Muhammads knowledge divine or learned?

[Shad]

The problem is that the Arabic word is not barrier, it is the understanig that made it to be barrier, There are no internal contradiction, you picked up the meaning that serve your purpose. if both verses are translated the barazakh to be a barrier, and it is done, then the context of the word is the same, in considering the barazakh to be a barrier.
So you have to say that the Barazakh in the second verse does not mean a barrier, for you to make sense, but the translation does not agree with you on that.

Hence,you must agree with what the second verse has shown, the Barazakh is a barrier that connect through rules, or the barazakh is an entity for connecting two things in a certain way.

The problem is transgress.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

the challenge that lies does not dictate history.


You can believe what ever garbage you want, but in reality, that is not how anything is determined.



It is however known as FANTICISM and thank you for your wonderful example.

Response: Yet the challenge you continue to fail proves the history and shows the Qur'an is true.

 

[outhouse]

Response: And a literary creation is still history, .

That is not honest.

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is a literary creation, and it is fiction.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Can you show that connection?

No you cannot.

Your like a little allegorical dog, all bark and no bite. Do you have anything credible to talk about ?

Response: You are claiming a myth. Not me. So it is for you to make the connection, yet you cannot. Once again refuting yourself.

 

[outhouse]

Response: Yet the challenge you continue to fail proves the history and shows the Qur'an is true.

it proves nothing.

Thank you for more examples of fanaticism.

 

[outhouse]

Response: You are claiming a myth. Not me. So it is for you to make the connection, yet you cannot. Once again refuting yourself.

Thank you for more examples of fanaticism.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

That is not honest.

Response: Your weak rebuttal shows otherwise.

 

[outhouse]

Response: Your weak rebuttal shows otherwise.

Thank you for more examples of fanaticism.

 

[outhouse]

This is a perfect example of typical muslims inability to communicate in any rational matter.


It leaves no room for imagination to why this religion harbors the highest amount of terrorist in the world today.

 

[icehorse]

The accepted theory is that Muhammad was given the Quran over a span of 23 years by the angel Gabriel first appearing to him in the cave.

Here is the primary issue followed by a secondary point:

Muhammad was a known trader & one of the many places he traveled was Syria. For the Christians reading this allow me to explain. Syria is the home of Damascus where Paul is alleged to have had his vision. Thus it stands to reason that Muhammad would have been exposed to oral stories of the Torah & the Bible

Now before any refutations are given allow me to point out another matter:

Why Gabriel? There are only two instances in the entire Bible (thats 66 books) that Gabriel reveals who he is (or the name Gabriel.is even mentioned). Most of the time if an angel is mentioned in the Bible it is nameless. And both times Gabriel is named is to announce pregnancies. So, then why would Gabriel be specifically named to Muhammad?

I look forward to the explanations & rebuttals. I will refrain from reply for 2 days.

In answer to the OP: Whichever it was, the author was extremely condescending to his audience. E.g. being beat over the head with repetition. E.g. weakly concealed plagiarism. E.g. mostly fear-based. E.g. mostly aimed at teenage boys.

 

[Britedream]

The problem is transgress.

Shad,this is a translation of an Arabic verb, describes the human action, when they go off limit in doing harm without regard to the law; it denotes the magnitude of the sin as the result of the action. it is rather about the result of the action than the action itself. but you can borrow the meaning to denote the magnitude of an action. for example if a storm demolish a village, you could say the storm "the arabic word" the village; to denote the magnitude of the damage.

So in regard to the verse, the word denote that the Barazakh is there to prevent one sea of whipping out the other; in another words, to keep both seas holding to their characteristics. ( it denotes the magnitude of the result if the barazakh were not there).

 

[Shad]

Which creates an internal contradiction of the verse, goes against the interpretation and every tasfir I have read. If Water from A changes to B then the characteristic of one Water changes. In fact ther is two Waters change characteristics. Further more the characteristics of the Atlantic are different in the North and South than between each. So one water type is not even maintained nor consistant

 

[Britedream]

Which creates an internal contradiction of the verse, goes against the interpretation and every tasfir I have read. If Water from A changes to B then the characteristic of one Water changes. In fact ther is two Waters change characteristics. Further more the characteristics of the Atlantic are different in the North and South than between each. So one water type is not even maintained nor consistant

No, only the water that enters Barazakh loses its characteristic, not the sea that it came from, nor the sea it is going to.

This is from my Quote earlier:

In a way, this barrier serves as a transitional homogenizing area for the two waters.

 

[Shad]

Yet my example of difference in the Atlantic refute this statement.

If a barrier is the mixing point then its not a barrier at all. So you need to redefine barrier to not-barrier. So just make up an interpreation as you go along which is ad hoc rationalization.

Have you considered that the barrier may be talking about land? Like Central America before the Panama canal or Sinai/Egyptian borders before the Suez Canal?

 

[Britedream]

Yet my example of difference in the Atlantic refute this statement.

If a barrier is the mixing point then its not a barrier at all. So you need to redefine barrier to not-barrier. So just make up an interpreation as you go along which is ad hoc rationalization.

Have you considered that the barrier may be talking about land? Like Central America before the Panama canal or Sinai/Egyptian borders before the Suez Canal?

This is only your understanding, it is a barazakh, if the atlantic were to mix with the Med. Sea without this process, there will be no Med. Sea. it will become part of the atlantic.

 

[Britedream]

So you need to redefine barrier to not-barrier.

Please look at my post regarding the barrier above. talking about the verses regarding that.

 

[Shad]

I did and already refuted this pages ago. You just keep repeating it.

 

[Shad]

This is only your understanding, it is a barazakh, if the atlantic were to mix with the Med. Sea without this process, there will be no Med. Sea. it will become part of the atlantic.

No as currents go both ways, this is one of the reasons why this does not happen. As does fresh water drainage, gravity, wind force and heating. If you remove all factors creating a body of water with no mechanic forces it would become completely homogenous. There is no barrier, just a point of contact which is the opposite of a barrier.

 

[Britedream]

Have you considered that the barrier may be talking about land?

The fact you accepted that verse 19 to be true; the two seas merge(mix in your translation), then that acceptance is inherited in verse 20, that Barazakh must allow the two seas to do that.

 

[Britedream]

No as currents go both ways, this is one of the reasons why this does not happen. As does fresh water drainage, gravity, wind force and heating. If you remove all factors creating a body of water with no mechanic forces it would become completely homogenous. There is no barrier, just a point of contact which is the opposite of a barrier.

What I showed you in the quote is what the scientist is saying, it is not mine, I will get you the reference, just give me sometime.