Loki wrote:English isn't my main language, yet you understand what i say in english. Why is a quran incapable of translation without perverting or corrupting it, in such a way.
Because it is the natural character of Language in general, especially with the semetic language vs the English Language, you cannot translate from one langauge to another language word for word in which you loose meaning. This is a universal fact among all languages.
Loki wrote:That it's fully untruth concerning science
If it is concerning science then it make everything more critical as the original language needs to be refered back to. Remember we are not dealing with instruction of how to live ones life, it is trying to have a proper understand of it meaning in your case being that you dont speak Arabic.
Loki wrote:yet the all powerfull word of God can only be uttered in understanding only in arabic.
My challenge still stands with you, ask any Orthadox Jew who speaks Hebrew if the English translation of the Hebrew is the same ? NO. And if someone who reads Hebrew/Aramaic would have a better understand of the scripture than someone reading a translation of the Bible ? YES. SO does this fall to your above statement ?
Loki wrote:That it's fully untruth concerning science. I raise my doubts with such. Even Aristotles, Hippocrates, Galen and such are open for translations...
I find it amazing that you said this. My reason for this is to this matter, your sources you quoted used terms like "SPERM" but what did Hippocrates mean in his original writing before the translator rendered it as "Sperm" to his understanding ? What did he mean, The Sperm as to the Sperma ie Gamete or The Sperm as to Semen ?
Back then they did not know anything about the Sperma ie gamete cause they could not see it until after the 16 century AC when the telescope and microscope were invented.
The use of the word Sperm in Greek strickly meant "semen" or "seed" of a man. The term "Seed" did not describe the gamete, it expressed semen ie the liquid from a man that produces offspring. Also "seed" is an old english term to express semen not gamete. "Seed" would be more accurate to apply to a woman's ovum (singular) but unfortunatley it was not but applied to a mans reproductive sexual discharge as you quoted the bible saying:
Loki wrote:This is nothing special. Since the beginning of time man has been aware of the "seed" that is released from the penis during sexual intercourse. The Bible, a text much older than the Qur'an, tells a story of a man who was struck down by God for "spilling his seed on the ground" (Genesis 38:9-10).
When in fact to say he spilled his "SEED" singular to refer to the gamete would contradict science as there are billions of gemetes in a single drop of emited semen. SO did he spill a gamete or did a spill billions of gametes ?
The Quran goes beyond this and says and describes the gamete:
[23]
Then We placed him as a nutfah into a thing that rests and implants
The original meaning of "
nutfah" is
a trickler or something that trickles.
In the Quran it is given more discription:
[80] Verily We create mankind from a trickler
a mixture (Nutfatin amshaajin) for Us to try him, and We made for him hearing and sight.
The "nutfah" ie Trickler is called "amshaaj" a Mixture or Something that mixes.
This Trickler that mixes is from semen and it itself is not semen:
[Quran 75:37]Is he (man) not a Nutfah from semen emitted.
We gather three discriptive ideas of this thing that is PLACE INTO something that rests and implants.
1) "Nutfah" this is thing is called by deffinition a "Trickler or Something that trickles"
2) It is a Mixture or Something that Mixes
3) it is FROM semen but not semen.
*Does not a male gamete TRICKLE ?
*Is not the male gamete FROM semen ?
*Does not the male gamete mix ?
Sperm is made in the man's testicles. The sperm then travels from the testicle through a tube called the vas into the body where it enters the prostate gland. In the prostate, the sperm mixes with seminal fluid. Seminal fluid is fluid that does not contain sperm and is made in the seminal vesicles and prostate. The sperm mixes with seminal fluid in the prostate to make semen. The semen then is ejaculated out the urethra
http://www.usadelaware.com/prostate.htm
Sperm is produced in the testicles and transported through tubes to the prostate gland. Semen, the solution that carries sperm, is produced by both the prostate gland and the seminal vesicles, glands attached to the prostate. Prior to ejaculation, tubes from the testicles carry sperm to the prostate, where sperm mixes with semen. This fluid is then ejaculated during orgasm by a connection to the urethra called the ejaculatory ducts.
http://www.prostatecanceruk.org/erictil ... ction.html
This thing that Trickles and mixes which is FROM semen is PLACED INTO something that RESTS and IMPLANTS.
This is directly refering to the fertilization stage. The OVUM is what RESTS and IMPLANTS. The Ovum
rests in the Falopian tube after ovulation until fetilized where the gamete literally penetrates INTO ovum, in which thereon after the fetilized cell proceeds to the Uterus where it literally IMPLANTS which is called the egg implantation.
[23]
Then We placed him as a nutfah into a thing that rests and implants
Where is this statement found in Greek writings you posted ?
Garbha Upinandas 1416 BC: the Hindus describing ancient ideas concerning the embryo
"From the conjugation of blood and semen the embryo comes into existence. During the period favorable to conception, after the sexual intercourse, (it) becomes a Kalada (one-day-old embryo). After remaining seven nights it becomes a vesicle. After a fortnight it becomes a sperical mass. After a month it becomes a firm mass"
The Quran in Arabic makes no mention of ""
From the conjugation of blood and semen" Needles to say the it is not discriptive.
Book of Job ca. 1000 BC:
"Your hands formed me and made me - will you now absorb me? Remember that you formed me as if with clay - will you return me to dust? You poured me out like milk, and pulled me together like cheese. You clothed me with skin and flesh, and [inside me] did you interweave bones and sinews." -- Job 10:8-11
Job is discribing his well aware physiology
while the Quran is speaking about a micrscopic phenomina
[23]..and then We made the chewing as bones and then We clothed the bones with muscle...
Hippocrates 460-370 BC:
1st stage: "Sperm is a product which comes from the whole body of each parent, weak sperm coming from the weak parts, and strong sperm from the strong parts." Section 8, p 321
2nd stage: "The seed (embryo), then, is contained in a membrane ... Moreover, it grows because of its mother's blood, which descends to the womb. For once a woman conceives, she ceases to menstruate..." Section 14, p. 326
3rd stage: "At this stage, with the descent and coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed, with the umbilicus." Section 14, p. 326
4th stage: "As the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath ... The bones grow hard ... moreover they send out branches like a tree ..." Section 17, p. 328
*Sperm here is refering to reproductive fluid from both male and female. The Quran makes mention of Nutfah ie Trickler (Sperma) not being a fluid which is produced from males only.
*Now the seed is to mean now an embryo while you claimed and also the bible referes to it a semen. Any how the Quran makes no mention of a membrane, blood, in teh Arabic text
*Quran makes NO MENTION of "coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed" in such a matter of stage developement.
*This anology has no refelection to the Quran discription:
[23] Then We made the trickler (Sperma) as a thing that clings and then We made the thing that clings as a chewing, and then We made the chewing as bones and then We clothed the bones with muscle then He (Allah) brings it out as another creation; and sublime is Allah the best of makers.
Where is the Trickler mentioned, the stage of when it looks like it is chewed, and after this is stage bones are made from the chewing and then the bones are clothes with muscle ? All that blood and other stuff not even mentioned in the Quranic text.
Aristotle 384-322 BC:
"[bWhen the material[?] secreted by the female in the uterus has been fixed by the semen of the male [...] the more solid part comes together, the liquid is separated off from it, and as the earthy parts solidify membranes form all around it [...] Some of these are called membranes and others choria[.]" -- Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, 739b20-739b30, as per Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, (Princeton, 1985), Vol 1, p. 1148.
"So nature has first designed the two blood vessels from the heart, and from these smaller vessels branch off to the uterus, forming what is called the umbilicus [...] Round these is a skin-like integument, because the weakness of the vessels needs protection and shelter. The vessels join to the uterus like the roots of plants, and through them the embryo receives its nourishment" -- Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, 740a28-740a35, as per Barnes, opere citato, p. 1149
* Aristotle is WAY OFF HERE. There are no liquid seperating from anthing. There is no material secreted in the Uterus that is fixed my the semen.
* There is no sold part that comes together.
*The QUran mentions nothing about membrains etc related to what Aristotle is saying
* Quran makes no mention of any 2 blood vesels branching off to the uterus for the life cord.
Diocles of Carystus 240-180 BC:
"on the ninth day a few points of blood, on the eighteenth beating of the heart, on the twenty-seventh traces of the spinal cord and head"
Quran makes no mention of any of this development [points of blood,beating of heart, spinal cord and head] to say it was derived from .
Galen 129-210 AD:
"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).
Wrong, quran makes no mention of Nutfah prevailing over anything. The Arabic word for semen is "manan" not "Nutfah ie trickler[Sperma gamete]
..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,...
alaqah does not mean blood, heart, grain etc.
...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...
This has no relation at all to Quranic embryology as semen is not even mention in any part dealing with the embryo development in the womb of the mother.
..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)...
This sounds like pure rediculous nonsence. mudhghah means chewing that have no association with " kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts"
...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....
Incorrect. During the stage of when the embryo looks like it is chewed it does not show " the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. "
...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 " -- Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101
Quran doesnt even mention this or anthing associated with it.
"... 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,
This contradicts Quran. From the Chewing (flesh tissue) the bones are made then the bones are clothes with muscle.
Also his stages are out of ORDER.
Talmud: Samuel ha-Yehudi 2nd century AD:
The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as
1. golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
2. shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);
3. 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
4. ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).
What relation does this have to the Quranic Embryology ? Nothing. SO why quote it?
Loki wrote:acctually it should be translated in leech only... Dr. Moore who came up with this scientific myth, gave it the 'leech-like structure' translation.
GO get your self a noted Arabic Dictionary to confirm this. The original meaning the word is a clinger or something that clings.
Loki wrote:No it has everything to do with it. H20 was capable of translating Alaqah correctly, why can't others. Are all arabs such louzy translators?
Wow where have you been ? 99% of the Translators are not Arabs. They are Pakinstani, and Arabic was their second/third language in which English was their second/third language also. Arab people in general are very uncomfortable with translations of the Quran and can care less about them as they have no bases of authority to the Original.
Loki wrote:But it's impossible for me to think that all arab translators are so far off in translating the most holy book in the world without it being perverted into a entire other meaning?
Most of them are not Arabs. Many of them use modern terminologies of the the Arabic words rather than their original meaning.
Loki wrote:If there is a reason why you don't accept translations;
What Arab or Arabic speaking muslim in his right mind accepts translations when he can go directly to the source it self ?
Loki wrote:then it's because of the chauvinistic nature of islam
No its your backward concept of islam. We do not perceive our holy book the way you perceive yours and its translations.
Loki wrote: If it's not possible to have a clear translation of the quran,
It is very possible. The translations that were made were not made for criticism use but to convey a simple message for people seeking for the truth and seeking to understanding islam which does not apply you and anyone of your companions. A translation can indeed be made for critics I am sure this can be done with tafseer.
Loki wrote:then the only thing could be is that the quran is very vague in perspection wich opens it to imagination... and not clear at all
Of course, cause your prejudice blinds you from seeing.
Loki wrote:so without your interpolations/help, the quran doesn't stand on it's own
Funny. My whole time on this forum I have defended islam with Quran only and its text in which I had no need for anthing in support. The Quran can verily stand by its self and defend it self.
Loki wrote:Yes but a biology 101 textbook alltough limited explains every subject in clear scientific detail. while the quran speaks about embryology as if muhammed is making a cake.
Omm, excuse me ?
Book of Job ca. 1000 BC:
"Your hands formed me and made me - will you now absorb me? Remember that you formed me as if with clay - will you return me to dust? You poured me out like milk, and pulled me together like cheese. You clothed me with skin and flesh, and [inside me] did you interweave bones and sinews." -- Job 10:8-11
Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to your own book
Your point is nothing but trying to proof assumptions for basis of manupilation.... you disregard
- that the scientific findings excisted before muhammed
And they have absolutely no relation or link to the Quranic discription.