Challenge: Produce a 4 word description of the cosmos?

[goodyman]

assalamaleykum Goodyman

The other problem I have with taking this challenge out of the arabic language is the problem with transliteration, which is only a representation and not universal. We are aware that arabic experts have spent centuries trying to take up this challenge and of course failing, so I doubt that anyone on this forum is going to find the key.

Walikum Aslam, Sister.

You are correct, it would be wrong to take the challenge out off the arabic language. Most members on this forum are non-arabic, so they would not even be able to try and compse a verse which is similar. I'll be honest with you, I have tried my utmost to compose a simple four word sentence about any subject. I failed.

As Dauer mentioned the Bible does apparently contain a code, which I believe is in the form of cryptography rather than purely mathematical. It is my understanding that this was found in the original Hebrew, not a translation. Maybe Dauer can enlighten us on this?

Salaam

I understand what you are are saying. Muslims believe many parts of the bible are the word of God. Yes, the bible would carry a hall mark, but not in a translation. Same with the Jewish scripture.

 

[goodyman]

If you had been honest at the start I would have no need to say what I have said. I have attacked your assumptions. I am sorry that you cannot see that.

Tao

Tao_Equus.

Im going to put you on the spot and ask you to prove your claim for calling me deceitful?

 

[goodyman]

goodyman,

The project he's working on isn't about the structure of one single verse. He's looking for structures within the entire language, which in Judaism is traditionally understood not only to be from G!d, but also to be something like the building blocks of creation. As I said before, the calculator he designed went bonkers and he's only just picked up the project again. I think he may be rewriting it in another computer language.

Bring the verse my friend?

According to what I've read, the links I provided for you his primary reason for rejecting the verses was because they don't fit the patterns of 19's.[/QUOTE]

You were calling the verses ''suras'' in your previous post.

[/QUOTE]I'm not off-topic at all. You're attempting to keep the critical analysis of these verses according to a very specific method and rejecting any criticism of that method and sources of information that aren't being peddled by those who already believe in its Truth. When you present something in such a manner, you should expect criticism from those who disagree with you. I'm really not surprised that I'm not the only one who saw ulterior motives from you and is still a little suspicious.[/QUOTE]

You can be as suspicious as you like, the facts don't go away. Produce a sura like it?

In his “Appendix 24,” Rashad Khalifa writes:

“Nineteen years after the Prophet Muhammad's death, during the reign of Khalifa `Uthman, a committee of scribes was appointed to make several copies of the Quran to be dispatched to the new Muslim lands. . . .

“This committee was supervised by `Uthman Ibn `Affaan, `Ali Ibn Abi Taaleb, Zeid Ibn Thaabet, Ubayy Ibn Ka`ab, `Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubair, Sa`eed Ibn Al-`Aas, and `Abdul Rahman Ibn Al-Haareth Ibn Heshaam. . . .

“The committee of scribes finally came to Sura 9, and put it in its proper place. ONE OF THE SCRIBES SUGGESTED ADDING A COUPLE OF VERSES TO HONOR THE PROPHET. THE MAJORITY OF SCRIBES AGREED. `ALI WAS OUTRAGED. . . .

“Ali's protest is documented in many references, but I cite and reproduce here the classic reference AL ITQAAN FEE 'ULUM AL QURAN by Jalaluddin Al-Suyuty, Al-Azhareyyah Press, Cairo, Egypt, 1318 AH, Page 59 . . . .

“Translation: `Ali was asked: ‘Why are you staying home?’ He said, ‘Something has been added to the Quran, and I have pledged never to put on my street clothes, except for the prayer, until the Quran is restored.””

Appendix 24 of the Authorized English translation of the Quran of Dr. Rashad Khalifa.

What you're doing would be like a person saying to you, "Prove to me that the bible is written by man instead of being of Divine origin. You can only use sources of people who believe it's Divine and you can only use their methodology. If you present biblical criticism that's not valid and it's off-topic."

Bring me a verse from any scripture which is mathematically calculated? I don't want links that cannot be verified.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao_Equus.

Im going to put you on the spot and ask you to prove your claim for calling me deceitful?

How original do you think you are? I've seen 101 of you come an go on this site with a supposedly open question that is just a platform to try and promote some farcical dogma. Put yourself on the spot and deny that you fit that bill.

Tao

Note: Sometimes I have trouble being "respectful", and sometimes people deserve none.

 

[dauer]

You were calling the verses ''suras'' in your previous post.

No I wasn't. The verses are a part of one sura, which would negate the whole sura. You misunderstood me.

You can be as suspicious as you like, the facts don't go away. Produce a sura like it?

You're not dealing in facts. You're dealing in apologetic, which is by its very nature the placing of facts in a very subjective and theological light, making assumptions about the world. Even if you could show all the numbers are correct, you fall prey to some of the same fallacies as many other apologetics. You assume that an omnipotent, omnicient, benevolent creator exists and from there look for evidence to prove your case. If there's something that appears to be anomalous your first assumption is that it's evidence of the Divine.

Your quote from Rashad Khalifa was alluded to in the links I gave you too, that he claimed verses were changed by scribes, however that in no way refutes the other statement that he made, that because they were added the pattern doesn't fit as well as it should, and they must be excised to fit the pattern.

Bring me a verse from any scripture which is mathematically calculated? I don't want links that cannot be verified.

It doesn't seem like you want any links unless they support your thesis. I didn't present the link to show you a mathematically calculated verse of scripture. I presented it to show that other religions also engage in magical thinking regarding numerology to "prove", as it were, that their text is more valid. I find it somewhat disingenous that you would reject other mathematical methods that are not identical to the ones applied to the quran. The links that I provided earlier do cite that one of the criticisms of the Muslims application is that the similar tecniques have been applied to other sacred texts. Unlike you, I don't spend my time looking for reasons to believe in supernaturalism, nor do I bother to look for ways to debunk every apologetic I come across. There's a lot more to life to that. But there are those who do like spending much of their time criticizing the justifications for belief of others, for example the author of this site:

Are there Mathematical Miracles in the Qur'an or the Bible?


Under mathematics you may find worth reading the mathemetician's response with the conclusion ("This material has NO mathematical/statistical basis.") and the article What Exactly Are the Probabilities of Finding Multiples of 19.

If you scroll down there are links to examples of numerology in other religions.

 

[goodyman]

No I wasn't. The verses are a part of one sura, which would negate the whole sura. You misunderstood me.

I can agree to disagree on this.

You're not dealing in facts. You're dealing in apologetic, which is by its very nature the placing of facts in a very subjective and theological light, making assumptions about the world. Even if you could show all the numbers are correct, you fall prey to some of the same fallacies as many other apologetics. You assume that an omnipotent, omnicient, benevolent creator exists and from there look for evidence to prove your case. If there's something that appears to be anomalous your first assumption is that it's evidence of the Divine.

Im yet to become a Muslim.

Your quote from Rashad Khalifa was alluded to in the links I gave you too, that he claimed verses were changed by scribes, however that in no way refutes the other statement that he made, that because they were added the pattern doesn't fit as well as it should, and they must be excised to fit the pattern.

May be you were looking for stuff that might help your opinions. I went straight to the source which proved where Rashid got his theory from. From a weak Hadith.

Rashid Khalifa made many mistakes in his research. If he was still alive today he would surely change his mind on many things.

Out off the 6236 verses in the Koran the only two verses that did not calculate to the way he wanted, were may be put in there for a reason by the Almighty. Who knows? Personally, I do not go into the stuff carried out by Rashid Khalifa. I use more trusted sources. Rashid even mistranslated the Koran in many places, to prove hes a messenger.

It doesn't seem like you want any links unless they support your thesis. I didn't present the link to show you a mathematically calculated verse of scripture. I presented it to show that other religions also engage in magical thinking regarding numerology to "prove", as it were, that their text is more valid. I find it somewhat disingenous that you would reject other mathematical methods that are not identical to the ones applied to the quran. The links that I provided earlier do cite that one of the criticisms of the Muslims application is that the similar tecniques have been applied to other sacred texts. Unlike you, I don't spend my time looking for reasons to believe in supernaturalism, nor do I bother to look for ways to debunk every apologetic I come across. There's a lot more to life to that. But there are those who do like spending much of their time criticizing the justifications for belief of others, for example the author of this site:

Are there Mathematical Miracles in the Qur'an or the Bible?


Under mathematics you may find worth reading the mathemetician's response with the conclusion ("This material has NO mathematical/statistical basis.") and the article What Exactly Are the Probabilities of Finding Multiples of 19.

If you scroll down there are links to examples of numerology in other religions.

Again, my friend your using links. We can google most things and they would probably come up. Thats exactly what your doing. Its an act of desperation.

Heres a link about the stuff found in the bible and the hebrew scriptures: Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick! Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick

Now, do me a favour and compose a verse like the Koran, and if you cannot then you should make an admission that the Koran is not an ordinary book you might find in a public library.

 

[goodyman]

ABJAD AND THE RISE AND DECLINE OF ALPHANUMERIC SYSTEMS

Summarized from an essay by ;
Frank Lewis

Emory University

The word abjad is an acronym derived from the first four consonantal shapes in the Arabic alphabet -- Alif, Bá, Jim, Dál. As such abjad designates the letters of the Arabic alphabet (also known as alifbá') in the phrase hurúf al-abjad. An adjective formed from this, abjadí, means a novice at something. Nowadays the Arabic alphabet does not follow the sequence a-b-j-d, but rather the order: A-B-T-Th-J-H.-Kh-D (the basic shapes of the letters A-B-J-D without their diacritical dots do, however, occur in that order, insofar as T and Th are distinguished from B only by dots, and the H. and Kh from the J only by dots). However, the order A-B-J-D is quite ancient, insofar as the word abjad is not of Arabic origin, but comes from earlier written alphabets, perhaps from Phoenician though the sequence may be as old as Ugaritic. In any case, it certainly predates the writing down of Arabic, as can be seen by comparison of Hebrew (Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth) and Greek (Alpha Beta Gamma Delta).

The Arabic alphabet and the corresponding numerical values known as abjad are therefore derived from earlier prototypes, as the following comparison shows:

Hebrew: Aleph = 1 Beth = 2 gimel = 3 daleth = 4

Greek : alpha = 1 beta = 2 gamma = 3 delta = 4

Arabic: alif = 1 bá' = 2 jím = 3 dál = 4

The so-called Arabic numerals that we use as ciphers to represent our numbers (1,2,3,4, etc.) were invented in India c. 600 A.D. They were first used in the Middle East by the mathematician al-Khwarazmi (c. 875), along with the zero. Though some Europeans were aware of these "Arabic" computational symbols as early as the 10th century, they did not come into general use until the 13th century in Europe. The point being that up until this time, written texts in Greek, Latin, Hebrew/Aramaic, Arabic/Persian, etc. used letters of the alphabet to represent numbers (the Latin equivalent is Roman numerals).

The Arabic numerals proved far superior for computational purposes to the previous systems (it is not possible to do positional computation with roman numerals, nor did they come with the zero, another gift of India). The older letter/numbers gradually fell out of use, except in certain contexts (specifically the use of Roman numerals and Abjad numerals to mark the page numbers of the introduction of a book and the use of Roman numerals to record the publication date of books until the 19th century and the production date of motion pictures until the 1960s). However, just because the letters were no longer generally used as numbers, this does not mean that the numerical associations died out. Among poets the numbers were used to write chronograms (a word that contains a numerical value; poets frequently tried to find words with a numerical equivalent to the year of someone's death to write an elegy, for example). Theologians and mystics invested the letters and their associated numberical values with mystical significance.

ABJAD SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS

There are two principle variations in the Abjad system as to the value of certain letters; the Arabs of North Africa and Spain gave a different alpha-numeric order to some of the letters in the 100s than was common in the Levant and the Islamic east. However, this variation does not affect the values of letters under 100, which have always and everywhere been the same, so far as I know.

The Abjad values and their mnemonic groupings are as follows. Short vowels have no value (except in the beginning of a word, where they are necessarily accompanied by alif/hamza). Note that hamza (') and `ayn (`) are different letters with different values, as are the letters followed by dots (which would be underdots in printed versions of texts rendered in accord with the romanization system used by Shoghi Effendi for Baha'i texts). For the details of why hamza and alif have the same value (i.e., á = ' = 1), see below:

In the maghrib (Spain and North Africa), the following variant values obtained, to wit: s.= 60, d.= 90, s= 300, z.= 800, gh= 900, sh=1000.

N.B.: Certain phonemes which require two letters to represent in the roman alphabet (e.g., Th, Kh, Dh, Gh, Sh) are each rendered by a unique letter in the Arabic alphabet.

Likewise, doubled consonants (hurúf mushaddada) are counted only once. For example, though in transliteration we write Muhammad, in the Arabic script, the doubled consonant "mm" is represented by a diacritical mark (tashdid) over a single "m", which is therefore only written once and only counted once. Hence the numerical values of Muhammad and Nabíl are identical (remember not to count the short vowels, which are any vowels in transliteration which lack the accent mark):

M + h. + mma + d

40 8 40 4 = 92

N + b + i/y + l

50 2 10 30 = 92

The word Rid.wán totals to 1057: R= 200, d.= 800, w= 6, á= 1, n= 50. Mustagháth equals M=40, s=60, t=400, gh=1000, á= 1, th= 500 for a total of 2001.

The value of kull shay' should be 361 (k= 20, l = 30, doubled or mashdudd consonants are not counted twice, sh = 300, y = 10, hamza = 1). Persians sometimes elide the final hamza when writing this word in Persian (sometimes an extra "y" is also incorrectly added), which could lead to the wrong value of 360.

 

[goodyman]

How original do you think you are? I've seen 101 of you come an go on this site with a supposedly open question that is just a platform to try and promote some farcical dogma. Put yourself on the spot and deny that you fit that bill.

Tao

Note: Sometimes I have trouble being "respectful", and sometimes people deserve none.

Have a nice day, sir.

 

[dauer]

Im yet to become a Muslim.

You don't need to call yourself a member of a certain faith in order to deal in apologetics for that faith or to be biased toward it.

May be you were looking for stuff that might help your opinions. I went straight to the source which proved where Rashid got his theory from. From a weak Hadith.

You found a single passage about it that didn't negate what I said. I found my information on multiple sites.

Out off the 6236 verses in the Koran the only two verses that did not calculate to the way he wanted, were may be put in there for a reason by the Almighty. Who knows?

So you're trying then to make excuses for places where it doesn't work based on your a priori assumption of its Divine origins?

Again, my friend your using links. We can google most things and they would probably come up. Thats exactly what your doing. Its an act of desperation.

No it's not an act of desperation. I don't have knowledge in this area and I'm not going to get my answers from someone trying desperately to convince himself that he doesn't have to believe because he's found an absolute truth. You can't dismiss my argument just because it was googled. Address the content, not where it came from.

Heres a link about the stuff found in the bible and the hebrew scriptures: Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick! Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick

Yeah, I know it's bunk, just like your stuff. I pointed you to that to show you that other people engage in the same type of apologetic magical thinking via numerology. And yet I notice you completely skipped over the critical material that challenges your assumptions of Divine authorship.

Now, do me a favour and compose a verse like the Koran, and if you cannot then you should make an admission that the Koran is not an ordinary book you might find in a public library.

Now we're back to where we before. As I said previously, "What you're doing would be like a person saying to you, "Prove to me that the bible is written by man instead of being of Divine origin. You can only use sources of people who believe it's Divine and you can only use their methodology. If you present biblical criticism then it's not valid and it's off-topic."

But you're right that the qoran is not an ordinary book, for the reason that the Uppanishads, Tao Teh Ching, Bible, Talmud, The Book of Yo, Dianetics, Tanya and The Book of Mormon are not ordinary books. What makes them different is that a group of people holds them as sacred. But besides that, there's nothing special about them. There's nothing magical, nothing miraculous.

And I see now you're resorting to spamming the thread with things you already posted. You can repeat yourself over and over again in bold type. It's not going to make your apologetics any more valid.

I'm one to agree with Tao when he says "How original do you think you are? I've seen 101 of you come an go on this site with a supposedly open question that is just a platform to try and promote some farcical dogma. Put yourself on the spot and deny that you fit that bill." There's little difference between you and the guy who dreamt up the bible wheel, cept that the guy who came up with that was thinking for himself instead of relying on other people to spoon feed him metaphysical answers.

 

[greymare]

OOH look out Tao, Hes using big red letters!!!!!!!!! Sorry guys, I must have failed maths but it sounds awfully alot like an american tv show. love the grey

 

[Muslimwoman]

First of all the Q'uran was not compiled by Muhammad himself. In his time it was a collection of writings on various mediums held in many places. And he left no instruction as to the order of compilation on the finished article.

Hi Tao

I certainly cannot argue with that, I believe it was the second Caliph that compiled the text in it's current form. Islamic history tells of a tribe that knew the entire Quran, in it's revealed order, by heart, so it could of course be argued that the text was compiled according to the oral tradition. Although I wasn't there so cannot comment.

Secondly the number 19 already had mathematical significance to the mathematicians of that era and region. It is clear that they were responsible for fitting the Q'uran around the numerical values we see today. We can prove this as there are several fragments of texts that have been found that do not support this so called divine rule and clearly indicate that the Q'uran was chopped to bits and reassembled several times to achieve what we see today. The mathematicians of that time and region were the greatest in the world and if it were not for them much of the classical science we have today would have been lost.

Do you have any links for further reading on this, I have to confess I know little about the subject but would be interested to read up on it a little. I am particularly interested in the historical info re the significance of the number 19 and of course the evidence for 'text tampering'.

 

[Muslimwoman]

You are correct, it would be wrong to take the challenge out off the arabic language. Most members on this forum are non-arabic, so they would not even be able to try and compse a verse which is similar. I'll be honest with you, I have tried my utmost to compose a simple four word sentence about any subject. I failed.

Your failure comes as no surprise to me. May I respectfully suggest then, that unless you find some expert in arabic and cryptography on this forum that you withdraw your challenge. All I see so far in this thread is an opportunity for our beliefs to be ridiculed but no opportunity for anyone to really learn or discuss. In my humble opinion this challenge was always intended for arabic scholars and is certainly far beyond our meagre capabilities.

I understand perfectly that when you first discover the amazing attributes of the Quran that you want to tell the whole world but in my opinion issuing such an aggresive challenge is not the way to bring peoples minds to the beauty and mystery of the Quran. This is just my opinion and you are free to ignore me.

I understand what you are are saying. Muslims believe many parts of the bible are the word of God. Yes, the bible would carry a hall mark, but not in a translation. Same with the Jewish scripture.

Again with respect, the translation of the Quran is only an attempt to convey the Quran's meaning, as arabic does not translate well into other languages. So any hall mark in the Quran can only be found in the Arabic, as the Quran contains arabic words that have no equivalent words in other languages. Unless you wish to say that the code can also be found in the translation because Allah wants everyone to see the truth. Of course, if that is the case then would it not also be a valid argument for the Bible Code in translations?

 

[goodyman]

Your failure comes as no surprise to me. May I respectfully suggest then, that unless you find some expert in arabic and cryptography on this forum that you withdraw your challenge. All I see so far in this thread is an opportunity for our beliefs to be ridiculed but no opportunity for anyone to really learn or discuss. In my humble opinion this challenge was always intended for arabic scholars and is certainly far beyond our meagre capabilities.



I understand perfectly that when you first discover the amazing attributes of the Quran that you want to tell the whole world but in my opinion issuing such an aggresive challenge is not the way to bring peoples minds to the beauty and mystery of the Quran. This is just my opinion and you are free to ignore me.




Again with respect, the translation of the Quran is only an attempt to convey the Quran's meaning, as arabic does not translate well into other languages. So any hall mark in the Quran can only be found in the Arabic, as the Quran contains arabic words that have no equivalent words in other languages. Unless you wish to say that the code can also be found in the translation because Allah wants everyone to see the truth. Of course, if that is the case then would it not also be a valid argument for the Bible Code in translations?

Dear sister- You have made very valid points that I cannot ignore. The challenge is for the people who are familiar with the arabic language. I was wrong to have taken it out off the arabic context and bringing it into the English. I had no authority to do such a thing with the word of God. I hereby withdraw my challenge, and may Allah forgive me. Peace.

 

[17th Angel]

This thread was started to see if someone could produce a verse similar to the Al-Koran Al-Kareem, it seem's like No one will be able to. Especially not by you.

Who cares? lol......

I made an excellent version of my own... Beats your al-korma... or whatever hands down But, anyway what does this PROVE?

 

[goodyman]

You don't need to call yourself a member of a certain faith in order to deal in apologetics for that faith or to be biased toward it.

I have verified it by using the Numerical value of each word thats used in the Koran. The Koranic concept is not like the stuff you have presented. Each word is in its exact mathematical order. You cannot give me links that you have not verified for yourself. That seems very childish.

You found a single passage about it that didn't negate what I said. I found my information on multiple sites.

I went straight to the source. In Rashid's translation of the Koran, in the footnotes. You've ignored it.

So you're trying then to make excuses for places where it doesn't work based on your a priori assumption of its Divine origins?

I said from the starting that I do not agree with everything Rashid claims.

No it's not an act of desperation. I don't have knowledge in this area and I'm not going to get my answers from someone trying desperately to convince himself that he doesn't have to believe because he's found an absolute truth. You can't dismiss my argument just because it was googled. Address the content, not where it came from.

Links are not good enough. Research it yourself and bring the contents here for me to analyze. Your links provided little verification.

Yeah, I know it's bunk, just like your stuff. I pointed you to that to show you that other people engage in the same type of apologetic magical thinking via numerology. And yet I notice you completely skipped over the critical material that challenges your assumptions of Divine authorship.

I know all the links you have provided. Non of them answered my initial question.

Now we're back to where we before. As I said previously, "What you're doing would be like a person saying to you, "Prove to me that the bible is written by man instead of being of Divine origin. You can only use sources of people who believe it's Divine and you can only use their methodology. If you present biblical criticism then it's not valid and it's off-topic."

Thanks for your opinions.

But you're right that the qoran is not an ordinary book, for the reason that the Uppanishads, Tao Teh Ching, Bible, Talmud, The Book of Yo, Dianetics, Tanya and The Book of Mormon are not ordinary books. What makes them different is that a group of people holds them as sacred. But besides that, there's nothing special about them. There's nothing magical, nothing miraculous.

I can write a verse like any of the books you have mentioned above. If I knew their languages. But I cannot compose 4 words similar as the Koran. You had a chance to try and compose a verse. Obviously you could not, if you could have, you would have. The challenge has been withdrawn due to a request from a Muslim sister, who made good points, which I could not ignore.

And I see now you're resorting to spamming the thread with things you already posted. You can repeat yourself over and over again in bold type. It's not going to make your apologetics any more valid.

Its not apologetics, im sharing my research.

I'm one to agree with Tao when he says "How original do you think you are? I've seen 101 of you come an go on this site with a supposedly open question that is just a platform to try and promote some farcical dogma. Put yourself on the spot and deny that you fit that bill." There's little difference between you and the guy who dreamt up the bible wheel, cept that the guy who came up with that was thinking for himself instead of relying on other people to spoon feed him metaphysical answers.

Its not a promotion, its the findings of my research.

 

[dauer]

I have verified it by using the Numerical value of each word thats used in the Koran. The Koranic concept is not like the stuff you have presented. Each word is in its exact mathematical order. You cannot give me links that you have not verified for yourself. That seems very childish.

And here come the ad homonyms. Isn't that precisely what you criticized Tao for? When you talk like that I'm not the one who looks childish.

What do you mean by verified? I looked over all of the websites I presented. I'm not about to go do the math myself. I'm really not that interested and I don't enjoy math at all. I'm only here to prevent you from presenting your evangelical apologetic without the other sides of the argument also being heard. I'm the gevurah to your chesed, which seems to me to be rooted in your identification of ego with Self, as it were, of a part with the whole.

Numerology is quite common. Actually, yesterday I did some looking into the claims Tao made about mathematics. It sounded fascinating. Instead of finding what I was looking for I came across this website that uses the number 7 the way you use the number 19. He used a Tamil text called Thirukkural.

Mathematical miracle in Kural: A summary of major findings

There's a link on that page to someone doing the same stuff with the Christian Bible too.

I went straight to the source. In Rashid's translation of the Koran, in the footnotes. You've ignored it.

I didn't ignore it. It wasn't a refutation of what I said. It made a statement that the websites also made, thus placing it in agreement. It may not have contained all of the information that the websites did but that's one of the benefits of a website like that. If you're dealing with an individual you're more likely to get a much more general overview of their opinion on the matter instead of one particular statement about it that may not contain their entire opinion.

Links are not good enough. Research it yourself and bring the contents here for me to analyze. Your links provided little verification.

Links are absolutely good enough. I don't need to do the research myself. Other people have done it. It doesn't matter whether it was me or not. This isn't about whether I've done the research personally. It's about whether it's been done. You're only looking for ways to discredit what I've presented to you by making up excuses. If I do a study and write a paper on the neurological effects of frequent alcohol consumption or it's done by another person it doesn't matter. The research is still there.

I can write a verse like any of the books you have mentioned above. If I knew their languages. But I cannot compose 4 words similar as the Koran. You had a chance to try and compose a verse. Obviously you could not, if you could have, you would have.

I didn't bother to try because your nonsensical numerology has a particularist bias towards a specific text based on the initial assumptions of its Divinity. The magical numerology you assert to it is a contrived human element, not evidence of Divine origin. If you search for a reason to believe long enough, you'll find it, you'll convince yourself that you don't need to believe because you know, and once you've found your blind faith you're lost to absolutism. It's only a downward spiral that risks fundamentalist triumphalism from there.

Its not apologetics, im sharing my research.

That doesn't make it any less apologetic. It is still apologetic, whether it's so-called "research" or not.

Its not a promotion, its the findings of my research.

And it's also triumphalist promotion. The bible wheel guy is based on "research" too:

BibleWheel.com

As humans we have a natural tendency to look for patterns and to find them. It's when we begin to convince ourselves that the patterns we overlay on the world are really there that we've become deluded ourselves.

edit: Bible Wheel guy has a separate board for discussing this guy on his forum:

The Beginning of Wonders

He shows the same type of stuff coming up in the bible. That particular page works with Genesis 1:!. Some of the things he demonstrates:

The reflective factors of this sum - both prime numbers - immediately catch the eye
...

Appropriately, each component of the Creator's Name is found to be a multiple of 37 - indeed, a multiple of 8x37, or 296, value of the 7th word of the Bible's first verse [9]
...

A significant numero-geometrical singularity leads to the understanding that the numbers undergirding the opening 8 Hebrew words are related parametrically [12]
...

The derivation of the fundamental constant pi (correct to 5 significant figures) from the letters and words of Genesis 1:1 [14]

...

The derivation of the fundamental constant e (correct to 5 significant figures) from the letters and words of John 1:1 (a New Testament verse closely related to Genesis 1:1), applying an identical procedure [15]

...

Enjoy.

 

[goodyman]

And here come the ad homonyms. Isn't that precisely what you criticized Tao for? When you talk like that I'm not the one who looks childish.

Your desperation made you look childish, I have no doubts about that.

What do you mean by verified? I looked over all of the websites I presented. I'm not about to go do the math myself. I'm really not that interested and I don't enjoy math at all. I'm only here to prevent you from presenting your evangelical apologetic without the other sides of the argument also being heard. I'm the gevurah to your chesed, which seems to me to be rooted in your identification of ego with Self, as it were, of a part with the whole.

I think your statement above sums everything up. Im sure you did not even look into my presentation. Yet, your trying to find a fault in it. You'll find everything you want if you google it, especially when it involves Islam. You have not brought forward one word that is mathematically calculated. Your whole argument is based on links. Everyone can see that you cannot fault one letter or number in my initial post.

Numerology is quite common. Actually, yesterday I did some looking into the claims Tao made about mathematics. It sounded fascinating. Instead of finding what I was looking for I came across this website that uses the number 7 the way you use the number 19. He used a Tamil text called Thirukkural.

Mathematical miracle in Kural: A summary of major findings

There's a link on that page to someone doing the same stuff with the Christian Bible too.

Show me the verses and it must be consistent. That book of yours claims, ''A selection of 133 mathematical miracles from Thirukkural'' in the whole book. Thats hardly consistent. The Koran begins its miracle from the first letter to the last. Thats 114 chapters, with 6236 verses.

I didn't ignore it. It wasn't a refutation of what I said. It made a statement that the websites also made, thus placing it in agreement. It may not have contained all of the information that the websites did but that's one of the benefits of a website like that. If you're dealing with an individual you're more likely to get a much more general overview of their opinion on the matter instead of one particular statement about it that may not contain their entire opinion.

I gave Rashids own footnotes from his translation of the Koran. Yet, your still in denial..

Links are absolutely good enough. I don't need to do the research myself. Other people have done it. It doesn't matter whether it was me or not. This isn't about whether I've done the research personally. It's about whether it's been done. You're only looking for ways to discredit what I've presented to you by making up excuses. If I do a study and write a paper on the neurological effects of frequent alcohol consumption or it's done by another person it doesn't matter. The research is still there.

You have not refuted one letter in my presentation nor has any of the links you counted on. Thats the problem with links, you can't get the exact answer from them. especially in this case.

I didn't bother to try because your nonsensical numerology has a particularist bias towards a specific text based on the initial assumptions of its Divinity. The magical numerology you assert to it is a contrived human element, not evidence of Divine origin. If you search for a reason to believe long enough, you'll find it, you'll convince yourself that you don't need to believe because you know, and once you've found your blind faith you're lost to absolutism. It's only a downward spiral that risks fundamentalist triumphalism from there.

Your ignoring everything i've previously stated. Im yet to become a Muslim. I've taken the time to verify my findings. Many posts have been posted in this thread, yet no one has met the challenge nor do I expect a mere human to be able. BTW, heres a anti-isalmic article which claims to have met the challenge 19 - WikiIslam

I refuted that article within 10 minutes, into shreds. Don't think people are not trying to compose such a verse. They are. They F-A-I-L.

That doesn't make it any less apologetic. It is still apologetic, whether it's so-called "research" or not.

I'll respect anybook that has the same mathematical structure as the Koran. So far in my research I have not come across anything like it.

And it's also triumphalist promotion. The bible wheel guy is based on "research" too:

BibleWheel.com

I do not really want to get into the bible. There are far too many versions.

Theres way too much adding and deleting in the bible. Any editing would brake down any mathematical structure.

As humans we have a natural tendency to look for patterns and to find them. It's when we begin to convince ourselves that the patterns we overlay on the world are really there that we've become deluded ourselves.

edit: Bible Wheel guy has a separate board for discussing this guy on his forum:

The Beginning of Wonders

He shows the same type of stuff coming up in the bible. That particular page works with Genesis 1:!. Some of the things he demonstrates:



Enjoy.

Muslims can be confident that not one letter can be added or deleted in the Koran, it would show up like a black hole in space. Thats how interwoven the letters are in the Koran. My friend you do not want to look into it. Your choice. Peace. BTW, your links do not answer my question.

 

[dauer]

Your desperation made you look childish, I have no doubts about that.

I'm not desperate. I am exasperated because of your refusal to take into account all of the evidence against your apologetic. But you repeatedly prove yourself to be unwilling to acknowledge the weaknesses of your justifications. That's why you deny all of the evidence against your attempt to prevent yourself from admitting that your fundamentalist beliefs in the Divine origin of a finite text (which presupposes the existence of a Deity to begin with) are really just a matter of faith and have no basis in any science.

I think your statement above sums everything up. Im sure you did not even look into my presentation. Yet, your trying to find a fault in it.

I did look over your presentation, and I recognized the approach you were using and its apparent faults, such as the applicability of similar approaches to different sources, the human tendency to search for patterns, your reliance on already-biased sources, and your typical fundamentalist rejection of methods that challenge your own dogmatic approach.

Your whole argument is based on links. Everyone can see that you cannot fault one letter or number in my initial post.

My argument isn't based on links. It's based on the content of those links, multiple evidences related to probability, the application of numerology in other texts, the application of other so-called scientific methods to those texts. But you've already convinced yourself and you've closed your ears to material that hasn't come from those who share the same supernatural beliefs as you do.

Show me the verses and it must be consistent. That book of yours claims, ''A selection of 133 mathematical miracles from Thirukkural'' in the whole book. Thats hardly consistent. The Koran begins its miracle from the first letter to the last. Thats 114 chapters, with 6236 verses.

Did you bother to look through the site? It shows patterns consistent throughout. Did you bother to look at the bible wheel site? He also has mapped a cosistent pattern throughout. Did you bother to look at the Christian site? It's able to derive two different mathematical principles by applying the same technique to two similar verses. Have you refined your argument now to say, "More can be derived from my infallible text ergo it's more miraculous and more correct?"

You've even ignored the statements of a mathemetician in response to your apologetic.

I gave Rashids own footnotes from his translation of the Koran. Yet, your still in denial..

I'm not in denial about anything. That's only one statement by him. Other texts, as overviews of his entire work, have presented other things that he's said along with what you attributed to him. Your quote did nothing to refute that. You've only shown that by taking a single quote out of the context of his life's work that you can arrive at a much more limited answer. That is not a refutation.

You have not refuted one letter in my presentation nor has any of the links you counted on. Thats the problem with links, you can't get the exact answer from them. especially in this case.

I don't need to refute a letter of your presentation, only your method and your bias. There's no reason to refute that you found those arbitrary patterns. I presented you with alternative patterns in other texts.

I'll respect anybook that has the same mathematical structure as the Koran. So far in my research I have not come across anything like it.

And here comes your own personal bias. You expect that the text will reflect the same mathematical structure. If it reflects some different type of structure that's also consistent then you just ignore it.

I do not really want to get into the bible. There are far too many versions.

Theres way too much adding and deleting in the bible. Any editing would brake down any mathematical structure.

Here's your bias showing again. It shouldn't matter whether something's been edited or deleted so long as there's a mathematical structure. You've said yourself that you don't believe a human being could create such a structure, so even if it appears in only one, heavily edited version it must be of Divine origin, right? I would suggest that the reason you avoid the bible wheel site is because you have a sense that he did find something comparable.

Muslims can be confident that not one letter can be added or deleted in the Koran, it would show up like a black hole in space. Thats how interwoven the letters are in the Koran.

Not according to critical analyses of the history of Islam and of its texts. It's because you only accept the words of scholars who already have a strong bias in favor of a precise supernaturalism that you deny the human origins of the Koran. If you stay you'll notice that there are people of most every belief system who reject what modern scholarship shows about their religion in favor of traditional beliefs about its origins. Your own bias is nothing unique.

My links did not have to answer your question. They only had to demonstrate the fallacies in your thinking that lead to attaching dogmatic belief to an apologetic such as the one that you've presented. You've already convinced yourself and as much as you claim it is untrue, your actions suggest to me that you only wish to share your gospel with the world, including your response to MW's suggestion that there are better ways to do so.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Dear sister- You have made very valid points that I cannot ignore. The challenge is for the people who are familiar with the arabic language. I was wrong to have taken it out off the arabic context and bringing it into the English. I had no authority to do such a thing with the word of God. I hereby withdraw my challenge, and may Allah forgive me. Peace.

as salaam aleykum wr wb brother

Thank you so much. I was not trying to rebuke you, as it is not my place to do so, I was simply concerned to protect our faith and the word of Allah (swt), which is not something I personally feel we should 'play' with.

I am so happy that you have found Islam and I hope that you continue to learn about the peace and tolerence taught by our Beloved Prophet (pbuh)and you choose to join the Ummah.

I hope that you will conintue to post on this forum, as there is much to discuss and learn here.

Salaam
MW

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hello Goodyman, and welcome to CR! I found your mathematical presentation very interesting and informative. Thank you for making the effort to share it with us.

Chris