Cutting Cow's Ear/discussion

EdQ

Salam Janet,

Thanks for your response on the issue of CUTTING THE CATTLE?S EAR which I understand you have translated as PLUCKING OUT CELLS WITH DNA (or LIFE GIVING CELLS with INFORMATION).

I have to say, I didn't have so much time but I really enjoyed the exercise of using Quranic and root word dictionaries and checking the context of the words that you have translated. For this I should thank you because this is the reason I joined Free Minds and the reason why I am trying to learn Arabic.

I have not quoted your passages as the overall post would have become too long. I don't mean to offend but if at times it seems I have been careless in my writing, please forgive.

(41195) dhna ? EARS or INFORMATION?

I understand that the work you are translating to INFORMATION is the Triliteral root hamza dhl nn - .

DEFINITION
he gave ear or listened to it, being pleased, grant leave, to allow, permit/ordered, be informed, advised, notification/announcement/proclamation, ear, appetite/longing/yearning.

I understand INFORMATION has been based on the understanding of the fact that the root word which is used for EAR equates = ear/listening/announcement/permission

or as is referenced he gave an announcement/advertising/listening/ear/listening/permission

or
?I made him to know, or have knowledge; informed, apprized, advertised, or advised, him; gave him information, intelligence, notice, or advice and I made it known, notified it, or announced it?

Another example from you
?If you look at the meaning of "adhan" you can see that "knowledge/ be informed/ intelligence" means that there is information?

QUESTION Do we both agree that one meaning can be the word EAR?

I can see how one could extrapolate this to ?INFORM SOMEONE? or ?GIVING EAR? or ?INFORMATION GIVING? but does it follow that what is being referred to is DNA or another kind of CELLULAR INFORMATION.

My understanding

EAR fits but if I follow your reasoning, then EAR receives information and so for you the root word is not EAR but ?GIVING INFORMATION? or indeed ?INFORMATION?

(41196) l-anmi ? THE CATTLE

I understand that you translate the root Arabic word (Triliteral root nn ayn mm - &#1605 into ?LIFE GIVING? based on the fact that the root word has meanings such as

o lead an easy life, enjoy the comforts and conveniences of life, be joyful, comforts/delights, become easy/soft/plentiful/pleasant/good/flourishing, to knead/cook well. in'aam - beneficence, favour to a person, blessing, gifted (with speech/talent/reason etc)

However, if one assumes that LIFE-GIVING is an accurate and acceptable translation, then can one use LIFE-GIVING to mean a CELL?

If so, not all CELLS are life giving (There are cells known as Killer Cells) ? embryonic cells and pluripotent embryonic stem cells are life giving.

So CELL would not really fit LIFE-GIVING ? indeed one could also translate LIFE-GIVING into DNA ? after all one could argue that without DNA, there is really no life and no reproduction.

Does l-anmi mean cattle or CELLS?

Below the same Arabic word occurs in just a few random verses that I selected out of many.
They are taken from the www.IslamAwakened.com site.

Can we translate l-anmi as Cells in all these verses?

As to translating the same Arabic word into different English meanings based on ones understanding of contest, this does not seem logical to me. Note herein, that logic is actually subjective even if science tells us logic is 1's and 0's. Case in point - how all forms of Artificial Intelligence become racist or have other issues.

If we rely on perceived context then each person could translate a different version of each verse and there would be hundreds if not thousands of versions of the Quran.

And remember one person?s perceived context is different from the perceived context of other people ? for the very same word .

3528 - And among men and moving creatures and the cattle OR CELLS? (are) various colors likewise. Only fear Allah among His slaves those who have knowledge. Indeed, Allah (is) All-Mighty, Oft-Forgiving.

314 - Beautified for mankind (is) love (of) the (things they) desire - of women and sons and heaps stored up of gold and silver, and horses branded, and cattle and tilled land. That (is) provision (of) life (of) the world but Allah - with Him (is an) excellent abode to return.

4119 - "And I will surely mislead them and surely arouse desires in them, and surely I will order them so they will surely cut off (the) ears (of) the cattle and surely I will order them so they will surely change (the) creation (of) Allah." And whoever takes the Shaitaan (as) a friend besides Allah, then surely he (has) lost - a loss manifest.

51 - O you who believe! Fulfil the contracts. Are made lawful for you the quadruped (of) the grazing livestock except what is recited on you, not being permitted (to) hunt while you (are in) Ihram. Indeed, Allah decrees what He wills.

6136 - And they assign to Allah out of what He produced of the crops and the cattle a share and they say, "This (is) for Allah," by their claim, "And this (is) for our partners." But what is for their partners (does) not reach Allah, while what is for Allah then it reaches their partners. Evil (is) what they judge.

The problem with using ?CELLS? in the following Verse

If we replace cattle in the above verse with CELLS, one could refer to anything being pairs of 8 ? to randomly select an 16 cell stage from a 2 cell or a 4 cell or an 8 cell or a 16 cell or a 32 cell or a 64 cell stage appears random at best. Further more the verse states HE MULTIPLES YOU THEREBY ? firstly HE doubles the cells, but if one wants to use Multiplies, that is fine, but, the cells are doubled not from the 16 cell stage but from the initial fertilized egg.

SYNTHETIC DNA Vs. DNA taken from an organism (a Moot point)

One could think of the DNA in one person as that person?s genome (content of DNA). Lets call the genome a book ? one with different chapters, verses, sentences, words, letters.
If you take a chapter out, you are plucking out.
If you take a verse out, you are still plucking out.
If you take a sentence out it is very likely you are still plucking out.
If you take a word out one cannot argue that it is being plucked out if it occurs in millions of other books (or genomes or genes).
If you take letter out again one cannot argue that it is being plucked out as letters occur in every book.
So If you use a unique set of letter to make a new word ? that is the equivalent of chemical synthesis ? if you reproduce a book (or chemically synthesize a genome or gene) that would be taking the information out of that book, genome or gene.

MY PERSONAL CONCLUSION

To me, currently EAR makes more sense than information.
I personally feel that using LIFE-GIVING to mean CELLS seems a push.

The meaning of the verse at the start of the thread To tell you the truth, I just saw one perspective and I know that ears are indeed cut of genetically modified livestock to change God's Creation.

Whether this is the meaning of the verse is a push - we are only discussing perceived meanings. The reality is that humans are changing all of God's Creation because Satan tells us. Ie humans are following Satan and not God.

Incidentally I disagree with GMO and genetic engineering completely. It is being used in plants and animals - and as we know plants don't have ears as such. So the meaning of that verse could be something else.

Sorry, but its lunch time now so I will stop typing and hope I have not made spelling or grammar mistakes - at least too badly.

Salam
Ed

EdQ

I did a search on google for "Cutting the Cattles Ear" and came across the following link

http//www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_101.html

I am not saying this is definitive as even my take on the verse is speculative - however, the link cites a number of articles where tissue sections from the ear of animals is taken.

It could be of interest.

Salam
Ed

janet

Peace Janet, agree 396 is about genetics although not sixteen rather eight total in a group see example.

396 creation yours from soul single furthermore made from her/it spouse hers/its and descends for you from l-anmi/the animals (embryonic stem cells?) octet spouses (i.e. 4 x 2 pairs) created you in interior body mothers yours ...

6143 octet spouses (i.e. 4 x 2 pairs)
from the sheep twosome and from the goat twosome

https//encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcQfcgBlN_Cx-LhueswxAWJZ_Il3oHSl1bLJ_YZtQPEN4rtKWd-PJg
https//encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcT1uqsvTqttkQP328IFPvKpuyoU-SPcHlh0K4FRtAyDvgsqq9BwLQ

6144 and from the camel twosome and from the cow twosome

https//encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcRGbTW5nUtkndKIbgq-_LCxe12oDo7cVlzi3mH226vrwLf94avn
https//encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnANd9GcS0Yx5Inj6nz64cxz_5JJa4NFOOdRZkEdwiNjJGSxzRWeZsOrCt

Whole process from spec (chemical code) to human is amazing!

https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PX5UBuvk_w&t=26s

Salaam Noon,

Thank you for pointing out the eight in pairs versus eight pairs. It led me to this.

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-cell_stage

Regards,
Janet

janet

Salaam Ed,

QUESTION Do we both agree that one meaning can be the word EAR?

Yes we agree that one of the meanings of "adhan" is "ear"

I can see how one could extrapolate this to ?INFORM SOMEONE? or ?GIVING EAR? or ?INFORMATION GIVING? but does it follow that what is being referred to is DNA or another kind of CELLULAR INFORMATION.

My understanding

EAR fits but if I follow your reasoning, then EAR receives information and so for you the root word is not EAR but ?GIVING INFORMATION? or indeed ?INFORMATION?

Whatever information contained within the cell is what is being extracted from the cell. All cells contain the hereditary information needed to control cell functions and also for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.This means that genetic information is being extracted for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information.

I am not using the word "adhan to mean "ears" in this ayat in any form, I am using the word "adhan" to mean "information"only.

(41196) l-anmi ? THE CATTLE

I understand that you translate the root Arabic word (Triliteral root nn ayn mm - &#1605 into ?LIFE GIVING? based on the fact that the root word has meanings such as

o lead an easy life, enjoy the comforts and conveniences of life, be joyful, comforts/delights, become easy/soft/plentiful/pleasant/good/flourishing, to knead/cook well. in'aam - beneficence, favour to a person, blessing, gifted (with speech/talent/reason etc)

However, if one assumes that LIFE-GIVING is an accurate and acceptable translation, then can one use LIFE-GIVING to mean a CELL?

If so, not all CELLS are life giving (There are cells known as Killer Cells) ? embryonic cells and pluripotent embryonic stem cells are life giving.

So CELL would not really fit LIFE-GIVING ? indeed one could also translate LIFE-GIVING into DNA ? after all one could argue that without DNA, there is really no life and no reproduction.

flourishing

Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
growing vigorously; thriving; prosperous
a flourishing little business.

This fits in with the description of "cell".

The cell (from Latin cella, meaning "small room") is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms. A cell is the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, and cells are often called the "building blocks of life". The study of cells is called cell biology.

Even killer cells need to "flourish" or "thrive" in order to perform their specific function.

As to translating the same Arabic word into different English meanings based on ones understanding of contest, this does not seem logical to me. Note herein, that logic is actually subjective even if science tells us logic is 1's and 0's. Case in point - how all forms of Artificial Intelligence become racist or have other issues.

If we rely on perceived context then each person could translate a different version of each verse and there would be hundreds if not thousands of versions of the Quran.

And remember one person?s perceived context is different from the perceived context of other people ? for the very same word .

Translation of the same Arabic word into different English meanings based on the context is not illogical since the meanings are not random. They actually appear as the multiple meanings of that specific Arabic word in many Arabic dictionaries and in the Quran itself. In fact it seems illogical to force a translation of a word in any ayat because of rigid one meaning alone translation even though it doesn't make sense. Please look at the following link and it should help clarify this point.

http//www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=198

Does l-anmi mean cattle or CELLS?

Below the same Arabic word occurs in just a few random verses that I selected out of many.
They are taken from the www.IslamAwakened.com site.

Can we translate l-anmi as Cells in all these verses?

3528 - And among men and moving creatures and the cattle OR CELLS? (are) various colors likewise. Only fear Allah among His slaves those who have knowledge. Indeed, Allah (is) All-Mighty, Oft-Forgiving.

314 - Beautified for mankind (is) love (of) the (things they) desire - of women and sons and heaps stored up of gold and silver, and horses branded, and cattle and tilled land. That (is) provision (of) life (of) the world but Allah - with Him (is an) excellent abode to return.

4119 - "And I will surely mislead them and surely arouse desires in them, and surely I will order them so they will surely cut off (the) ears (of) the cattle and surely I will order them so they will surely change (the) creation (of) Allah." And whoever takes the Shaitaan (as) a friend besides Allah, then surely he (has) lost - a loss manifest.

51 - O you who believe! Fulfil the contracts. Are made lawful for you the quadruped (of) the grazing livestock except what is recited on you, not being permitted (to) hunt while you (are in) Ihram. Indeed, Allah decrees what He wills.

6136 - And they assign to Allah out of what He produced of the crops and the cattle a share and they say, "This (is) for Allah," by their claim, "And this (is) for our partners." But what is for their partners (does) not reach Allah, while what is for Allah then it reaches their partners. Evil (is) what they judge.

The problem with using ?CELLS? in the following Verse

If we replace cattle in the above verse with CELLS, one could refer to anything being pairs of 8 ? to randomly select an 16 cell stage from a 2 cell or a 4 cell or an 8 cell or a 16 cell or a 32 cell or a 64 cell stage appears random at best. Further more the verse states HE MULTIPLES YOU THEREBY ? firstly HE doubles the cells, but if one wants to use Multiplies, that is fine, but, the cells are doubled not from the 16 cell stage but from the initial fertilized egg.

There is no problem with you translating "al an'aam" as "cattle" in the ayats you have posted with the exception of 4119. I will add two more ayats to that exception.

These three ayats are not referring to cattle at all. All of them are referring to creation and multiplying.

The problem with using ?CELLS? in the following Verse

If we replace cattle in the above verse with CELLS, one could refer to anything being pairs of 8 ? to randomly select an 16 cell stage from a 2 cell or a 4 cell or an 8 cell or a 16 cell or a 32 cell or a 64 cell stage appears random at best. Further more the verse states HE MULTIPLES YOU THEREBY ? firstly HE doubles the cells, but if one wants to use Multiplies, that is fine, but, the cells are doubled not from the 16 cell stage but from the initial fertilized egg.

I am not referring to 4211 as being pairs of 8 or randomly selecting a 16 cell stage from a 2 cell/ 4 cell/ 16 .... stage. I used the 16 cell stage in context to 396 which very specifically refers to creation in the mother's womb.

SYNTHETIC DNA Vs. DNA taken from an organism (a Moot point)

One could think of the DNA in one person as that person?s genome (content of DNA). Lets call the genome a book ? one with different chapters, verses, sentences, words, letters.
If you take a chapter out, you are plucking out.
If you take a verse out, you are still plucking out.
If you take a sentence out it is very likely you are still plucking out.
If you take a word out one cannot argue that it is being plucked out if it occurs in millions of other books (or genomes or genes).
If you take letter out again one cannot argue that it is being plucked out as letters occur in every book.
So If you use a unique set of letter to make a new word ? that is the equivalent of chemical synthesis ? if you reproduce a book (or chemically synthesize a genome or gene) that would be taking the information out of that book, genome or gene.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but in order for synthetic DNA to be introduced into an organism the DNA needs to be fed into the cell. This would mean extraction, genetic engineering and insertion.

https//www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/23/organisms-created-with-synthetic-dna-pave-way-for-new-entirely-new-life-forms

MY PERSONAL CONCLUSION

To me, currently EAR makes more sense than information.
I personally feel that using LIFE-GIVING to mean CELLS seems a push.

The meaning of the verse at the start of the thread To tell you the truth, I just saw one perspective and I know that ears are indeed cut of genetically modified livestock to change God's Creation.

Whether this is the meaning of the verse is a push - we are only discussing perceived meanings. The reality is that humans are changing all of God's Creation because Satan tells us. Ie humans are following Satan and not God.

Incidentally I disagree with GMO and genetic engineering completely. It is being used in plants and animals - and as we know plants don't have ears as such. So the meaning of that verse could be something else.

Sorry, but its lunch time now so I will stop typing and hope I have not made spelling or grammar mistakes - at least too badly.

Salam
Ed

You are entitled to your opinion and if "ears" makes more sense to you than "information" then that is fine. If you do not think that "al an'aam" is referring to ''cells" then try translating it as "flourishing". If that does not work for you then stick with "cattle". Hope this helps.

Regards,
Janet

EdQ

Salam Janet,

I don't mean to ignore you but will come back to you - replying to your posts makes me work extra hard and spend time that I normally don't have - but I will get back to you soon God Willing.

Salam
Ed

EdQ

Salam Janet,

Thanks for your nice postings; overall I see your point but am not in agreement with it due to the reason below - but I agree that we can indeed agree to disagree.

Salaam Ed,

Yes we agree that one of the meanings of "adhan" is "ear"

Whatever information contained within the cell is what is being extracted from the cell. All cells contain the hereditary information needed to control cell functions and also for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.This means that genetic information is being extracted for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information.

But this is not how genetic modification is done - ie by extracting whatever information is contained in a cell whereas only DNA is modified in GMO. Many different kinds of information are used for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.
The genetic information for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information is actually not being extracted at all.
In fact a modified external gene can be injected into any kind of pluripotent cell and this injected gene then replaces the normal copy.
The cell that is injected actually retains the information it already had for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information.

I am not using the word "adhan to mean "ears" in this ayat in any form, I am using the word "adhan" to mean "information"only.

Do you not see that translating adhan to information and then to DNA is a bit too broad?

flourishing

Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
growing vigorously; thriving; prosperous
a flourishing little business.

This fits in with the description of "cell".

The cell (from Latin cella, meaning "small room") is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms. A cell is the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, and cells are often called the "building blocks of life". The study of cells is called cell biology.

To extrapolate Flourishing to mean a CELL does not follow. One can translate flourishing into anything one wants. Indeed the part of an animal that flourishes is the uterus if the animal is pregnant - so that could easily be one of many meanings that one could arrive at.

Even killer cells need to "flourish" or "thrive" in order to perform their specific function.

But if a killer cell function would be plucked out (as per your example), then that function would kill the other cells so you would not end up with an embryo or an animal.

Translation of the same Arabic word into different English meanings based on the context is not illogical since the meanings are not random. They actually appear as the multiple meanings of that specific Arabic word in many Arabic dictionaries and in the Quran itself. In fact it seems illogical to force a translation of a word in any ayat because of rigid one meaning alone translation even though it doesn't make sense. Please look at the following link and it should help clarify this point.

http//www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=198

I think this kind of analysis could mean that you subjective take on contexts versus meanings of translated words would give numerous versions of just one chapter in the Quran - then it would be different from someone else's take on what their subjective context was and what each word meant according to their subjective context.

For example, if you look at www.islamawakened.com - there are 36 different translations of different people - including by two Quranists and now one has translated it as you have suggested.
This is not to prove you are wrong but that different people could have their own different takes.

If one looks at the word SALAT - many people have been looking for a meaning that fits into all the verses - ie the same meaning. Indeed the version of the Hadithists is different in many verses based on the context they see - this was the reason that Quran-alone Muslims felt the need to purify the meaning of SALAT so that ONE definition could be used in all verses.

There is no problem with you translating "al an'aam" as "cattle" in the ayats you have posted with the exception of 4119. I will add two more ayats to that exception.

I am not actually the one translating to the word "cattle" - I pointed to one site which has AT LEAST 36 translations where they translated it as cow.
Not only that - their subjective take on the context of the verses has led them to use cow in all the other examples that you have quoted.

I am not referring to 4211 as being pairs of 8 or randomly selecting a 16 cell stage from a 2 cell/ 4 cell/ 16 .... stage. I used the 16 cell stage in context to 396 which very specifically refers to creation in the mother's womb.

My point is that why would you pick up randomly on a 16 cell stage - there are numerous stages of development but to pick one that correlates to ones understanding does not seem correct to me.
There is nothing really unique about the 16 cell stage is there?
Apart from perhaps, the fact that you see the 8 pairs of 2 to mean 16 - but that again is extrapolating in my view.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but in order for synthetic DNA to be introduced into an organism the DNA needs to be fed into the cell. This would mean extraction, genetic engineering and insertion.

https//www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/23/organisms-created-with-synthetic-dna-pave-way-for-new-entirely-new-life-forms

Synthetic DNA means that every single part of DNA can be chemically made in a test tube - nothing needs to be plucked out at all. Once the synthetic DNA is made in a test tube it can be used and injected into a cell. In this case one cannot say that the DNA has been plucked out because it has actually been chemically synthesized and then inserted into another cell.

You are entitled to your opinion and if "ears" makes more sense to you than "information" then that is fine. If you do not think that "al an'aam" is referring to ''cells" then try translating it as "flourishing". If that does not work for you then stick with "cattle". Hope this helps.

I am clear on this. My point is simply that we need to be careful about translations or to rush into translations. For the particular verse that we have been debating, one thing is for sure - God tells us that Men will follow satan and change God's creations - after that, the INFORMATION, DNA, GMO, GENETIC TESTING is just speculation. My own view was offered as speculation not as anything conclusive.

Regards,
Janet

janet

Salaam Ed,

Thank you for your effort. I think agreeing to disagree is a good idea.

Salam Janet,

Thanks for your nice postings; overall I see your point but am not in agreement with it due to the reason below - but I agree that we can indeed agree to disagree.

But this is not how genetic modification is done - ie by extracting whatever information is contained in a cell whereas only DNA is modified in GMO. Many different kinds of information are used for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.
The genetic information for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information is actually not being extracted at all.
In fact a modified external gene can be injected into any kind of pluripotent cell and this injected gene then replaces the normal copy.
The cell that is injected actually retains the information it already had for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information.

I am not saying genetic modification is being done by extracting whatever information is contained in a cell. I am saying whatever information is contained within a cell is what is being extracted from the cell. Whether all/some or none of the information is used is up to the scientists that have extracted it. Once the cell membrane is broken, everything it contains is accessible.
The genetic information for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information to the next generation of cells is indeed being extracted.

The way in which nitrogen bases are arranged along a DNA molecule represents a kind of genetic code for the cell in which the molecule occurs. For example, the sequence of nitrogen bases T-T-C tells a cell that it should make the amino acid known as lysine. The sequence C-C-G, on the other hand, instructs the cell to make the amino acid glycine.

A very long chain (tens of thousands of atoms long) of nitrogen bases tells a cell, therefore, what amino acids to make and in what sequence to arrange those amino acids. A very long chain of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence, however, is what we know of as a protein. The specific sequence of nitrogen bases, then, tells a cell what kind of protein it should be making.

Furthermore, the instructions stored in a DNA molecule can easily be passed on from generation to generation. When a cell divides (reproduces), the DNA within it also divides. Each DNA molecule separates into two identical parts. Each of the two parts then makes a copy of itself. Where once only one DNA molecule existed, now two identical copies of the molecule exist. That process is repeated over and over again, every time a cell divides.

http//www.scienceclarified.com/Ga-He/Genetic-Engineering.html

Once a cell divides the DNA within it will also divide. How can this process not be passing on the information/instructions contained in the cell to the next generation of cells? That does not make sense.

Do you not see that translating adhan to information and then to DNA is a bit too broad?

To extrapolate Flourishing to mean a CELL does not follow. One can translate flourishing into anything one wants. Indeed the part of an animal that flourishes is the uterus if the animal is pregnant - so that could easily be one of many meanings that one could arrive at.

I do not see that at all and I'm purely translating it to mean "information". In this case the "information" is referring to DNA.
I am not extrapolating anything. You don't seem to understand that dictionaries give the relevant meanings, not me. The meanings are not personally manufactured by me. If as a reader I choose the meaning "flourishing" versus "cattle" because it is more logical to me, then who is to say I am wrong since the meaning exists? On the other hand I find it baffling how you can translate "al an'aam" as cow/cattle.

What do you think the eight cattle has to do with embryology? Do you think God was trying to confuse us with a random mention of a specific number of cattle? This is a ridiculous translation of this ayat.

By which means is the Creator multiplying us? If the answer is by the pairing from among ourselves then why mention cattle? And if the answer to this question is the pairing of cattle is also for multiplying, then what about ocean life, plant life, animal life and other forms of life? Why specifically cattle? Again, this makes no sense.

But if a killer cell function would be plucked out (as per your example), then that function would kill the other cells so you would not end up with an embryo or an animal.

I have not given killer cells as an example, you did. I have not mentioned anything about plucking out anything from killer cells. I said that killer cells also need to flourish/thrive in order to fulfil their function.

I think this kind of analysis could mean that you subjective take on contexts versus meanings of translated words would give numerous versions of just one chapter in the Quran - then it would be different from someone else's take on what their subjective context was and what each word meant according to their subjective context.

For example, if you look at www.islamawakened.com - there are 36 different translations of different people - including by two Quranists and now one has translated it as you have suggested.
This is not to prove you are wrong but that different people could have their own different takes.

If one looks at the word SALAT - many people have been looking for a meaning that fits into all the verses - ie the same meaning. Indeed the version of the Hadithists is different in many verses based on the context they see - this was the reason that Quran-alone Muslims felt the need to purify the meaning of SALAT so that ONE definition could be used in all verses.

I do not agree with your statement of "subjective take on contexts versus meanings of translated words". The translated words do not make sense so why should one blindly follow or accept what is illogical or forced? As I have mentioned, the meanings are not random or out of context since the dictionaries list them as the correct meanings. It is a good thing that different people have different takes since their thoughts may make more sense then the illogical translations used. Also I have provided a link which shows you mistranslated words in the Quran.

I am not actually the one translating to the word "cattle" - I pointed to one site which has AT LEAST 36 translations where they translated it as cow.
Not only that - their subjective take on the context of the verses has led them to use cow in all the other examples that you have quoted.

As one can see the word "baqara" has been translated into "cows". So, which is the correct translation?

My point is that why would you pick up randomly on a 16 cell stage - there are numerous stages of development but to pick one that correlates to ones understanding does not seem correct to me.
There is nothing really unique about the 16 cell stage is there?
Apart from perhaps, the fact that you see the 8 pairs of 2 to mean 16 - but that again is extrapolating in my view.

I will try and explain this to you as clearly as I am able to for the last time.

The creation of a single soul and the creation of the counterpart from the single soul is the first statement. The next statement refers to sending down eight cattle which are in pairs ( I took this to mean sixteen cattle ). The third statement tells us that we are made in the bellies of our mothers in stages, one after another, in three darknesses/coverings. The first and third statement tie up together since it is logical that from one soul energy came another and our creation takes place inside our mothers' wombs. The second statement makes no sense at all. It only makes sense if you look at the meaning of "al an'aam" as something that "flourishes/thrives/grows vigorously". This concept is further detailed by the number eight. Like I said, at first I thought it was sixteen because of the eight pairs, but Noon pointed out that it is actually a total of eight which are paired up. This concept of pairing is exactly what cells do when they are multiplying/growing. In fact the eight cell and the sixteen cell stages are both definitive stages in embryology and are clearly described.

https//discovery.lifemapsc.com/in-vivo-development/zygote/morula/8-cell-embryo

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-cell_stage

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morula

http//www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/reprod/fert/cleavage.html

Synthetic DNA means that every single part of DNA can be chemically made in a test tube - nothing needs to be plucked out at all. Once the synthetic DNA is made in a test tube it can be used and injected into a cell. In this case one cannot say that the DNA has been plucked out because it has actually been chemically synthesized and then inserted into another cell.

Do you not think that scientists had to extract the information from cells in order to study/understand it? How else were they able to produce synthetic DNA? Where did they get the knowledge from to be able to do this? They had to have the original version which was used as the blueprint and subsequently they were able to copy the information and create a synthetic form based on the original. The original had to be extracted in the first place and broken apart and then examined in order to be synthetically replicated or altered. Please keep in mind all synthetic DNA has been produced based on the knowledge contained within non synthetic DNA which came first. Synthetic DNA came as a result of this. So, it is safe to say that "plucking out" was taking place at one point.

I am clear on this. My point is simply that we need to be careful about translations or to rush into translations. For the particular verse that we have been debating, one thing is for sure - God tells us that Men will follow satan and change God's creations - after that, the INFORMATION, DNA, GMO, GENETIC TESTING is just speculation. My own view was offered as speculation not as anything conclusive.

I think we need to be careful about the current translations because they are weak at the best of times. It is the responsibility of each individual to try and make sense of what they read in the Quran and not blindly follow illogical translations. It is irrelevant whether one is alone in this or there are others that share the same point of view. The Quran is like a puzzle, one has to try to make the pieces fit. If they are not fitting there is an error somewhere. This is my point of view and you are free to disagree with it.

Regards,
Janet

EdQ

Salam Janet,

Today I have more time on my hands.

Salaam Ed,

Thank you for your effort. I think agreeing to disagree is a good idea.

I am not saying genetic modification is being done by extracting whatever information is contained in a cell. I am saying whatever information is contained within a cell is what is being extracted from the cell. Whether all/some or none of the information is used is up to the scientists that have extracted it. Once the cell membrane is broken, everything it contains is accessible.
The genetic information for controlling cell functions and/or transmitting information to the next generation of cells is indeed being extracted.

Thanks also for you effort

Sure but in a typical genetic engineering experiment, one does NOT burst any cell membranes at all.
Let me say, I have done genetic modification in a last life, and all I did was to inject the modified gene into the nucleus to get gene insertion and get external human gene to be turned on in non-human cells - I am not proud of this but was not a Muslim and very young at the time.

The way in which nitrogen bases are arranged along a DNA molecule represents a kind of genetic code for the cell in which the molecule occurs. For example, the sequence of nitrogen bases T-T-C tells a cell that it should make the amino acid known as lysine. The sequence C-C-G, on the other hand, instructs the cell to make the amino acid glycine.

A very long chain (tens of thousands of atoms long) of nitrogen bases tells a cell, therefore, what amino acids to make and in what sequence to arrange those amino acids. A very long chain of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence, however, is what we know of as a protein. The specific sequence of nitrogen bases, then, tells a cell what kind of protein it should be making.

Furthermore, the instructions stored in a DNA molecule can easily be passed on from generation to generation. When a cell divides (reproduces), the DNA within it also divides. Each DNA molecule separates into two identical parts. Each of the two parts then makes a copy of itself. Where once only one DNA molecule existed, now two identical copies of the molecule exist. That process is repeated over and over again, every time a cell divides.

http//www.scienceclarified.com/Ga-He/Genetic-Engineering.html

Scientists cover this information in basic courses in a first degree. It does not change our debate though.

Once a cell divides the DNA within it will also divide. How can this process not be passing on the information/instructions contained in the cell to the next generation of cells? That does not make sense.

I do not understand the point being made here and if the implication is that I have contradicted the scientific fact that cells divide?

The fact a cell divides is basic biology - what I am trying to say to you here is that there is no need to extract any information from a cell. If someone at some point in history has done this then it is not correct to refer to this and link it in one verse. It is not done in a GMO experiment.

I do not see that at all and I'm purely translating it to mean "information". In this case the "information" is referring to DNA.
I am not extrapolating anything. You don't seem to understand that dictionaries give the relevant meanings, not me. The meanings are not personally manufactured by me. If as a reader I choose the meaning "flourishing" versus "cattle" because it is more logical to me, then who is to say I am wrong since the meaning exists? On the other hand I find it baffling how you can translate "al an'aam" as cow/cattle.

You mentioned above that ALL the contents of a cell are INFORMATION - yet you have chosen to select only the DNA as information? Not the proteins, Not the Lectins, not the Mitochondria etc...

Fro me, the meanings are subjective because these meanings only work in some verses and not all verses - I have gone over this topic a few times.

What do you think the eight cattle has to do with embryology? Do you think God was trying to confuse us with a random mention of a specific number of cattle? This is a ridiculous translation of this ayat.

One cannot choose a RANDOM 16 CELL STAGE in embryology with no meaning at all other than that it correlates with one's personal suggestion.
One can ridicule an alternative theory that (incidentally) has not been put forward by me but by over 30 other translators a number of who are Quran-only Muslims, but this does not mean that one's own suggestion is not ridiculous does it (using the same logic)?

By which means is the Creator multiplying us? If the answer is by the pairing from among ourselves then why mention cattle? And if the answer to this question is the pairing of cattle is also for multiplying, then what about ocean life, plant life, animal life and other forms of life? Why specifically cattle? Again, this makes no sense.

I am one of the 30 translators.
A number of other Quran-only Muslims translated that.
If one person chooses to ridicule these translations then it is a subjective view.
Those are 30 or 40 people could say the same thing about another translation where the verse talks about cells.

I have not given killer cells as an example, you did. I have not mentioned anything about plucking out anything from killer cells. I said that killer cells also need to flourish/thrive in order to fulfil their function.

The discussion at this point was to counter the suggestion that one can pluck out of cells in general - for example if one plucks out of killer cells that does not create a GMO organism.

I do not agree with your statement of "subjective take on contexts versus meanings of translated words". The translated words do not make sense so why should one blindly follow or accept what is illogical or forced? As I have mentioned, the meanings are not random or out of context since the dictionaries list them as the correct meanings. It is a good thing that different people have different takes since their thoughts may make more sense then the illogical translations used. Also I have provided a link which shows you mistranslated words in the Quran.

The fact that one person subjectively sees one context and another person subjectively sees another context, is an inherent definition of subjective views.
This is what I have called a subjective take.
I have actually not translated anything.
I have shown that others have translated words in the Quran that happen to be different from the suggestions in question.

As one can see the word "baqara" has been translated into "cows". So, which is the correct translation?

This part of the debate would be better with the 30 or 40 other translators - not me.
My point here is that as a biologist, your translation does not make sense to me.

I will try and explain this to you as clearly as I am able to for the last time.

.........

The creation of a single soul and the creation of the counterpart from the single soul is the first statement. The next statement refers to sending down eight cattle which are in pairs ( I took this to mean sixteen cattle ). The third statement tells us that we are made in the bellies of our mothers in stages, one after another, in three darknesses/coverings. The first and third statement tie up together since it is logical that from one soul energy came another and our creation takes place inside our mothers' wombs. The second statement makes no sense at all. It only makes sense if you look at the meaning of "al an'aam" as something that "flourishes/thrives/grows vigorously". This concept is further detailed by the number eight. Like I said, at first I thought it was sixteen because of the eight pairs, but Noon pointed out that it is actually a total of eight which are paired up. This concept of pairing is exactly what cells do when they are multiplying/growing. In fact the eight cell and the sixteen cell stages are both definitive stages in embryology and are clearly described.

As I have stated one definition of a word should work in all verses - otherwise it seems like a futile exercise to trying to plot a straight line where there is not straight line.

Do you not think that scientists had to extract the information from cells in order to study/understand it? How else were they able to produce synthetic DNA? Where did they get the knowledge from to be able to do this? They had to have the original version which was used as the blueprint and subsequently they were able to copy the information and create a synthetic form based on the original. The original had to be extracted in the first place and broken apart and then examined in order to be synthetically replicated or altered. Please keep in mind all synthetic DNA has been produced based on the knowledge contained within non synthetic DNA which came first. Synthetic DNA came as a result of this. So, it is safe to say that "plucking out" was taking place at one point.

DNA can be completely and chemically synthesized in in a test tube.
This means that the suggested statement that it needs to be extracted in not correct.
If someone at one time in history plucked out some DNA from a bacteria or a cell somewhere - then one certainly cannot link this one incident from history in one verse and then say - they will pluck out DNA and change it.
Then one would need to say they will pluck out DNA hundreds of years before - change a version of it and then do something with it.

I think we need to be careful about the current translations because they are weak at the best of times. It is the responsibility of each individual to try and make sense of what they read in the Quran and not blindly follow illogical translations. It is irrelevant whether one is alone in this or there are others that share the same point of view. The Quran is like a puzzle, one has to try to make the pieces fit. If they are not fitting there is an error somewhere. This is my point of view and you are free to disagree with it.

I agree that we need to be careful with translations - however, if you look at words like SALAT which have been translated completely differently by different Translators it is one thing to be careful of.

If one then looks a the word CATTLE that has been translated by ALL Translators - irrespective of what school or sect they are of if the Quran-only, then one says they are all wrong and one person is right then this is really the morale of this discussion.

Especially when other parts of the GMO details of this translation are disputed by someone who knows the details of carrying out GMO experiments.

Thanks again and I hope to continue to exchange views on other subjects that we may happen to agree or disagree on.

Salam
Ed

janet

Salaam Ed,

I think it is safe to say that we have a different point of view. Thank you for the time you have put in. We have given this topic a fair amount of attention and I have read your last post carefully. A few points...

If one then looks a the word CATTLE that has been translated by ALL Translators - irrespective of what school or sect they are of if the Quran-only, then one says they are all wrong and one person is right then this is really the morale of this discussion.

Especially when other parts of the GMO details of this translation are disputed by someone who knows the details of carrying out GMO experiments

Salam
Ed

I congratulate you on being a biologist and on translating the Quran. Having said that, I am dissatisfied with your many explanations on "GMO" which did not make sense to me at times and your translation of the Quran which also did not make sense to me. To be fair I am basing my opinion on your translation of 4119. I believe this is due to the fact that we see things differently and I can see why.

As I have stated one definition of a word should work in all verses - otherwise it seems like a futile exercise to trying to plot a straight line where there is not straight line.

We do not speak the same language.

Regards,
Janet

EdQ

Salaam Ed,

I think it is safe to say that we have a different point of view. Thank you for the time you have put in. We have given this topic a fair amount of attention and I have read your last post carefully. A few points...

I congratulate you on being a biologist and on translating the Quran. Having said that, I am dissatisfied with your many explanations on "GMO" which did not make sense to me at times and your translation of the Quran which also did not make sense to me. To be fair I am basing my opinion on your translation of 4119. I believe this is due to the fact that we see things differently and I can see why.

We do not speak the same language.

Regards,
Janet

Salam Janet,

Thanks for the congratulations on me being a biologist, but you are a few decades too late in congratulating me. I have actually left biology a long time ago.

Talking about translations, I have actually done GMO experimentation myself before (many years ago) and I do not recognize your translations or meanings of this technology.
I have never translated the Quran and do not boast to be a translator - which I assume you are?

As I have said, the subjective translations suggested by you - of a just few words and their extrapolation - that correlate to your interest in biology is very different from every single translation I have seen whether by Quranists or anyone else.
Also, your translation of the two words in question fail to be substituted into all occurrences in the Quran.
There is more than a correlation in the implied conclusion.

Sure, you can put your own meanings and then extrapolate those towards your interests (or my ex-profession) of biology, but that does not mean you are right.

As for me, I hope you understand that I have not translated anything but have simply said that your view does not seem to be correct to me based on my professional expertise - no congrats needed

I speak English and it is my mother tongue by the way.

I generally disagree with a lot of self-serving translations (not necessarily implying yours) that do not fit in all occurrences in the Quran and I believe in a lot that too fit. I hope that makes sense.

Looking forward to engaging on other aspects.

Salam
Ed

janet

Salaam Ed,

I am one of the 30 translators.

Clearly it is my error for thinking you translated the Quran. I am afraid I often find what you write not clear enough for me to understand.
There seems to be a problem in communication between us. Whether you are a biologist or an astronaut is your personal information and I find it irrelevant in the discussion. I am not interested in biology beyond a point and I am not a translator, that is your assumption, and again, it irrelevant in the discussion. I am interested in logic and I do not find that in your point of view. This site is called "free-minds" and every one is entitled to their opinion. I am not going to follow a rigid "one word only meaning must apply" translation of the Quran. That is for you to believe and follow.

Regards,
Janet

EdQ

Salaam Ed,

Clearly it is my error for thinking you translated the Quran. I am afraid I often find what you write not clear enough for me to understand.
There seems to be a problem in communication between us. Whether you are a biologist or an astronaut is your personal information and I find it irrelevant in the discussion. I am not interested in biology beyond a point and I am not a translator, that is your assumption, and again, it irrelevant in the discussion. I am interested in logic and I do not find that in your point of view. This site is called "free-minds" and every one is entitled to their opinion. I am not going to follow a rigid "one word only meaning must apply" translation of the Quran. That is for you to believe and follow.

Regards,
Janet

Salam Janet,

I am happy to hear that you, like me, respect sensible opinions on this portal.

Sorry to hear you are not able to follow what I have stated in our debate - but something tells me this would not have been a debate without some degree of comprehension.

I am not an astronaut - or a Translator but I am indeed a biologist and more specifically someone who has done GMO in the past and does not see your description of GMO making sense in relation to the verse in discussion.

I hope you can follow the relevance of this statement as not being boastful but actually being relevant to our discussion - and I hope you do not see this as a lack of communication.

Hopefully you will get to see some precise and more clearer communication from me in regards to exchanges on other ideas.

Salam & regards
Ed

janet

Salaam Ed,

Your training as a biologist allows you to understand biology not the Quran. The ayat we have been discussing is a moot point. We can go on debating it ad infinitum. I do not see your point of view and my point of view is illogical for you. Let us leave it at that.

Regards,
Janet

EdQ

Salam Janet,

From my point, me having performed GMO adds to the specific subjective intepretation of a verse to mean GMO - as specified in my previous posts.

With this point reiterated, I agree with your previous posts on agreeing to end this debate at this point.

Salam
Ed