Yes, according to my understanding, the text is certainly inspired by higher intelligence (with Divine permission). The study of the Qur'an reveals many 1p and 3p statements. The 1p statements are also of two categories: the singular 1p which we understand largely to be God being quoted, whereas the plural 1p is of the higher intelligences deputed to compose and reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad. These higher intelligences or 'aliens' as you refer to them insist on the Unity, Majesty, Immanence and Transcendence of the Divine. They do not reveal themselves nor ask that they be thanked, praised or worshipped, they are just a part of the government, and are carrying out their duty. Another fascinating aspect of the Qur'an (the recitation) is the preservation of it as is since the time of its revelation, not only in written form, but also in the memory of millions of people since then till this day. That ensures that the arabic text of the Qur'an we are dealing with has not suffered human philosophy and interpretation, and can be examined in its pristine, original form. Bucaille put Quran to the test of science, not philosophy. That is the essential difference in approach. To quote some verses:
Chapter 96: The Clot 1 Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- 2 Created human, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: 3 Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- 4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- 5 Taught human that which he knew not. 6 Nay, but human doth transgress all bounds, 7 In that he looketh upon himself as self-sufficient. 8 Verily, to thy Lord is the return (of all). Samiya Bruno wrote: Hi Samiya, On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:41, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno, Is French your first language? Not really. (Born in Germany, german/polish nurse). If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille from the following link: http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. I know you are wise enough to not fear my frank attitude, but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced, even by the very enterprise. An Alien might suggests "scientific knowledge", or some one just introspect itself correctly, for a change, and get the "scientific" insight, in which case the author was just quite well inspired, but that cannot be seen as an evidence for God r the divine. I am not sure there can be any 3p evidences, and certainly not a human text. This does not mean that some text are not very deep, and you know my respect for text like "the Milinda", or the "Theaetetus", or even "Alice" .... I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in this day and age. "Modern scientific knowledge", despite Godel and QM, are still basically and in the mainstream deeply wrong about theology, so what does it mean to compare a text and reinterpret it with that "non-modern-at-all" respect? How would you compare Bucaille and the old (almost lost, except still present but obscured in the Sufi) neoplatonist muslims? In theology my best reference are still in the greeks, the indians, the chinese. In occident religion has been mixed to much with the terrestrial goals, and the use of authority and violence, which betrays the simplest modest conception I can access of the divine. Bruno On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Samiya, > > On 06 Apr 2014, at 15:41, Samiya Illias wrote: > > Bruno, > Is French your first language? > > > Not really. (Born in Germany, german/polish nurse). > > > > If so, you can download the original French book by Dr Maurice Bucaille > from the following link: > http://www.islamic-invitation.com/downloads/Bible-Quran-Science_fr.pdf > This study was made many years ago. If this inspires you, perhaps you can > give a fresh look at the scripture with modern scientific knowledge. > > > I know you are wise enough to not fear my frank attitude, but the more I > look at it, the less I am convinced, even by the very enterprise. > An Alien might suggests "scientific knowledge", or some one just > introspect itself correctly, for a change, and get the "scientific" > insight, in which case the author was just quite well inspired, but that > cannot be seen as an evidence for God r the divine. I am not sure there can > be any 3p evidences, and certainly not a human text. This does not mean > that some text are not very deep, and you know my respect for text like > "the Milinda", or the "Theaetetus", or even "Alice" .... > > > > > > > I'm sure that would explain many more verses in terms we can comprehend in > this day and age. > > > "Modern scientific knowledge", despite Godel and QM, are still basically > and in the mainstream deeply wrong about theology, so what does it mean to > compare a text and reinterpret it with that "non-modern-at-all" respect? > > How would you compare Bucaille and the old (almost lost, except still > present but obscured in the Sufi) neoplatonist muslims? > > In theology my best reference are still in the greeks, the indians, the > chinese. In occident religion has been mixed to much with the terrestrial > goals, and the use of authority and violence, which betrays the simplest > modest conception I can access of the divine. > > Bruno > > > > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 04 Apr 2014, at 19:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 04 Apr 2014, at 11:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4 April 2014 20:33, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4 April 2014 15:59, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I suggest we study and evaluate it for its literal merit, rather than >>>>>> 'what it might mean' thus removing all constructs and myths surrounding >>>>>> it. >>>>>> Dr. Maurice Bucaille did something similar when he examined the >>>>>> scriptures >>>>>> in the light of scientific knowledge. Online translation: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://ia700504.us.archive.org/18/items/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To be fair, you have to allow that if there is a scientific inaccuracy >>>>> in a holy book which is considered the word of God then, unless God got >>>>> the >>>>> science wrong, that would be evidence against the holy book being the word >>>>> of God. The problem is that even if a believer says they are open-minded >>>>> in >>>>> this way they don't really mean it because that would be an admission that >>>>> they are willing to test God, which is contrary to faith and therefore >>>>> bad. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What are you called if you are willing to test god? >>>> A believer? >>>> >>> >>> Rational. >>> >>> >>> Yes. And as long the test does not contradict his theory, he can develop >>> a rational belief, which is basically a positive attitude about some >>> assumption. >>> >>> In the case of "God", there is one more difficulty, which is the >>> difficulty to agree on some non trivial definition which should be precise >>> enough to make a test meaningful and interesting. >>> >>> With some definition, God can also been disproved, or proved, in >>> mathematical theories. Gödel's formalization of St-Anselmus' notion of God >>> makes its existence provable in the modal logic S5 (the Leibnizian theory). >>> >>> About Bucaille I will take a second look, but from I read quickly, it >>> seems to me to take for granted Aristotle's God (the "creation", the >>> universe), and well, I have some doubt. It is very hard to interpret such >>> texts. It is too much "easy" to reinterpret favorably some paragraph, and >>> for a neoplatonist, this would mean that the author of the sacred text did >>> just have some insight/intuition, which for a neoplatonist is always >>> divine. In that case, both the existence of the work of ramanujan, but also >>> the existence of arithmetic in high school are evidence for "some" God. >>> "Alice in Wonderland" too. >>> >> >> Why Alice in Wonderland? >> >> >> You might read "the annotated Alice" by Martin Gardner. Lewis Carroll >> "perturbed" classical logic, and found everything: relativity, the quantum, >> Gödel, .... He is better than Plotinus. Unfortunately, he was completely >> rejected by Charles Ludwig Dodgson, who was quite reactionary---an aspect >> made quasi explicit in his longer "Sylvie & Bruno". Is Mr Dodgson equal to >> Lewis Carroll? >> The rabbit hole in Wonderland is very deep. >> For example, it illustrates the hardness to reason with a relativist >> nitpicker. >> From memory: >> >> Alice: I explore the garden ... >> The queen: Oh! you can call that a garden, if you want, but I know garden >> in comparison with which this one is more like a desert. >> Alice: ... and want to see that hill. >> The queen: Oh! you can call that a hill, if you want, but I know hills in >> comparison with which this one is more like a valley. >> Alice: That is not possible, a hill cannot be a valley, that would be a >> nonsense! >> The queen: Oh, you can call that a nonsense, if you want, but I know >> nonsense in comparison with which this one is as meaningful than a >> dictionary! >> >> :) >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> I am uneasy with a priori sacralization of books, as it looks to me like >>> an encouragement to authoritative arguments. Any one is free to feel some >>> text divine, but to put "divine" on the front looks close to blasphemous to >>> me (doubly so when true). >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
