How can we prove that the Quran is the word of GOD and not Muhammad??
-
May be you are too dumb hmm
May be your questions are not worth a response hmm
May be you are a stubborn person who is thinks too much of herself hmmHappy exit and good ridden bravoMaybe you're a brainwashed dummy far too frightened of hell to be capable of questioning the egotistical, tyrannical, sadistic dictator that is god hmm. Would you even give a thought to all those burning in hell with me if your god turns out to be real?
Seriously, I cannot understand why you felt the need to use personal attacks.
-
Many of the things suggested in the Quran were known back then or are simply too vague. There are also verses in the Quran that from my understanding of the text are scientifically inaccurate. For example, the verse about semen coming from between the backbone and the rib.
Hi Bubbles
Firstly, sorry for referring to you as a guy... I missed the sign in haste... P
So, you are IMPLYING that scientific miracles in the Quran were already known from before... check the following verses
2314 and then We create out of the drop of sperm a germ-cell, and then We create out of the germ-cell an embryonic lump, and then We create within the embryonic lump bones, and then We clothe the bones with flesh - and then We bring this into being as a new creation hallowed, therefore, is God, the best of artisans!
This verse, among others give a CLEAR description of the gestation stages of the embryo... This could not have been observed in detail until the invention of the endoscopes and some other scopes which have been invented only recently... So do you have an explanation how these has been mentioned in detail in the Quran revealed 1400 years ago...
Since you CLAIMED that these scientific facts were KNOWN from before the Quran... therefore you SHOULD back your CLAIM with some convincing proof... Show us some very very old scriptures/parchments or the like that described these gestation stages... It will be more convincing if you can get us some HIEROGLYPHS which explain all these in details....
Regards
-
Maybe you're a brainwashed dummy far too frightened of hell to be capable of questioning the egotistical, tyrannical, sadistic dictator that is god hmm. Would you even give a thought to all those burning in hell with me if your god turns out to be real?
If only you realise you are already going through hell then you would understand what the hell is it all about '(
Seriously, I cannot understand why you felt the need to use personal attacks.
You have made this thread personal all about you and your demands, trying to be cocky and now you wonder why you need a personal attention ???
-
I haven't read this thread and I don't know if I've already posted here a long time ago, but here's what I think.
The quran is the word of god if it is TRUE. If it's not true, then it was just some person's wrong interpretation of the world that god created. If it is right, then his words are inline with god's "words" (the universe), and so the quran is from god.
That is, I believe, the only way.
-
What a coincidence, Lobster. I was just about to post the same exact message.
I read the thread title and got me thinking, why does it matter if Muhammad wrote it or not? After reading a biography about him (Critical Lives Muhammad) I remember getting the feeling like the revelations were responding to events in his life, like these issues were bothering him so he prayed or meditated on it and came out with an answer. Sometimes it seemed like the Qu'ran was a commentary on social figures and circumstances in his time and place. If the Qu'ran wasn't miraculously revealed and it was composed by someone who strongly believed in GOD and felt inspired by his own belief it is a great testament to the power of faith. If the atheists were right and GOD didn't exist I'd be even more amazed at the Qu'ran.
-
Peace,
it would be cool if people learned greek before talking about logic and all the philosophical terms. just like they are learning arabic to understand the quran. i mean think of it. shouldnt we varify all these terms in there orginal languages also? to see where these philosophers came with this approch on logic.
It is really interesting its like why depend on this imperfect form of logic to base all your arguments on?Christianity is very hellenistic and it seems like people are trying to make the Quran hellenistic too.. with all these terms.
great i opened my big mouth now i gotta go learn great or im dead.
EDIT I have 2 friends getting there majors in philosophy and the one i spoke to does say that greek is the way to go when talking about philosophy. which makes sense... western philosophy is based on greek philosophy.!!
peace
-
Hi Bubbles
Firstly, sorry for referring to you as a guy... I missed the sign in haste... P
So, you are IMPLYING that scientific miracles in the Quran were already known from before... check the following verses
2314 and then We create out of the drop of sperm a germ-cell, and then We create out of the germ-cell an embryonic lump, and then We create within the embryonic lump bones, and then We clothe the bones with flesh - and then We bring this into being as a new creation hallowed, therefore, is God, the best of artisans!
This is a rather strange translation, there was no word for germ cell in the 7th century and that is not what "3alaqa" translates to. Also, this verse is kind of inaccurate when it mentions bones being clothed with flesh considering that bones and muscles develop simultaneously from the same tissue.
This verse, among others give a CLEAR description of the gestation stages of the embryo... This could not have been observed in detail until the invention of the endoscopes and some other scopes which have been invented only recently... So do you have an explanation how these has been mentioned in detail in the Quran revealed 1400 years ago...
Since you CLAIMED that these scientific facts were KNOWN from before the Quran... therefore you SHOULD back your CLAIM with some convincing proof... Show us some very very old scriptures/parchments or the like that described these gestation stages... It will be more convincing if you can get us some HIEROGLYPHS which explain all these in details....
RegardsThese are the words of a Physician called Galen living in the 2nd century, about 500 years prior to Muhammed
"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ?a new creation?) ...
... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow"
The bits in brackets were put in by the people on Answering-Islam, but the rest is from a translation of Galen's book by Philip De Lacy.
http//www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.htmlIf you want you can have a look at a translation of his book 'On Semen' which also has the original Greek. It's a great deal more detailed than anything in the Quran in my opinion.
http//books.google.com/books?id=CyK2oKiLDTAC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=galen+on+semen+page+92&source=bl&ots=CH8F1sjS0P&sig=n4svJ5qQWUtaj7iCrD9HPyPBIQo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA103,M1 -
This is a rather strange translation, there was no word for germ cell in the 7th century and that is not what "3alaqa" translates to. Also, this verse is kind of inaccurate when it mentions bones being clothed with flesh considering that bones and muscles develop simultaneously from the same tissue.
These are the words of a Physician called Galen living in the 2nd century, about 500 years prior to Muhammed
If you want you can have a look at a translation of his book 'On Semen' which also has the original Greek. It's a great deal more detailed than anything in the Quran in my opinion.
http//books.google.com/books?id=CyK2oKiLDTAC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=galen+on+semen+page+92&source=bl&ots=CH8F1sjS0P&sig=n4svJ5qQWUtaj7iCrD9HPyPBIQo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA103,M1Oh Now I can see what sort of reading you enjoy and consider superior to the Qur'an where you managed to find , "Some possible explanations".. -.. If this is the case, not only is the Qur'an wrong, but it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!.... .. But confused."how could Muhammed have known these things?".. hmm.. apparently a cousin of Muhammed and also a doctor by profession clever company huh and Muhammad owed to Harith a part of his medical knowledge. -. and they found out o We know that one of the Companions of the Prophet was a doctor wow who trained at the very same medical school that the Greek translations were kept and taught at. .. '( and this gave the prophet an ! how to take the world for a looong ride.... clever plagiariser.. Now you are a well aware well informed -[
Feel for you first you were staunched hadithist and now an enemy of God and the prophet.... what a sad transformation or may be none brickwall7;146 I will turn away from My communications those who are unjustly proud in the earth; and if they see every sign they will not believe in It; and if they see the way of rectitude they do not take It for a way, and if they see the way of error. they take it for a way; this is because they rejected Our communications and were heedless of them.
-
Simple answer, because if all the humans and the Jinn were to gather to bring a Quran like this, they would not be able to come with its like even if they were helping each other.
The Quran is revealed truth, thus it doesnt require any evidence to prove it is from God, but it is based on faith and the Quran itself is evedence.
-
Simple answer, because if all the humans and the Jinn were to gather to bring a Quran like this, they would not be able to come with its like even if they were helping each other.
The Quran is revealed truth, thus it doesnt require any evidence to prove it is from God, but it is based on faith and the Quran itself is evedence.
Peace
I was about to post the same Wallace
Bubbles, I give you and your conclusions the benefit of doubt, even though your claims are not backed up by any hard proof that such works of Galen and so on has been found translated in arabic at the time / or prior to the time of the messenger... These are again hypothesis that you like and feel secured with, so keep it for you and TAKE THE NEXT STEP...
You already claimed God's word to be NOT from God... SO TAKE THE NEXT STEP AHEAD PLEASE.... TAKE THE COMPLETE CHALLENGE NOW!
And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to Our servant, then come with a Surah/Chapter like it; and call your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.
Or they may say, "He forged it," Say, "BRING YOU THEN TEN SURAS forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever you can, other than Allah!- If you speak the truth!
1788 Say "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
It should be easy for you and your pals at answering-islam... Share the word
Regards
-
Peace
I was about to post the same Wallace
Bubbles, I give you and your conclusions the benefit of doubt, even though your claims are not backed up by any hard proof that such works of Galen and so on has been found translated in arabic at the time / or prior to the time of the messenger... These are again hypothesis that you like and feel secured with, so keep it for you and TAKE THE NEXT STEP...
You asked me to show you if the information about embryology was known before Muhammed and I did, 500 years prior to him in fact. Considering Muhammed was a merchant who traveled a great deal, he would have known something of the knowledge that was prevalent and believed in at the time. Muhammed even made the same errors as Galen in mentioning that bones were created and then covered with flesh. In short there really aren't any scientific miracles in the Quran, and you've done nothing to argue against this.
You already claimed God's word to be NOT from God... SO TAKE THE NEXT STEP AHEAD PLEASE.... TAKE THE COMPLETE CHALLENGE NOW!
And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to Our servant, then come with a Surah/Chapter like it; and call your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.
Or they may say, "He forged it," Say, "BRING YOU THEN TEN SURAS forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever you can, other than Allah!- If you speak the truth!
1788 Say "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
It should be easy for you and your pals at answering-islam... Share the word
Regards
I commented on this earlier in this thread, and this is what I wrote
This is one of the reasons I believe the Quran is the work of a rather simple minded individual. I wouldn't expect God to use such flawed arguments in support of the book he has supposedly authored. What does it mean exactly when the Quran says "a surah like it"? The author of the Quran fails to provide the conditions of the challenge, and a means to judge whether the challenge has been met. In the end all it comes down to is subjective opinion on whether the challenger had been able to produce "a surah like it". -
This is one of the reasons I believe the Quran is the work of a rather simple minded individual. I wouldn't expect God to use such flawed arguments in support of the book he has supposedly authored. What does it mean exactly when the Quran says "a surah like it"? The author of the Quran fails to provide the conditions of the challenge, and a means to judge whether the challenge has been met. In the end all it comes down to is subjective opinion on whether the challenger had been able to produce "a surah like it".
8119 It is the saying of an honorable messenger.
8120 With power and influence from the One of the throne.
8121 Obeyed, and trustworthy.
8122 And your friend is not crazy.
8123 And he saw him by the clear horizon.
8124 And he has no knowledge of the future.
8125 And it is not the saying of an outcast devil.
8126 So where will you go? -
Feel for you first you were staunched hadithist and now an enemy of God and the prophet.... what a sad transformation or may be none brickwall
Well I did believe in the Quran alone for a while as well , and I'm not an enemy of Muhammed really. I think he was a rather confused individual that probably had some good intentions, hes no worse than Baha'ullah, Joseph Smith, or any of the other cult leaders that pop up from time to time. As for god, it really depends on the kind of god we're talking about. Any god that allows suffering, despite having the power to stop it, and plans to give eternal punishment to beings that he himself created won't get my respect.
-
8119 It is the saying of an honorable messenger.
8120 With power and influence from the One of the throne.
8121 Obeyed, and trustworthy.
8122 And your friend is not crazy.
8123 And he saw him by the clear horizon.
8124 And he has no knowledge of the future.
8125 And it is not the saying of an outcast devil.
8126 So where will you go???? Whats your point?
-
??? Whats your point?
The point is that none dispute about Gods revelations except the rejecters, who knows no bounds. For they do not believe untill what it says comes true.
-
I commented on this earlier in this thread, and this is what I wrote
This is one of the reasons I believe the Quran is the work of a rather simple minded individual. I wouldn't expect God to use such flawed arguments in support of the book he has supposedly authored. What does it mean exactly when the Quran says "a surah like it"? The author of the Quran fails to provide the conditions of the challenge, and a means to judge whether the challenge has been met. In the end all it comes down to is subjective opinion on whether the challenger had been able to produce "a surah like it".Peace
I fear you are being very very dishonest here... Why not just tell us that you cannot do it?? What conditions are you looking for exactly for this challenge??
CONSIDER THIS!!
I am a great car manufacturer and I made one of the best cars on earth, a car which I know no one will be able to duplicate... And best, I made many many duplicates myself and gifted it to each and everyone... And then I tell them, BRING A CAR LIKE THIS.... If you got some brain, you will definitely know what I mean by this statement...
Since I gave you the car, you should examine it yourself... I will not come and tell you which paint I used, or which type of metal,engine,leather etc... It is up to you do disect the car, do your analysis and then BRING A CAR LIKE THIS... It does not matter where the car will run etc... Just bring a car like this...
When I tell you to BRING A CAR LIKE THIS... will you BRING A LORRY or A TRACTOR??
Is it clear??
-
Peace Bubbles,
Have you? Why is chance not sufficient? When people play the lottery the chances that they will win are could be 1 in a million, but in the end someone wins. Nothing divine is involved in them winning because the chances are the same for each person who played the lottery. I'm a bit of a believer in determinism and I see everything that happens as a result of cause and effect including my own existence and even the decisions that I make, if the physical constants were somewhat different then I simply wouldn't exist and that would be that. Our existence is no more amazing than our non-existence.
YET AGAIN you have refused to answer my question asking you the exact odds of all the precise values that I mentioned being what they are. That CLEARLY shows your SKIMPY, HASTY, and CARELESS attitude and NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK. No wonder you are having difficulty getting to the truth.
What you wrote above does not even come close to the odds I am referring to. If the odds of someone winning the lottery are one in a million or even one in a billion, of course it is possible by random chance. But what if I tell you that a person played 100 consecutive lotteries, each with a one in a million chance of winning, and that person won all of them. Can that happen by random chance? If you go ask this question to a statistician, he/she will calculate the exact odds of that happening, and then after p value testing will tell you that according to the laws of probability, such an event is impossible to happen by random chance alone. The odds of all the precise values being what they are in order for the universe to exist, are much lower than the example I gave above of winning 100 consecutive lotteries, each with a one in a million chance. So it is impossible for that to happen by random chance alone.
It is a very simple task that you are refusing to perform. Why don't you find out the exact odds of all the precise values being what they are in order for the universe to exist, and then test your null hypothesis of "the universe came into existence by random chance", and do the p value testing. The matter will instantly become clear to you once you do all this. Ask a statistician to help you out.
Go through the following article with a sincere mind, which will help you do your homework
http//www.rationalreality.com/ (click on "God and science" in the left margin)
The above article scientifically proves the existence of God. See what conclusion the brilliant scientific minds have come to
- Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist) "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
(Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2016)
- Alan Sandage (Carnegie Observatories-winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy and multiple cosmology awards) "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
(Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.)
- John O'Keefe (a man considered to be the father of space geodesy, a pioneer in planetary physics and astronomer at NASA) "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
(Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.)
- George Greenstein (astronomer) "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
(Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York William Morrow, p.27.)
- Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
(Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233. )
- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural' plan."
(Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83)
- Roger Penrose (mathematician and author) "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
(Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc)
- Tony Rothman (physicist) "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
(Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483) 9. Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
(Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52)
- Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic and astrophysicist) "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
(Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.)
- Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist) "Then we shall? be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
(Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.)
- Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician) "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
(Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57)
- Ed Harrison (cosmologist) "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the design argument of Paley - updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
(Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.)
- Edward Milne (British cosmologist) "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him ."
(Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167)
- Barry Parker (cosmologist) "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
(Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.)
- Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
(Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae ,Nature 401252-254)
- Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
(Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992) )
- Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia) "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
(Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991)56-64. )
- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature?s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
(Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York Simon and Schuster, p.203.)
- Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
(McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10258-276.)
What about the possibility of Multiple universes? If there are many universes with different physical constants then it is plausible that at least one of those universes would have the physical constants necessary for our existence.
None of those universes can exist if the fundamental values are not precisely what they are. The above statement of yours shows your utter ignorance on this matter.
I think you should take the course. Nothing needs to be outside our universe observing it for it to exist. On the Quantum level however observation has an effect, but if we stopped observing the particles they wouldn't just cease to exist.
Shows more of your complete ignorance on this matter. It has been shown in quantum physics that reality cannot exist without an external observer. For the universe to be created and come into existence and remain in existence requires an external observer, outside the confines of the universe.
I'm not forgetting the possibility of Allah, and I'm not forgetting the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either who would punish me for worshiping anyone other than him.
Keep all possibilities in mind and then prove or disprove them one by one, and eventually you will reach the truth by process of elimination.
I forgot to mention before that you cannot force yourself to believe something, you are either convinced by it or you aren't and I am not convinced of god or the Quran. How exactly do I "know and verify with full sincerity"? You mention that I haven't done my homework, and although I totally disagree with you, I think it is just abhorrent and evil for god to burn someone in hell for not researching everything related to Islam. A problem that is apparent in both Christianity and Islam is that belief seems to be a major determinant in who goes to heaven and hell. Simply feeling that god's existence is unknowable and lacking belief in god supposedly warrants eternal damnation.
I have already shown you repeatedly how to know and verify with sincerity but you keep refusing to do the homework required, thereby deceiving yourself in the process. You yourself made the choice out of free will which will result in your state in the life hereafter and then you are blaming God for it?
3372 We have offered the trust to the heavens and the Earth, and the mountains, but they refused to bear it, and were fearful of it. But the human being accepted it; he was transgressing, ignorant.
Are you even familiar with the concept of Panentheism?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597339.msg185482#msg185482
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597339.msg183507#msg183507http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahdat_ul-wujud
http//www.websyte.com/alan/pan.htm
http//www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/panentheism.html -
Peace Bubbles,
Show me another instance where the word "tara-ib" is used to mean testicles in Classical Arabic literature or give an example of a famous Arabic linguist that has ever used that word to mean testicles.
"Taraib" is the plural of "tareeba" which is used to describe a protruding item (such as "tareeba albaeer" meaning "camel's neck, at the point of cutting". In Lane's Lexicon, "tareeba" has been used to mean arm or leg, again something that is protruding from the body.
"Taraib" is plural which implies 3 or more in Arabic. The male genitalia, consisting of two testicles and a penis will thus be 3 protruding parts of the body which will qualify as "taraib". So I think the correct translation would be "protruding organs"/"male genitalia", implying the testicles and penis. So it would mean that the semen comes forth from between the sacral spine and the male genitalia. If you look at the location of vas deferens, accessory glands, seminal vesicles, and the prostrate (from where the semen comes out from), they are all anatomically located exactly between the sacral spine and the male genitalia.
-
Peace Bubbles,
The whole passage you quoted from Galen does not even suggest that the embryo clings to the wall of the uterus. The word used in al-quran is "3alaq" which means "something that clings"
Ayn-Lam-Qaf = to adhere to, hang, love, leech, have an attachment, cling, hold fast, pertain, catch, concern, become attached by love, suspend, fasten a thing.
This is an exact description of the embryo. Where is the historical precedence of such embryological description of "3alaq"/something that clings before al-quran?
If you study embryology, you will find that muscles and bones develop from the paraxial mesoderm which differentiates first into sclerotome (which develops into the bones) and the dermamyotome. The dermamyotome then later differentiates into the dermatome (which develops into the skin) and the myotome (which develops into the muscles). Therefore, the bone forming tissue is formed before the muscle forming tissue. From week 5-12, endochondral ossification by osteoblasts originating from the sclerotome takes place forming the bones everywhere and the muscles develop from the myoblasts originating from the myotome around them, thus the flesh covers the bone (2314).