48,466
edits
Embryology in the Quran: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→The Formation of Bone
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
===The Formation of Bone=== | ===The Formation of Bone=== | ||
There is a clear mistake in the Qur' | There is a clear mistake in the Qur'anic idea of the formation of bone. Drs Needham and Needbeer of freethoughtmecca explain this well. | ||
{{Quote||While we will return to the issue of mudgha below, we should now move on to the issue of izhaam (bones). As was noted above, after the alaqa is turned into a mudgha, the Qur'an states fa-khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, or "then we formed the morsel into bones." Moore and his cohort try to change the translation to "out of the mudgha we formed bones," so as to give the impression that the bones are forming inside the embryo, rather than the entire object becoming bones. This brings to light the duplicitous nature that these people are taking to the text. | {{Quote||While we will return to the issue of mudgha below, we should now move on to the issue of izhaam (bones). As was noted above, after the alaqa is turned into a mudgha, the Qur'an states fa-khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, or "then we formed the morsel into bones." Moore and his cohort try to change the translation to "out of the mudgha we formed bones," so as to give the impression that the bones are forming inside the embryo, rather than the entire object becoming bones. This brings to light the duplicitous nature that these people are taking to the text. | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
As was alluded to above, there is an argument put forth by those who push this polemic that the "bones" are actually a reference to cartilaginous models that will later ossify. Of course, the text has izhaam, which only means bone - there is no reference to cartilage (Arabic: ghudhroof), so we see that the champions of this deceptive polemic are importing things. Furthermore, as was noted in the previous paragraph, the text has a past tense conjugation followed by the word "then" (fa), thus the logic of the text is that the bones were completed, finished, and then they were clothed with flesh. This does not square with the actual process that some wish to correlate the text with, where cartilaginous skeletal models ossify while muscle forms around them simultaneously.}} | As was alluded to above, there is an argument put forth by those who push this polemic that the "bones" are actually a reference to cartilaginous models that will later ossify. Of course, the text has izhaam, which only means bone - there is no reference to cartilage (Arabic: ghudhroof), so we see that the champions of this deceptive polemic are importing things. Furthermore, as was noted in the previous paragraph, the text has a past tense conjugation followed by the word "then" (fa), thus the logic of the text is that the bones were completed, finished, and then they were clothed with flesh. This does not square with the actual process that some wish to correlate the text with, where cartilaginous skeletal models ossify while muscle forms around them simultaneously.}} | ||
Unless and until a proponent of Qur' | Unless and until a proponent of Qur'anic embryology can adequately explain why the syntax of stage transformation is somehow different in the izhaam stage compared to all the other stages, one must logically conclude that the Qur'an is in error in believing that the mudgha turned totally into izhaam. | ||
Some may simply say that the syntax allows both interpretations, i.e. khalaqna can mean made into or made within. However, no proof has been provided for this assertion. It is easy to make assertions. Supporting them up with evidence is another matter. Therefore, in the failure of evidence otherwise, the conclusion must be that the syntax of verse 23:12-14 must reveal the | Some may simply say that the syntax allows both interpretations, i.e. khalaqna can mean made into or made within. However, no proof has been provided for this assertion. It is easy to make assertions. Supporting them up with evidence is another matter. Therefore, in the failure of evidence otherwise, the conclusion must be that the syntax of verse 23:12-14 must reveal the Qur'an to be in error. | ||
Secondly, they have to explain why the author of the Qur'an was deficient in their language and forgot to mention cartilage (ghudhroof)<ref>ghudhroof, alternatively spelt ghurdoof - Lane's Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000032.pdf Volume 6/ 32] - StudyQuran.org></ref> but bone (izhaam).<ref>'azam - Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000372.pdf Volume 5/ 372] - StudyQuran.org</ref> | Secondly, they have to explain why the author of the Qur'an was deficient in their language and forgot to mention cartilage (ghudhroof)<ref>ghudhroof, alternatively spelt ghurdoof - Lane's Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000032.pdf Volume 6/ 32] - StudyQuran.org></ref> but bone (izhaam).<ref>'azam - Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000372.pdf Volume 5/ 372] - StudyQuran.org</ref> | ||