the context
You are getting closer, but still miles off. I suggest you follow the original advice and find Progod's thread, because it would have rendered this particular thread utterly redundant.
In any case, until you can come back here and highlight clearly where that verse mentions "angels" and give the evidence as requested,
DISMISSED!
-
754 Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority) He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!
Actually, 754 is a very interesting verse. I knew that Allah referred to himself as I or we, but I never knew he referred to himself as "he". Wow, this just gets crazier and crazier. This is like someone who forgot to take their multiple personality disorder meds. Seems like Muhammad gets confused about who he's supposed to be from all that I, we, he, switching around.
You are now deviating from the topic. I gave you a verse where God refers to Himself as the "Lord of the worlds". In Arabic language, "he" does not always refer to gender.
-
You are getting closer, but still miles off. I suggest you follow the original advice and find Progod's thread, because it would have rendered this particular thread utterly redundant.
Why don't you just link it as I asked before?
In any case, until you can come back here and highlight clearly where that verse mentions "angels" and give the evidence as requested,
Even without it saying angels, you have to explain this
"We descend not but by command of thy Lord"
but you continually refuse to do so. So even if it isn't the Angels talking, as the translators probably correctly assumed, it still isn't Allah talking. So you have still done absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
-
Why don't you just link it as I asked before?
Even without it saying angels, you have to explain this
"We descend not but by command of thy Lord"
but you continually refuse to do so. So even if it isn't the Angels talking, as the translators probably correctly assumed, it still isn't Allah talking. So you have still done absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
I have pointed you to the solution of the problem, which is for you to find Progod's article. )
-
Why don't you just link it as I asked before?
Salaam
Here's the link
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14531.msg132914#msg132914
And I hope you listen to this advice There are many things in the qur'aan that we cannot claim to know or grasp, such as "jinns" or even heavens and earth, simply because in real life these things are not yet finally determined, so you cannot argue against the qur'aan based on these understandings. Try to be humble and less aggressive if you really want to exchange knowledge. Otherwise, continue the antagonism and shortly you will not find anyone to debate with you. You are not the only one on this forum who does not believe that the qur'aan is not the word of God, but the others would tone down the "is not" to a "may not be", and this is the language of the intellectuals. Don't revert to the language of the ignorant.
-
Salaam
Here's the link
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14531.msg132914#msg132914
And I hope you listen to this advice
Why would you hope that? Because it would make you feel better? Make you feel more confident of your treasured ideas?
There are many things in the qur'aan that we cannot claim to know or grasp, such as "jinns" or even heavens and earth, simply because in real life these things are not yet finally determined, so you cannot argue against the qur'aan based on these understandings. Try to be humble and less aggressive if you really want to exchange knowledge. Otherwise, continue the antagonism and shortly you will not find anyone to debate with you. You are not the only one on this forum who does not believe that the qur'aan is not the word of God, but the others would tone down the "is not" to a "may not be", and this is the language of the intellectuals. Don't revert to the language of the ignorant.
What this tells me, is that you are more interested in your personal feelings than the truth. Otherwise, this would be irrelevant. Have you seen how many people try to insult me, and laugh at me? Go look. But if you'll notice, it makes absolutely no difference to me. The point is the point is the point is the point. I do not let personal, emotional rants distract me because they cloud thought. Are you being clouded?
-
Salaam
Here's the link
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14531.msg132914#msg132914
This doesn't answer the point as far as I could tell.It just explains we as majestic plural. I already knew that, but in the case of the verse I'm talking about in this thread, it is not majestic plural. Just to be perfectly clear, I am isolating this particular verse because I don't think it fits the majestic plural pattern like the other ones might. So do you see what I am saying now? If that thread you linked addressed the exact verse I'm talking about, then please point it out to me as I didn't see it. Thank you.
-
This doesn't answer the point as far as I could tell.It just explains we as majestic plural. I already knew that, but in the case of the verse I'm talking about in this thread, it is not majestic plural. Just to be perfectly clear, I am isolating this particular verse because I don't think it fits the majestic plural pattern like the other ones might. So do you see what I am saying now? If that thread you linked addressed the exact verse I'm talking about, then please point it out to me as I didn't see it. Thank you.
I already addressed this verse to you. You either deliberately ignore it or do not want to get it.
-
I was answering about the link provided, not answering you. And writing creative but implausible ideas is not my idea of addressing something.
You should not continue arguing when your argument has already been addressed. You seem to argue for the sake of it. I answered your argument and you have not replied back.
-
Pretty funny that on a thread about "who's talking here", you don't know who I'm talking to. How ironic. ;D ;D
See above.