Editors, em-bypass-2
4,744
edits
Prekladator (talk | contribs) |
Prekladator (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
It's improbable because the writer could say it plainly, in non-equivocal statement, obvious for any one to notice, instead of no one in the whole 14 centuries. | It's improbable because the writer could say it plainly, in non-equivocal statement, obvious for any one to notice, instead of no one in the whole 14 centuries. | ||
In this case we can say that it is a re-interpretation after the discovery, dependent upon equivocation, which is easy to do in a rich-semantic language like the Arabic language with any text. | In this case we can say that it is a re-interpretation after the discovery, dependent upon equivocation, which is easy to do in a rich-semantic language like the Arabic language with any text. In the same way find variable different meanings of the Quranic words that renders the Quranic statements erroneous, would they then accept that the Quran is false? Or would they immediately appeal to counterexamples (other equally valid meanings), or even to metaphors? | ||
Actually, in many other cases, the obvious meaning of the Quranic words render the verses false, and Muslim apologists then appeal to improbable counterexamples to save situations, if not found, metaphors are always present to save situations. | Actually, in many other cases, the obvious meaning of the Quranic words render the verses false, and Muslim apologists then appeal to improbable counterexamples to save situations, if not found, metaphors are always present to save situations. |