Wounded King

I am not spreading misinformation. The fact that you have an argument from authority, doesn't make what I say misinformation. I could produce several equally authoratative sources who disagree with Keith Moore. The fact that you are a medical student doesn't mean you are automatically right, although I know most med students think it does, I am actually a post-doc in the field of developmental biology so I think I am no more a layman than you are. I'm sure you are aware that Dr. Moore's book was also published in most countries without its commentary on the Qu'ran, and apparently the most recent edition refers to the source of much of the description in the Qu'ran as being form the Greek works on embryology.

None of which makes your argument any more valid, what is there in the wu'ran that was not simply observable from looking at an embryos gross morphology at various developmental stages? The somites in the 'mugdah stage' certainly should be observable with a little magnification. Something surely not beyond anyones ability, especially with the addition of even a very crude magnifying lens.

River

Thank you I really appreciate your thoughts and your polite manner. However, it may be true that 'mudgah stage' might be observable.....but why would Muhammad (pbuh) go out of his way to write this? It would probably not advance his arguments....for very few arabs would care during his time.....and scientific inquiry amongst the arabs became vogue after a few decades after the Prophet's death. Inclusions on verses of Embryology and other scientific phenomena may be more relevant for our times. But then again the Qur'an speaks of itself as a Universal Scripture for all Times.

Corona688

The bottom line is, if you assume it's right, you're going to find a way to make it right... I believe my Grandma put it best: "You can make the bible say anything you want, 'cause it can't talk back." Those that already believe are more than willing to take a phrase and turn it inside out into something it didn't mean in order to "prove" something. They're not proving anything.

River

You've got a point. I've also noticed how evangelical faithfuls tend to immerse themselves in "semantic acrobatics" to support their line of Biblical logic. I've heard some really weird defense/justification for some verses in the Bible.

lpetrich

River:
... I've also noticed how evangelical faithfuls tend to immerse themselves in "semantic acrobatics" to support their line of Biblical logic. I've heard some really weird defense/justification for some verses in the Bible

1. I completely agree with River there.
2. This also describes how many Muslim apologists defend the Koran and the Hadiths and the like.

tribalbeeyatch

Yeah, in fact I seem to recall a rather bizarre defense of a Koranic verse on this very thread. Something about semen originating from a place between the back and the ribs...

Nickle

OK, then call them "in similitude." And what about the others? I just made up a quick list that echos your list. Are you saying that the words in your OP are the only ones that are "directly opposite or 'in smilitude'" as you say?
Are they the only pairings of words in the Qur'an that have these properties? No, they aren't. They are just the only ones that match up on word count.

pariah

river, you claim that the numerology coincide that occur in the english version are irrelevant because it is not in the original language.

doesnt the fact that so many coincidence can be found after it is translated into a different language imply that they are after all, only coincidence?

month appears 12 times, but hour does not appear 24 times, etc etc

although i do find these amusing, i fail to see how they prove anything. are there more than that? the book is several inches thick afterall.

Wounded King

This can hardly be a valid argument if you claim that the Qu'ran is the word of God. If muhammad was simply relaying God's word then his intentions are immaterial.

Lobstrosity

Just for fun I thought it would be interesting to perform the same kind of analysis on Moby Dick, so I just threw together a little program to tabulate the number of times each word appears in a given piece of text and fed it the first thirty chapters (127 pages) of Moby Dick (taken from http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/moby/moby-1.html). Now Moby Dick has a total of 135 chapters (555 pages) not counting the epilogue, so just imagine how many interesting statistics you could pull out if one were to use the entire book as opposed to this relatively small subset. First and foremost, here is the full set of results for those first 127 pages, so feel free to skim through it for yourselves for interesting coincidences. Note just how common it is for a multitude of words to share the same word count. Perhaps I'll try to get the whole book processed at some point. At any rate, here are a few things I can see upon giving this list a cursory glance:

• "all" appears 360 times, and as we all know, there's exactly 360° in a full circle. Sweeping through 360° allows you to survey all.
  
• "never" and "thought" both appear 69 times. Could this be a secret message for the person who started this thread?
  
• "still" and "whaling" both appear 59 times, and amazingly enough people are still whaling today! But here's where it gets really weird...back in 1986 when the moratorium on commercial whaling was passed, there were nine countries who were still whaling. Since then seven have stopped while two are still whaling. Seven minus two is five...59!
  
• "after" and "God" both appear 53 times. What exists after God? I have no idea, but it seems Moby Dick has the answer theologians truly seek and I bet 53 is involved! Perhaps the answer is on page 53, or maybe in chapter 53, or maybe the fifth word on page eight coupled with the third word on page fifteen!
  
• "come" and "go" both appear a perfect 50 times! Like, OMG!!!
  
• "know" and "think" both appear 41 times. Interestingly "don't" and "harpooneer" also appear 41 times. Perhaps this is a hidden message to nourish our intellects whilst simutaneously refraining from killing whales?
  
• "three" appears 39 times. The first digit of 39 is three while the second digit of 39 is three times three (that is to say, the first digit is one three while the second digit is two threes). It's a miracle! What are the odds?!?
  
• "light" and "mind" both appear exactly 26 times. Isn't this one identical to something River indicated was supposed to make the Qur'an amazing? Didn't he have "the brain" and "the light" appearing 41 times or something? It seems Moby Dick actually trumps the Qur'an in this case, however, because "open" also appears exactly 26 times. As we all know, the open mind will see the light.

Eh, I'm getting tired now, but I'm leaving off at the good part. When you get down into the 20s and below there are an enormous number of words per word count. I think there are like thirty words that each appear fifteen times...that gives you a lot of different combinations to consider, some of which are sure to appear profound. Now just imagine what would happen if the tabulations included all 555 pages.

Something else for you all to consider. Please note that many of River's "amazing" statistics involved relatively low word counts. I few weak ones that I noted invoved eight. Let's take a look at how many different words appear in the first 127 pages of Moby Dick exactly eight times ...1...2...3.....7....... ok, I count 68 independent words. How many do you think you'd find in a book much larger than that? 100? 200? Can River possibly think it's amazing that out of a pool of hundreds of words you can find a few that can be interpreted as synonyms or antonyms? Hell, one of River's stats involves two words that both appear four times. You have any idea how many independent words appear exactly four times in those first 127 pages? 335!