What evidence is there that the Koran is the word of God?

[Autodidact]

Pardon me if I appear to be preaching but you did ask so I will tell you that their is absolute unity of thought and doctrine in the LDS Church leadership and anyone who preaches their own interpretations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is quickly sanctioned and/or removed from their position of responsibility. No man has the right to interpret the word of God save His prophet and apostles and in the LDS Church their is presented an absolut unity of thought and action among its leaders and training materials. Also, There is a pure and logical method wherein the Gospel fits together leaving no need for smoke and mirrors. There may be great unity in some other churches but very rarely is their no need therein to rely upon some great mystery to explain the simple truths of the Gospel, mysteries that the LDS Church has no need of.

That's funny. Because as soon as I raise a specific aspect of LDS theology, Mormons here are quick to explain that church leaders are not infallible, and unless the specific point is part of doctrine, it doesn't matter what in individual leader says.

Surely no church has changed its position in as short a time as the Mormon Church.

The Bible and book of Mormon both contain a great deal of history, more so then doctrine because the doctrine of Christ is really quite simple.

Unfortunately, almost none of it actually happened.

You attempt to discredit the Gospel by claiming it has sanctioned wickedness which it has not and never will, only wicked men have done so.

Just like the qur'an.

Not everyone who utters "God - God" or "Lord - Lord" will be known or accepted of God. It is the nature of man to warp pure doctrine for their own gain and then try to implement it by force, even if what a person is trying to establish is atheism. Unfortunately what Christ set up quickly fell prey to the wickedness of man who was quick to maintain the association with the Gospel while completely distorting it into something absolutly devoid of authority and the associated blessings of God.

So when Muslims believe different things, it's because of the qur'an. When Christians believe different things, it's because of the individual Christians?

In the Book of Mormon the two primary fighting factions, the Nephites and the Lamanites, spen a thousand years (600 BC to 400 AD) fighting among themselves in some of the worst carnage the world has ever witnessed, eventually destroying both nations.

Of course, none of that actually happened.

This does not mean that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not real and endowed with power and authority, it only means that there is only a precious few (comparatively speaking), that will take it and show the proper respect necessary not to destroy it. Judging God by a warped Gospel is like taking a perfect cake, mashing it, adding garbage to it, defecating on it, roasting it in a hot oven and then presenting it as cake because you point to the original recipe after which a group of onlookers decides that cake is bad because the example you present stinks.

Yes, you're right. The Book of Mormon is a lot like that.

 

[Autodidact]

there are a handful of copyist errors scattered throughout the bible, but no outright contradictions of teaching or belief

The Bible is every bit as contradictory as the qur'an. I can cite you just as many contradictory passages as you just did, and you will respond with the same sort of arguments that A-Man did, that it's misinterpretation or mistranslation, and true understanding reveals a way to reconcile the passages.

For example, how did Judas die?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes. That is a fundamental misconception about Islam. It is not a religion per se. In fact, Arabic does not even have a word which translates to religion in the modern sense. The Arabic word din in the Quran translated normally as religion in English differs from the modern understanding in many ways. I think a better sense of Islam would be captured by "way of life based on surrender/peace/harmony".

The comparative religion scholar Wilfred Cantwell Smith posited that Muhammad, above all others perhaps, would have been horrified to learn that (people would think that) he was starting a new religion.

Regards

Define "religion."

Islam is basically a plagiarized reworking of Judeo-Christianity (with hints of paganism thrown in), and is so similar to them that if they are religions, it must be as well.

 

[Autodidact]

Muhammad(pbuh) did not say that Jews were non-believers. He said they are one community with the believers, (although) the Muslims have their way of life and the Jews have theirs. (Jonathan Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, Cambridge University Press, p.64)

Similarly the Quran says so in verse 2:62 "Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians and Sabeans,[in fact] anyone who believes in God and the Last Day, and acts honorably will receive their earnings from their Lord: no fear will lieupon them nor need they feel saddened."

The distinction you refer to has to be understood in the sense of the Jews of the society that Muhammad(pbuh) lived in, while the above verse in the universal sense. This is the correct understanding.

Regards

Of course, those verses contradict other verses in the qur'an:

(9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

 

[Autodidact]

Who will judge what is right? Only God is able to judge what is right.

Wow. How do you make moral decisions then?

Is slavery right? God says it is.

 

[Autodidact]

I have said this in a previous thread but it applies here also.

I believe in God and in so doing I also believe that the spirit of God can be felt when reading scripture, the Bible, the BoM, the D&C, and the PoGP, or listening to the appointed prophets and apostles of God, I have felt it many times; there is something about true scripture that always comes through and can be felt in the soul, something that is unique to scripture; something that physically testifies by reading the words alone; a familiar spirit that no other books in the history of the world can claim and that includes the 'Quran. The word of God is always testified to by the spirit of God and that should be enough to start anyone on the path to real faith and understanding.

So if Muslims feel the spirit of God when reading the qur'an, does that mean it's scripture and truly from God?

 

[Wombat]

Wow. Back up the truck, just a sec. Are you seriously suggesting that Maurice Bucaille's "QURAN, BIBLE AND SCIENCE" is actually worthy of being called "scientific investigation"?
.

Ok...Bucaille conducted an investigation of the contents of the Bible and Quran that pertain to the material world and which might be subject to examination in the light of contemporary science.

Now that we have established the precise semantic distinction between investigating those passages that pertain or lend themselves to investigation in the light of science and ‘scientific investigation’....are we to collectively continue to ignore entirely and dismiss without argument or consideration the contents, points, issues and conclusions of such investigation?

For thus far dismissive response to Bucaille&#8217;s work has not been accompanied by >any< logical, coherent, reasonable or science based critique.
The opportunity has been thrice made in this thread alone to shoot holes in Quranic verse --sura 21, verse 30: and/or Bucaille&#8217;s assessment of it-

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

We are told that the Quran is (exclusively?) &#8220;a book of faith&#8221; presumably to justify avoiding considering its contents in any other light. Yet here is a verse that is expressly and explicitly >not< referring to the &#8216;spiritual heavens&#8217; but to the formation of the material heavens- the universe.
Add to the lucky guesses that &#8220;the heavens and the earth were joined together&#8221; and life came about from &#8220;every living thing out of the water&#8221;...the succinct expression of the expanding universe-

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it." sura 51, verse 47

Again...an explicit reference to the material &#8216;heavens&#8217; not any &#8216;spiritual&#8217; realm.


Or perhaps someone would like to point out the scientific incompatibility or error in relation to the following passages?
"... if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power." sura 55, verse 33
Here the Author is indicating (to the immediate audience in 630(+)AD and thereafter) that &#8220;penetration&#8221; of the &#8220;regions of the heavens&#8221; is an achievable proposition. As Bucaille points out-

&#8220;The translation given here needs some explanatory comment:
a) The word 'if' expresses in English a condition that is dependant upon a possibility and either an achievable or an unachievable hypothesis. Arabic is a language which is able to introduce a nuance into the condition which is much more explicit. There is one word to express the possibility (ida), another for the achievable hypothesis (in) and a third for the unachievable hypothesis expressed by the word (lau). The verse in question has it as an achievable hypothesis expressed by the word (in). The Qur'an therefore suggests the material possibility of a concrete realization. This subtle linguistic distinction formally rules out the purely mystic interpretation that some people have (quite wrongly) put on this verse.&#8221;

So in a text from 1400 years ago we have the assertion that the penetration of space is achievable.

And in a contemporary Internet dialogue we have the examination of any/all such passages ignored, dismissed without explanation or subject to semantic obfuscation.

 

[A-ManESL]

Define "religion."

Islam is basically a plagiarized reworking of Judeo-Christianity (with hints of paganism thrown in), and is so similar to them that if they are religions, it must be as well.

Well, I am of the opinion that the term religion is confusing and misleading and should be dropped altogether. It essentially relegates Godliness to the background. Even in the Quran the word God is mentioned over 2600 times, while Islam is mentioned only 7 times. Even in those 7 instances the word refers not to what we understand by Islam today but literally to surrender, or inner piety.

You are starting from an assumption that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc are different things. I do not agree with this. There is a transcendent Unity in all these ideas, which has been present since the beginning of man. The reason you cant see it is because you are searching for Unity too soon. Unity is found at the spiritual plane, not at the theological plane at which you are trying to find the essence of these ideas.

Secondly, many of your concieved contradictions in verses are either because you totally ignore in what context the verse applies, or you fail to distinguish whether the verse was meant in the universal sense. I think that the Quran (or any other holy book) is not supposed to be read initially in such a legalistic way.

I suggest you read this book, maybe you will find it helpful.

 

[Autodidact]

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

This would be a good example of the Quran not having good knowledge of the universe. God would certainly be in a position to know that earth is actually part of the heavens, and the water remains full of living things.

We are told that the Quran is (exclusively?) “a book of faith” presumably to justify avoiding considering its contents in any other light. Yet here is a verse that is expressly and explicitly >not< referring to the ‘spiritual heavens’ but to the formation of the material heavens- the universe.
Add to the lucky guesses that “the heavens and the earth were joined together” and life came about from “every living thing out of the water”...the succinct expression of the expanding universe-

I don't even know what you mean by heavens and earth joined together. It's either obvious, or wrong. There's nothing brilliant there. Now had God mentioned that E = mc squared, and the speed of light = 186,000 mph, and the universe is more than 13 billion years old, I'd be impressed.

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it." sura 51, verse 47

Again...an explicit reference to the material ‘heavens’ not any ‘spiritual’ realm.

Are you by any chance familar with the Forer effect?

Or perhaps someone would like to point out the scientific incompatibility or error in relation to the following passages?
"... if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power." sura 55, verse 33

Sounds like sheer gibberish to me.

Here the Author is indicating (to the immediate audience in 630(+)AD and thereafter) that “penetration” of the “regions of the heavens” is an achievable proposition. As Bucaille points out-

If you have to tell me what the author is indicating, it's obviously not as clear as God could make it, had He wanted to.

So is God incapable of making His words more clear, or does He not really want us to know?

So in a text from 1400 years ago we have the assertion that the penetration of space is achievable.

At least, in retrospect. Of course, I doubt that's how 10th century Arabs saw it. It's always easier to detect something as having made a correct prediction...in retrospect.

 

[Autodidact]

You are starting from an implicitly wrong assumption that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc are different things. I do not agree with this. There is a transcendent Unity in all these ideas, which has been present since the beginning of man. The reason you cant see it is because you are searching for Unity too soon. Unity is found at the spiritual plane, not at the theological plane at which you are trying to find the essence of these ideas.

I can see just fine that the ideas in Islam are all derived from previously existing Jewish, Christian and pagan ideas. Mostly Jewish.

Secondly, many of your concieved contradictions in verses are either because you totally ignore in what context the verse applies, or you fail to distinguish whether the verse was meant in the universal sense. I think that the Quran (or any other holy book) is not supposed to be read initially in such a legalistic way.

They certainly appear to contradict each other. Either they do, or they Qur'an is too obscure and confusing to have come from God. You can't have it both ways.

 

[A-ManESL]

I can see just fine that the ideas in Islam are all derived from previously existing Jewish, Christian and pagan ideas. Mostly Jewish.
They certainly appear to contradict each other. Either they do, or they Qur'an is too obscure and confusing to have come from God. You can't have it both ways.

Well, what is the idea of Islam according to you?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, what is the idea of Islam according to you?

It's not just one idea, but a core concept is monotheism. Basically, it's the Abrahamic God. Obviously derived from Judaism. It's no coincidence that it arose in a region next door to Israel.

If God really wanted to spread some revelation, He might choose Japan or Kamatchatka, someplace that had never heard of Abraham. But somehow, He always behaves exactly as if He didn't exist.

 

[A-ManESL]

It's not just one idea, but a core concept is monotheism. Basically, it's the Abrahamic God. Obviously derived from Judaism. It's no coincidence that it arose in a region next door to Israel.

Well, I do not agree that this is the core concept. The idea of restricting various traditions to monotheism, polytheism etc are all products of later identity politics in various traditions. And in my interaction with the people of the Western world, I have found that the idea that traditions must be isolated into various -theisms is pretty much entrenched. I guess it emerged from a desire to categorize all traditions.

(And I am not the only one, if you think as before, in having this view: for example see this link as an illustration. A better explanation would be found in the book I linked in the previous post though.)

By the way what I hold to be the core concept of Islam was explained in my post here previously to you. Perhaps you do not agree with me that this is the core concept.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I do not agree that this is the core concept. The idea of restricting various traditions to monotheism, polytheism etc are all products of later identity politics in various traditions. And in my interaction with the people of the Western world, I have found that the idea that traditions must be isolated into various -theisms is pretty much entrenched. I guess it emerged from a desire to categorize all traditions.

(And I am not the only one, if you think as before, in having this view: for example see this link as an illustration. A better explanation would be found in the book I linked in the previous post though.)

By the way what I hold to be the core concept of Islam was explained in my post here previously to you. Perhaps you do not agree with me that this is the core concept.

Yes, I would say you have a very unusual understanding of Islam, one not shared by more than 1% of Muslims.

And again, the fact that people can draw such contradictory views from the qur'an gives us a huge clue that it is not a means God would choose to communicate with us.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a minute that huge chunks of Islam are derived from Judaism, less from Christianity, and some from surrounding pagan traditions. Which, as I say, is no coincidence, since Muhammad lived in a place with lots of Jews, Christians, and pagans. Had he lived in China, his religion would have elements of Confucianism and Taoism, no doubt.

 

[A-ManESL]

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a minute that huge chunks of Islam are derived from Judaism, less from Christianity, and some from surrounding pagan traditions. Which, as I say, is no coincidence, since Muhammad lived in a place with lots of Jews, Christians, and pagans. Had he lived in China, his religion would have elements of Confucianism and Taoism, no doubt.

But these "huge chunks" are really only the peel of the fruit and are only the external covering. What matters is the kernel, for if you disregard that all "religion" and traditions lose their real meanings. I do not disagree that Judaism, Christianity etc influenced the external form of Islam. However what is really of value is the internal essence, and this I believe is the same as that of all other traditions of the world.

 

[Autodidact]

But these "huge chunks" are really only the peel of the fruit and are only the external covering. What matters is the kernel, for if you disregard that all "religion" and traditions lose their real meanings. I do not disagree that Judaism, Christianity etc influenced the external form of Islam. However what is really of value is the internal essence, and this I believe is the same as that of all other traditions of the world.

Yes, well, that's an interesting belief, as I say, which you probably share with 1% of the world's Muslims.

It cracks me up when someone purports to tell me the "real meaning" of a religion, as though they were privileged to some special knowledge denied to the rest of us. Is there some reason you're more qualified to know the "real meaning" of Islam than the rest of us?

And, as I say, if Islam is so variable that your understanding of its "real meaning" is different from the other 99% of Muslims, that pretty much proves it could not possibly have come from God, who I think would not find it difficult to make his "real meaning" a little more clear.

 

[YmirGF]

Ok...Bucaille conducted an investigation of the contents of the Bible and Quran that pertain to the material world and which might be subject to examination in the light of contemporary science.

If someone thinks that such a study would be meaningful, they are welcome to fill their boots. Knock yourself out.

Now that we have established the precise semantic distinction between investigating those passages that pertain or lend themselves to investigation in the light of science and &#8216;scientific investigation&#8217;....are we to collectively continue to ignore entirely and dismiss without argument or consideration the contents, points, issues and conclusions of such investigation?

As long as those passages are used honestly and are not portraits of self-fulfilling fantasies or whimsical thinking of their authors, sure. Go for it.

For thus far dismissive response to Bucaille&#8217;s work has not been accompanied by >any< logical, coherent, reasonable or science based critique.

Here's an interesting idea. Provide a list of non-Muslims scientists, who are experts in their fields, who agree with Mr. Bucaille's inane ramblings.

The opportunity has been thrice made in this thread alone to shoot holes in Quranic verse --sura 21, verse 30: and/or Bucaille&#8217;s assessment of it-

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

Ok, first stop. Is that what this passage REALLY says? We are given the impression that that is simply fact. But is it true?

33 side by side English translations for Sura 21:30

The first thing that stands out is that the quote used here does not match any of the widely acclaimed English translations in use, though it does resemble the Yusaf Ali translation for the first half.

The passage is also not scientifically accurate because it implies that an external force was applied to the "singularity" thus causing the Big Bang. That, in itself, destroys ANY link to current Big Bang theory, as there was nothing external to do any kind of splitting. Though to the untrained mind, and unwary reader, it might sound similar, if one really stretches things, pun intended, it also represent an epic failure of the claim that this passage is describing the Big Bang. It can't be, as nothing existed outside of the singularity. And that means nothing... nothing at all. If you apply ANY external agency to the Big Bang, you are no longer talking about the Big Bang, you are talking about something else.

Aside from this annoying quirk, the passage is also quite misleading, given the way it is written, but perhaps God Almighty is a bit obtuse. For example, why would god talk about cleaving, tearing, ripping and not mention exploding? The phenomena could have easily been related to a covered pot of water that has its lid blown off due to a build up of internal pressure. Even uneducated Bedouins should have been able to figure that out. That is not perfect, but it is certainly closer that using terms like "cleaving, tearing and ripping". Poetic, yes, but not terribly accurate.

Then there is the pesky point of time lines. God is pretty confused here. The Big bang wasn't a normal explosion IN space. It was an explosion of space time itself into a minimum of 4 dimensions. The way the passage is written here the universe sounds like a clay pot, that is filled with water, gets smashed, and every living thing comes out of it.

"How would simple uneducated peasants know all this 1400 years ago?" The answer is as easy as it is simple. They didn't... and their words confirm this, in spades.

Why does no one attempt to refute the claims of Maurice Bucaille? My guess is that most scientist don't take his work seriously enough to bother forming a reply. It's sort of like being asked to come up with scientific evidence against the tooth fairy.

 

[Wombat]

God would certainly be in a position to know that earth is actually part of the heavens...".

What? You cannot see, recognise or concede the separation of the moon, stars, sun-all that is in and constitutes "the heavens" from the earth?
Nor recognise/concede that >all< these heavenly bodies were indeed once “joined together”?

God "would certainly be in a position to know that" what we percieve (from our earthly standpoint) of the "heavens"- moon, stars, sun etc...is seperate and distanced from us.

The notion that it was all "joined together" is in astounding accord with contempory science.

and the water remains full of living things.

Um...Let me guess...rather than interpreting the verse to mean every living thing arose/evolved out of the water...you are interpreting it to mean every living thing was removed/extracted from the water and thereby the Quran is proven false because “the water remains full of living things”?

Is that the level of obfuscation now being stooped to?

I don't even know what you mean by heavens and earth joined together. It's either obvious, or wrong.
"Obvious"-

Everything that can be seen in the heavens- Sun, moon, stars, planets, shooting stars and the earth were once all “joined together”, not separate objects separated in space. It is indeed “obvious”...that which is “joined together” is not separate- heavens and earth “joined together” constitutes >all that materially exists< joined as one object-the Primordial Atom that was “cleft asunder” in the Big Bang (Only there was no “bang”;-)

Now had God mentioned that E = mc squared, and the speed of light = 186,000 mph, and the universe is more than 13 billion years old, I'd be impressed.

No, you wouldn’t. You would dismiss any mention of it as pertaining to “the Forer effect”

As evidenced by having put to you that “God mentioned” the expanding universe "The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

It does not matter how many Quranic verse lucky guesses are stacked up one after the other and demonstrated to be in accord with science- Heavens and earth joined together, every living thing from the water, expanding heavens, potential to penetrate heavens...no matter how many are put forward or how explicit, accurate and improbable for their period of origin...each and every one is going to be ignored, dismissed or obfuscated out of hand.

Nothing will “impress” and nothing will prompt investigation

The Quran beating Einstein to E=Mc2 would be no more or less “impressive” than the Quran beating Harvey to the circulation of blood-

"Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of what is inside their bodies, coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood, a milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it." (sura 16, verse 66)

“From a scientific point of view, physiological notions must be called upon to grasp the meaning of this verse.
The substances that ensure the general nutrition of the body come from chemical transformations which occur along the length of the digestive tract. These substances come from the contents of the intestine. On arrival in the intestine at the appropriate stage of chemical transformation, they pass through its wall and towards the systemic circulation. This passage is effected in two ways: either directly, by what are called the 'lymphatic vessels', or indirectly, by the portal circulation. This conducts them first to the liver, where they undergo alterations, and from here they then emerge to join the systemic circulation. In this way everything passes through the bloodstream.
The constituents of milk are secreted by the mammary glands. These are nourished, as it were, by the product of food digestion brought to them via the bloodstream. Blood therefore plays the role of collector and conductor of what has been extracted from food, and it brings nutrition to the mammary glands, the producers of milk, as it does to any other organ.
Here the initial process which sets everything else in motion is the bringing together of the contents of the intestine and blood at the level of the intestinal wall itself. This very precise concept is the result of the discoveries made in the chemistry and physiology of the digestive system. It was totally unknown at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and has been understood only in recent times. The discovery of the circulation of the blood, was made by Harvey roughly ten centuries after the Qur'anic Rev elation.
I consider that the existence in the Qur'an of the verse referring to these concepts can have no human explanation on account of the period in which they were formulated.” M Bucaille

But why should a “ten century” precedent on Harvey impress us...easier to dismiss it out of hand as “Forer effect” (Which pertains to personality tests and inclination towards Horoscopes)


Sounds like sheer gibberish to me.

You lack the literacy skills and/or conceptual ability to translate “penetrating” (entering into) the “regions of the heavens”?...
I would refer you to the work of an organization called NASSA that has been successfully penetrating the regions of the heavens for some time now...but it is increasingly obvious such referral would be fruitless.

If you have to tell me what the author is indicating, it's obviously not as clear as God could make it, had He wanted to.


You didn’t understand what “penetrating” the “regions of the heavens” would mean/entail.....and that’s Gods failure to communicate clearly?

So is God incapable of making His words more clear...

Yea...She can state the principle of the expanding universe clearly and explicitly-“ The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

But She won’t force people to take their fingers out their ears to listen or consider....it’s that ‘Free Will’ business ;-)

“So in a text from 1400 years ago we have the assertion that the penetration of space is achievable.”Wombat

At least, in retrospect. Of course, I doubt that's how 10th century Arabs saw it.

>PRECISELY<! Arabs at the time (7th century) struggled with the verse as did those Moslems who followed...not comprehending why the Prophet would claim it was possible/achievable to “penetrate” the regions of the heavens (fly up into space) they sought to change and reinterpret the verse to have ‘spiritual heaven’ meaning...but simply could not do so >because< the Arabic is explicit.
The mystery and consternation surrounding this verse was not resolved until Sputnik.


It's always easier to detect something as having made a correct prediction...in retrospect.

Ummmmm....Autodidact.....are you seriously pointing out that it is difficult “to detect something as having made a correct prediction” >prior< to the event taking place?

And/Or are you suggesting that from our retrospective perspective in history it is “easy to detect” that the Quran “made a correct prediction” regarding the potential to penetrate the heavens?

If the latter is the case it is the first concession to reason we have seen thus far.

 

[YmirGF]

If the latter is the case it is the first concession to reason we have seen thus far.

I have to admit you take the term "claptrap" to unimagined new levels. Bravo.

How long will it be before you start citing the brilliant works of Harun Yahya?

 

[England my lionheart]

Dear Lionheart
In the attempt to dismiss the Quran as nothing more than "Mythology" you raised the "Mountains as Pegs" issue and employed it to dismiss/ignore an entire volume of scientific investigation of the Quran (Bucaille’s).
Your response here represents opportunity No3 to say something/anything about being dead wrong regarding Mountains being ‘pegs’ yet you decline to do so...as you continue to avoid what I have actually said (and what you have actually said) throughout your non responses-


No...Quite clearly I am saying “scientific precision and detail” aught not be expected because it is not a science text book...and yet, when it broadly refers to matters that may be verified or disproven by science it makes no glairing errors.
Which is “amazing” because even contemporary adults with a modern education and access to the net can get basic general principles of geological science completely wrong (See “Mountain pegs”, Mountains not “preventing” the earth shaking, Mountains not “set in the Earth”)

No it doesn't suffice,like i said "its a book of faith


Ah huh...and it is also a book of law, a book of social code and a book that makes many referances to matters verifiable by science. As I said (and you ignored)-“ we ought to expect >any text< revealed/written around 610AD in the Arabian Peninsula to be >absolutely full of bold and glairing errors in science<.”
Yet here we are, with you making three major/broad errors in basic geological science within three posts and expecting scientific precision and detail from the Quran.
here we are At each and every turn you are ignoring the point made and moving on to new/irrelevant ground-

“You will ignore that it is in broad alignment with “mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”
And is certainly more accurate than “Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking are the result of shaking...”

Well unless you can show otherwise, please explain how Mountains came to be, are they result of Tectonic plate movement or the result of your God physically placeing them strategically aroundthe Earth.


The question of “how Mountains came to be” is an irrelevant distraction and non answer to the point/issue at hand- ie the role of Mountain ‘Pegs’ as stabilizers-“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates” . How many times will that key and authoritative point of Geological science have to be put to you before it is commented upon or conceded?
Having steadfastly ignored the geological science and your glairing errors thereof...you present me with a Straw Man false binary choice-“ how Mountains came to be, are they result of Tectonic plate movement or the result of your God physically placeing them strategically aroundthe Earth.”

I take the third option you leave out- that God employed “Tectonic plate movement” to create mountains that in turn are -“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”.

The Qur'an ought to say what one would expect from people of 1400 years ago which it does

Are we to take such assertions on “faith”? Or examine the Quran logically, reasonably, in the light of science and without bias?

--sura 21, verse 30:​

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

That is- the >material< heavens, stars, moons, celestial objects and the earth all “joined together”, one ‘primordial atom’...then “clove asunder” to create the universe. Such an explosive event could have been described by the Author as a ‘Big Bang’...but given space is a vacuum and there was no “bang” such a description would be completely unscientific. Subsequently “got every living thing out of the water”?....lucky guess...they made em all the time back 1400 years ago

I think we have a budding Zakir Naik here


Once more and yet again says nothing to the point made-“ Quran, even if not >precise< in its scientific language has at very least been more accurate in its geological science than you have in your last three posts.”


When building i have set many a Brick or stone in Mortar,this means i have taken said Brick or stone from elsewhere and set it in a new location,realistically do you think the same has been done with Mountains


Oh please...When “building”(house or planet), if I have at my disposal the Omnipotent power of God I set the project in motion with a single word and allow the creation of Mountains to be subcontracted out to the Tectonic Plates- the plates divide, drift and collide, mountains driven up and down- “set” “deeply embedded in the ground” and the Mountains -“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”.
Just because your brick building goes up and is seen doesn't mean it does not have unseen deep set foundations to maintain equilibrium...or does it?...I'm begining to wonder and worry.

With respect to “expects to be taken seriously” - How many times do you intend to completely ignore my questions, your errors of science and the authoritative conclusions of Geological Scientists?

So your all powerful being who can say be and it will be in an instant is now sub contracting the work out to Tectonic plates,well at least you agree that they rise up out of the Earth and are not set.

As for errors well,i'm not a geologist but i know Mountains are a result of either seizmic or Volcanic activity,i know there are still Earthquakes,perhaps your God needs some more sub contractors,does any of this fit in with:


(Quran- 21:31): And We have set on earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them.
(Quran-16:15): And he has cast the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…
(Quran-31:10): He created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…

No sign of sub contractors there,he either cast or set the Mountains onto the Earth himself,you can say i am not addressing the good Dr Baucille and thats ok because facts speak for themselves and require no movement of Goalposts.