male, you could state, briefly, some incidences where the Qu'ran's "words of God" are now being proven by science? That's not too tough, is it? T'would be better to see it stated by you and then look to your source for proof.
sunlover wrote:male, you could state, briefly, some incidences where the Qu'ran's "words of God" are now being proven by science? That's not too tough, is it? T'would be better to see it stated by you and then look to your source for proof.
Quran said 1400 years before regarding embryology that science found in last century.
Quran has challenged all the human that if they think that Holy Quran is not the words of God, they should try to produce a single verse like 6666 verses in it.
More?
More implies that you've proven something--you can't offer more proof until you have actually provided some proof, which you have not done.
Setanta wrote:More implies that you've proven something--you can't offer more proof until you have actually provided some proof, which you have not done.
Ok wait for my next post in a new thread.
Between the 9th and 14th centuries, the center of western scientific study and advancement was in Moslem countries. These were world class scholars and none of them felt they had to refer to the Quran as a scientific source. The decline of Islamic science began when scholars felt impled to bend their research and conclusions to the limits and ignorance imposed by the thinking exhibited by male.
Why not should we bound our discussion on the evidences posted by me.
The Holy Quran is the book of signs. So that human can see them and free their mind from all doubts regarding its truthfulness.
Re: Proofs of truths of Holy Quran
You bring me a Quran from 1400 years before now and I'll show you exactly how much science it has in there!
The earliest koranic texts date from the 9th century. Nothing from the time of Mohammed exists at all. The Koran was compiled and probably first written at least a century after the death of Mohammed.
If the Quran was written a century after Mohammed was no longer here, then, for us to have texts from the 9th century means that in the 3 centuries just before the 9th century, something happened for misconceptions to come up. What is that something that happened? In any case, this is my view - Since the actual original texts are unavailable, therefore one can suggest various things but they cannot claim because to claim, they would have to provide proof. As such it can only remain an opinion. And even if proved, since the actual text would be missing, you cannot enforce your view on anyone.
A similar thing exists in Christianity and a lot seems manipulated too. Christ never advocated a Trinity. He talked about God, The Son and the Holy Spirit, but an actual Trinity is someone else's compilation. The Nicean Creed talks about it also I think. But the fact remains, when the actual texts are not there, don't force your view anywhere even if you can prove it. Because even if you can prove it, since the actual text is not there, you cannot force your view on anyone.
The relevant document in Christianity is call the Gospel of Q. Q comes from the German word for source. This is a "recovered" document found through the analysis of later Gospels and archeologically recovered text and it reveals a very different Christianity from that which arose in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Male should keep in mind that once a religious movement becomes mainstream the religion will change to meet the political and social demands of the larger population. Much of the earlier religion will be abandoned and/or suppressed, especially if it existed only in oral form. This seems to have happened to both Christianity and Islam.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm
