275 replies to this topic

[Lion6969]

Brother it's fairly clear StopS *snip* cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic, classical arabic and that it's a rich language full of depth, when translating any language into another, you will not have an equivalent word, for example, in cosmology you nay describe something which takes upto four words in English, but in Arabic one word covers all four descriptions, that's the depth and richness. In English how many words do you have which mean or describe a  sword? Maybe 5-10, in Arabic over a 100 words, same can be applied to other objects. I guess my main point is that StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning of those verses, ie unlearned Arab may get the same meaning as he is inept to delve deeper in the literature so he sticks to a layman meaning which suffices for him, for those with more insight and learned in Arabic and sciences can delve deeper to find the true depth of the verses. An
Ecycolpedic description of the universe simply within two verses is because god chooses the best word possible in the verses, not just that if you delve deeper in to linguistic miracle of the Quran you understand there's a perfect choice of words, structure, form, other tools used which are also perfect that if we humans colluded, used all our resources, we could not even muster a verse like those in the Quran in Arabic.

I mean clearly StopS *snip* has no idea about the linguistics, contextual form etc he is basing his whole argument on translations, which are simply someones opinion as to which English words represent the original Arabic. However he ignores the lexicons and the dictionaries written by esteemed arabists who are unbias non muslim expeers.

Brother ignore this dude, if your opponent can only function purely on a limited sense ie English translation alone and not willing to learn more about Arabic, then it's futile. *snip* Keep your good work going.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 13 March 2013 - 06:08 AM.
Removed personal attacks

[StopS]

Lion6969, on 15 December 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

Brother it's fairly clear StopS has one brain cell and cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic, classical arabic and that it's a rich language full of depth, when translating any language into another, you will not have an equivalent word, for example, in cosmology you nay describe something which takes upto four words in English, but in Arabic one word covers all four descriptions, that's the depth and richness. In English how many words do you have which mean or describe a  sword? Maybe 5-10, in Arabic over a 100 words, same can be applied to other objects. I guess my main point is that StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning of those verses, ie unlearned Arab may get the same meaning as he is inept to delve deeper in the literature so he sticks to a layman meaning which suffices for him, for those with more insight and learned in Arabic and sciences can delve deeper to find the true depth of the verses. An
Ecycolpedic description of the universe simply within two verses is because god chooses the best word possible in the verses, not just that if you delve deeper in to linguistic miracle of the Quran you understand there's a perfect choice of words, structure, form, other tools used which are also perfect that if we humans colluded, used all our resources, we could not even muster a verse like those in the Quran in Arabic.

I mean clearly StopS is inept in understanding the above points, He has no idea about the linguistics, contextual form etc he is basing his whole argument on translations, which are simply someones opinion as to which English words represent the original Arabic. However he ignores the lexicons and the dictionaries written by esteemed arabists who are unbias non muslim expeers.

Brother ignore this dude, if your opponent can only function purely on a limited sense ie English translation alone and not willing to learn more about Arabic, then it's futile. You end up entertaining trolls. Keep your good work going.

Do you know these sentences from the Koran?

"Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." 40:28
"Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass." 31:19
“And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames.” 49:11

I suggest you behave accordingly if you are a true Muslim.

If you are the same "lion" who ran away from me on Facebook, you know what happens next. If not, you will learn.

"StopS has one brain cell" this is a true statement. If you wanted to belittle me and try and insult me, you forgot the word "ONLY". You need to concentrate if you want to be a good insulter....
"cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic" is a true statement. Computing means yo take 2 items and interconnect them using a defined process. That a book is written in a language would be a matter of grasping or understanding. You really need to concentrate on what you are writing and learn how to insult properly.
"takes upto four words in English". Again: concentrate. Nobody understands what you are trying to say! Is Arabic precise or can one word have several meanings?
"StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning" are you trying to say: StopS can't get past ...? Well, then I suggest you concentrate and write it properly, if you are comparing languages and are performing exegesis here. Or is it eisegesis?

Now, let me leave your inability to properly express yourself and examine your factual points.

Ooops, there are none. This is just an emotional rant, whining and crying about my factual criticism.

But if you are so good at explaining classical Arabic, why don't you tell me what samaawaat means. Define it in your own words. If you can't do this, it means I am right and hiding behind words which are declared untranslatable and so complex they are above and beyond the English language then the Koran is not easy to understand as is claimed in the Koran itself is dishonest and contradicting the Koran itself.

The Koran is intended for all mankind and nations and not just Arabs.
(2:161, 2:164, 2:213, 2:221, 4:174, 7:26, 7:27, 7:31, 7:35, 13:7, 14:52, 17:88, 17:9, 35:45, 36:60, 49:13, 64:2, and many more).


But in any case: it should still be easy to understand and clear. As is stated in:

54:17- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember
54:22- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember
54:32- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember
54:40- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

In Arabic so you don't think this could be down to translation:

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin
Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin
Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin
Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin


75:19 Then, it is undertaken by Us to explain it.

6:114 He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail

16:89 We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things.

41:3 A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail

There you have it and now please tell me what exactly samaawaat means. Or are you telling everybody the Koran is wrong?

Edited by StopS, 16 December 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[StopS]

al-amiyr, on 12 December 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Therefore I went at length to set out the meanings of those four words contained in those two cosmological verses.
I have presented the meanings as I have already stated on more than one occasion

No, you have not explained anything. It is only your wishful thinking that makes you repeat these assertions over and over ad nauseam.

While preparing a video about your nonsensical claims and outdated approach I noticed how sloppy you are in your research and presentation.

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:
Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I was under the impression, looking at the childish diagram that it should be
Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Is this intended?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

[al-amiyr]

StopS, on 16 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

No, you have not explained anything. It is only your wishful thinking that makes you repeat these assertions over and over ad nauseam.

While preparing a video about your nonsensical claims and outdated approach I noticed how sloppy you are in your research and presentation.

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:
Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I was under the impression, looking at the childish diagram that it should be
Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Is this intended?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Where have I ever written the sequence as follows. Do you like to distort the work of others? Is it true what lion spoke about one brain cell? It makes me wonder!

StopS, on 16 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I have always written the sequence as follows.

beginning with R (as contained in the first QCM verse 21:30.
Kh = R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F  beginning with R (Ratq = bringing together, but unspecific as to the state of the origin)

beginning with T ( information contained in another qur'aanic verse says there was T i.e. specific as to the state of the origin)
Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

All of the above I have already explained in previous posts.

The diagram I said was just a basic diagram not meant to go into all the details for now. Do you want me to put 300 diagrams in one place.

You run all over the internet world misquoting all the time. When I point it out you make excuses. You specially came to this forum just to distort what I said. Now I ask you again , Where did I say

StopS, on 16 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I would appreciate if other readers can verify what the facts of this case are.

Thanks.

[StopS]

al-amiyr, on 16 December 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Where have I ever written the sequence as follows. Do you like to distort the work of others? Is it true what lion spoke about one brain cell? It makes me wonder!

I have always written the sequence as follows.

beginning with R (as contained in the first QCM verse 21:30.
Kh = R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F  beginning with R (Ratq = bringing together, but unspecific as to the state of the origin)

beginning with T ( information contained in another qur'aanic verse says there was T i.e. specific as to the state of the origin)
Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

All of the above I have already explained in previous posts.

The diagram I said was just a basic diagram not meant to go into all the details for now. Do you want me to put 300 diagrams in one place.

You run all over the internet world misquoting all the time. When I point it out you make excuses. You specially came to this forum just to distort what I said. Now I ask you again , Where did I say


I would appreciate if other readers can verify what the facts of this case are.

Thanks.

What have you explained? What does samaawaat mean in the Universe?

"I have always written the sequence as follows: Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F"

Well, then show me that sequence in your diagram.
You should wonder about your own braincells and less about others.....

You: Kh = T + R + F + 2R + 2F
Me:  Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

I have added something you missed. Where am I distorting anything?

You are pathetic! Show me a misquote! Just one (1). You are unable to do so. I am not aware of ever having misquoted someone. I have shown how you lie, how you mislead, how you deceive, how you fool people and you still have the audacity to accuse others of something they never did. Amazing how dishonest you are.

Well, I exposed you  in our TV show last night and will continue doing so.

Next:
What about my factual question?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?
Are you unable to answer? It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Edited by StopS, 17 December 2012 - 12:16 AM.

[al-amiyr]

StopS, on 17 December 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Next:
What about my factual question?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?
Are you unable to answer? It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Another deliberate misrepresentation. I have already defined The Universe as meaning "the current universe". The answer has been given. You are deliberately ignoring it.

[Lilly]

StopS and al-amiyr, please take your personl differences to PM (private messenger). A public forum is not the place for personal issues.

[StopS]

Lilly, on 17 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

StopS and al-amiyr, please take your personl differences to PM (private messenger). A public forum is not the place for personal issues.

You are right. Can I discuss the factual differences? This I think is the raison d'etre of a forum.

[StopS]

al-amiyr, on 17 December 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Another deliberate misrepresentation. I have already defined The Universe as meaning "the current universe". The answer has been given. You are deliberately ignoring it.

I am not talking about the Universe. I am talking about the header in your diagram titled "Qur’aan Cosmological Model", above the equation which is missing the 2T. This one: http://www.unexplain...15#entry4538963 or this one: http://www.unexplain...2
In the title it says: "A delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe...". What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?
It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model of the Universe?

Edited by StopS, 17 December 2012 - 03:01 PM.

[al-amiyr]

Lion6969, on 15 December 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

Brother it's fairly clear StopS has one brain cell and cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic, classical arabic and that it's a rich language full of depth, when translating any language into another, you will not have an equivalent word, for example, in cosmology you nay describe something which takes upto four words in English, but in Arabic one word covers all four descriptions, that's the depth and richness. In English how many words do you have which mean or describe a  sword? Maybe 5-10, in Arabic over a 100 words, same can be applied to other objects. I guess my main point is that StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning of those verses, ie unlearned Arab may get the same meaning as he is inept to delve deeper in the literature so he sticks to a layman meaning which suffices for him, for those with more insight and learned in Arabic and sciences can delve deeper to find the true depth of the verses. An
Ecycolpedic description of the universe simply within two verses is because god chooses the best word possible in the verses, not just that if you delve deeper in to linguistic miracle of the Quran you understand there's a perfect choice of words, structure, form, other tools used which are also perfect that if we humans colluded, used all our resources, we could not even muster a verse like those in the Quran in Arabic.

I mean clearly StopS is inept in understanding the above points, He has no idea about the linguistics, contextual form etc he is basing his whole argument on translations, which are simply someones opinion as to which English words represent the original Arabic. However he ignores the lexicons and the dictionaries written by esteemed arabists who are unbias non muslim expeers.

Brother ignore this dude, if your opponent can only function purely on a limited sense ie English translation alone and not willing to learn more about Arabic, then it's futile. You end up entertaining trolls. Keep your good work going.

StopS, on 17 December 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

I am not talking about the Universe. I am talking about the header in your diagram titled "Qur’aan Cosmological Model", above the equation which is missing the 2T. This one: http://www.unexplain...15#entry4538963 or this one: http://www.unexplain...2
In the title it says: "A delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe...". What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?
It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model of the Universe?

Did I not explain to you this already? You said and I quote,

StopS, on 16 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:
Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I was under the impression, looking at the childish diagram that it should be
Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Is this intended?

I replied,

al-amiyr, on 16 December 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Where have I ever written the sequence as follows. Do you like to distort the work of others? Is it true what lion spoke about one brain cell? It makes me wonder!

StopS, on 16 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:
Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I have always written the sequence as follows.

beginning with R (as contained in the first QCM verse 21:30.
Kh = R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F  beginning with R (Ratq = bringing together, but unspecific as to the state of the origin)

beginning with T ( information contained in another qur'aanic verse says there was T i.e. specific as to the state of the origin)
Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

All of the above I have already explained in previous posts.

The diagram I said was just a basic diagram not meant to go into all the details for now. Do you want me to put 300 diagrams in one place.

You run all over the internet world misquoting all the time. When I point it out you make excuses. You specially came to this forum just to distort what I said. Now I ask you again , Where did I say


I would appreciate if other readers can verify what the facts of this case are.

Thanks.

I have already explained the points but you insist to present that I said,

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

Again I will repeat myself. I started the QCM progressively and I presented the Formula as follows

Kh =  +R +F +T+2R +2F

then

Kh =  +R +F +2T+2R +2F

You have made two errors in quoting from my formula. And then you want to project it as what I said.

Error One. Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

Why have you taken the T out of the formula when I have it in there as follows Kh =  +R +F +T+2R +2F

Error Two. Why have you affixed a T in front of the original formula on my first diagram as Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

when I wrote it as Kh =  +R +F +T+2R +2F.
Please explain your reasons for doing so and then insist that you are correct. Must we get independent people to examine who is right and who is wrong?

[StopS]

al-amiyr, on 12 November 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

For Example the letter ‘M’ called ‘MiyM’ and ‘Mem’ in Hebrew are the symbols for the mathematical equation of a circle x/2 + y/2 = r/2. This is what is referred to as the knowledge contained in all the Divine Books. If this knowledge is lost then virtually everything becomes lost.

The equation for a circle is not x/2 + y/2 = r/2
It is x² + y² = r²  or, in normal notation: x^2 + y^2 = r^2

That's what happens doing mindless copy/paste.

[StopS]

al-amiyr, on 20 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I have already explained the points but you insist to present that I said,

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F
Why have you taken the T out of the formula when I have it in there as follows Kh =  +R +F +T+2R +2F

Nope, you always write something which I did not write about.

I am talking about your diagram called 001.

NOT text. NOTHING except the diagram. I am NOT saying anything about anything you presented or wrote or demonstrated or intended to do.

I am only talking about the diagram. A diagram you label "Fig. 001 Standard Delienation"

NOT any text, just a diagram. A diagram which is repeated but always has the same name.

What you write as the first formula on top is: Kh = +R +F +T + 2R + 2F

This NOT in the text and not anywhere in your normal writing, but ONLY in the diagram. I am ONLY referring to the diagram.

I am saying that according to what you say about the "formula" elsewhere is

Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

So what you are writing in other places than the diagramm is Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F, following your introduction where you say that for some reason it should be

Khalqan = Tayyan +Ratqan +Fatqan +2Tayyan +2Ratqan +2Fatqan

However, what you can see when you look at your diagram, the diagram labeled Fig. 001 by you is Kh = +R + F + T + 2R + 2F

Your rationale is:

Quote

Khalqan = Tayyan +Ratqan +Fatqan +2Tayyan +2Ratqan +2Fatqan.
Creation = Turn in +Rotate + Fire out +2Turn in +2Rotate +2Fire out.(an example)
The initial letters of these key words produce the following algorithmic compression;

Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

However, in the diagram labelled Fig. 001, you contradict yourself and write: Kh = +R + F + T + 2R + 2F

It is missing the "2T" you mention in the other representations. Please note that for conformity reasons I have now even included the missing space between the "+" and the "R" so that you don't get confused if a letter is slightly offset.

Again, I am not talking about the text but only the diagram you repeat, but with the mistake intact.

In the diagram Fig. 001 there is a 2T missing. That is a mistake. It is an error to omit a 2T because you never know when a 2T comes in handy.
Here, it makes no sense, but I still maintain you should be consistently wrong when you are wrong. At least keep up the flow and stay true to your nonsensical ramblings. Keep the momentum going and please don't be angry with the 2T any longer and correct your mistake.

If you manage to confuse yourself by mixing up the letters that is not my doing but your own inconsistency. Please stay consistent - even when you are wrong.
Thanks.

[al-amiyr]

StopS, on 20 December 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

It is missing the "2T" you mention in the other representations. Please note that for conformity reasons I have now even included the missing space between the "+" and the "R" so that you don't get confused if a letter is slightly offset.

Finally admitting that you deliberately lied by falsifying what I originally wrote and which I made known on several occasions. Now you say that you put that T back. I have already explained that that formula at that stage in the explanation of the Model did not require a 2T because at that stage one would not know if is a second spiraling contraction. As I said before that in the next illustration I made it 2T because  the facts became clear. There might also have been a typo error which it is not.

[StopS]

al-amiyr, on 20 December 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Finally admitting that you deliberately lied by falsifying what I originally wrote and which I made known on several occasions.

No, I have not. In spite of my repeatedly asking you to show where I falsified anything you have been unable to provide the required evidence and continue fabricating stuff and simply making it up when it suits you.

Quote

There might also have been a typo error which it is not.

Now we are getting closer to the truth. The truth hurts, hey?
Now please show me the explanation in the original text why the "2T" is not required in the diagram. If you are now repeatedly unable to provide required evidence I am accusing you openly of fabricating what you want and making stuff up.
Or you can finally behave like a responsible adult and admit you made a mistake. Easy.

Now, what about the 2nd mistake?

The equation for a circle is not x/2 + y/2 = r/2
It is x² + y² = r²  or, in normal notation: x^2 + y^2 = r^2

[al-amiyr]

al-amiyr, on 20 December 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Finally admitting that you deliberately lied by falsifying what I originally wrote and which I made known on several occasions. Now you say that you put that T back. I have already explained that that formula at that stage in the explanation of the Model did not require a 2T because at that stage one would not know if is a second spiraling contraction. As I said before that in the next illustration I made it 2T because  the facts became clear. There might also have been a typo error which it is not.

StopS, on 20 December 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

No, I have not. In spite of my repeatedly asking you to show where I falsified anything you have been unable to provide the required evidence and continue fabricating stuff and simply making it up when it suits you.



Now we are getting closer to the truth. The truth hurts, hey?
Now please show me the explanation in the original text why the "2T" is not required in the diagram. If you are now repeatedly unable to provide required evidence I am accusing you openly of fabricating what you want and making stuff up.
Or you can finally behave like a responsible adult and admit you made a mistake. Easy.

Now, what about the 2nd mistake?

The equation for a circle is not x/2 + y/2 = r/2
It is x² + y² = r²  or, in normal notation: x^2 + y^2 = r^2

1st point: The diagram is correct as it is and will remain unchanged.
2nd point: Yes! That is correct and I fixed it a long time ago. I only learned afterwards how to put a superscript 2. I have only been seriously typing this past year and am improving all the time. I am still typing with one and two fingers and my eyesight is also diminishing. 16 hours plus a day and over fifty pages; there is bound to be errors. Thanks for this positive contribution. To clarify; it was more a lack of typing knowledge than a mistake.