The Qur'an is not the word of God

I thanks my opponent for his well informed rebuttal. As we shall see, he has made some mistakes in his arguments. 1- MUDDY WATER REVISED My opponent states : "In the last round I provided the correct Arabic translation of the text in question to show that it makes perfect sense" It is true that my opponent presented the Arabic translation. However, he incorrectly asserts that; "ain-in hami'at-in" lierally means 'black sea. This is false and reflects a poor translation of the Arabic(which is expected from M.S. Shakir's translation). The phrase "ain-in hami'at-in" translated properly means murky/muddy spring. The word "ain" means spring in english as is evident here : 'Ain The arabic word 'ain' means natural water source or spring- life blood of an oasis. http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com... e.g. Al Ain - The spring Ain-Ebel - Spring of irrigation Ain Jalut - Spring of Goliath Let us observe various high-standard and prescribed translations of Surah 18:86 to see of the verse should say "black sea" : "Till when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a MUDDY SPRING ..." (Pickthall translation) "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of MURKY WATER..." (Yusuf Ali translation) "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of DARK MUD..." (Saheeh International translation) "Until when he reached the setting place of the sun, he perceived it setting in a MURKY SPRING..." (Daryabadi translation) "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a SPRING of MURKY water..." (Wahiduddin Khan translation) The verse can also not be interpreted as Dhu'l-Qarneyn traveling to the western most part of his kingdom nor him looking at the sunset on the horizon. Notice that the text does NEVER says that the sun appeared to be setting in a black sea or what have you. The text clearly says Dhu'l-Qarneyn REACHED THE PLACE where the sun actually sets and rises (Surah 18:86-90). It is also interesting to note that ibn Ishaq, in his Sirat Rasulullah, recorded a particular poem by Tubba which said : "Dhu'l-Qarneyn before me was a Muslim Conquered kings throughout his court, East and west he rules, yet he sought Knowledge true from learned sage. HE SAW WHERE THE SUN SINKS FROM VIEW IN A POOL OF MUD AND FETID SLIME. Before him Bliqis my father's sister Rule them until the hoopoe came to her." Taken at face value, this poem is a part of the evidence that Muhammad took over a legendary story known to the Arabs before the Revelation of the Qur'an. Note : In what is classified a pre-Islamic poem, the word Muslim is used. This either suggests that the poem was manufactured by Muslims after Muhammad's prophethood or that the term was already in use prior to Muhammad's time. If the later, then this suggests further evidence of Muhammad taking over ideas from diverse religious groups of his time, erroneously assuming that these were divinely appointed or revealed. http://www.answering-islam.org... Such evidence in itself falsifies the supposed divine authorship of the Qur'an. 2- CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QUR'AN My opponent attempts to reconcile the creation of life (from water) with the creation of man (from dust) by stating that through a mixture of the two, man was ultimately made through clay (incorporating dust and water). This argument. Is false for the following reasons : The attempted harmonization by my opponent is an 'ad hoc' explanation since there is no indication that these verses were giving 'some of the ingredients' of man's creation. They do not read that way. The surahs never say : "we created man from water AMONG OTHER THINGS". The surahs were sometimes revealed with years in between them. So assuming that they belong together and each give only some 'ingredient', is an artificial explanation as the Qur'an never hints at this. The Qur'an simply reveals them separately at different times : "Created man, out of a CLOT of congealed BLOOD." (Surah 96:2) "We created man from sounding CLAY...." (Surah 15:26) "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from DUST..." (Surah 3:59) "But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of NOTHING?" (Surah 19:67) "...And we made from WATER everything living." (Surah 21:30) What do you think was the truth content of the verses revealed at the beginning if Muslims didn't know if there even would be any more revelations to give more ingredients? For them these were indeed absolute statement. Just as they appear to us today. Surah (96:2) is already a scientific fallacy. Modern science clearly shows that people are not made through blood clots. Rather people are made from male sperm cells and female ova fusing to form a zygote that constantly divides via mitosis to form an embryo, which ultimately develops into a foetus! Such scientific errors are irreconcilable! Note : my opponent has not attended to the historical errors, other scientific errors as well as the various other internal contradictions in the Qur'an which I presented in round 2 and 3. All I have to do is prove that the Qur'an contains at least one discrepancy (scientific, historical or textual) to dismiss the infallibility of the Qur'an which would in turn prove that it is not the word of God. I have proved this and consequently still lay claim to my position that the Qur'an is not the word of God. PLEASE VOTE PRO! PLEASE VOTE PRO! PLEASE VOTE PRO! References : *http://www.answering-islam.org... *http://www.forum.bismikaallahuma.org... *http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org... *http://www.quran.com...