What Soora 2:23 really says to SFE Talk?

Fuzzman

Originally posted by SFE talk at 2003-10-15 12:22 AM:
Sura 2:23 has been proven to be unintelligible. Even you admit it is not a valid challenge. Where is the historical vaue or any value in such a verse.

Hahahaha you're really lost for words aren't you?  It is you that is not only unintelligible but unintelligent as well. If you cannot brood out of your same one liners why bother with what Fuzzman has to say to you? All I can say is that you simply do not have what it takes to really prove that the 2:23 is a challenge as so wished by you. So what tpye of gematrical value are you going for Mr.SFE Talk? English or Roman? Hahahaaha. Cheers fella! You make my day.

ARI FUZZMAN

Fuzzman

Looks like SFE Talk will be loosing his sleep over the 2:23, knowing that this is one baby he can't chew no matter what?

So what is your gematrical code choice Mr SFE Talk? Let me help you out a bit. Try rolling this baby for some help, seeing that you aren't intelligible at all when it comes to the 2:23.
So is it gonna be a three? Maybe a five? Nah.. a six maybe? Try some more. Who knows, you might even get lucky?
Will get back to you when I have the time to spare. Cheers fella cos' you make my day for sure.

ARI FUZZMAN

[ Last edited by Fuzzman on 15-10-2003 at 10:16 AM ]

What gematrical code value is there is sura 2:23? Please show us. JHahahahahahahahaha................

cheers

Fuzzman

Originally posted by SFE talk at 2003-10-15 10:28 AM:
What gematrical code value is there is sura 2:23? Please show us. JHahahahahahahahaha................ cheers

Whoa wait a minute here fella! Whaddaya mean "please show us"? You think I'm your teach or something? Even beggars got limits to scoring on free food. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop changing suits all the time and get down to a serious one on one with Fuzzman.

Before you run yourself off into a Mediterranean sunset, I'm gonna rope you in on the objective criteria bit. We've got unfinished business in this aspect and you'd better haul arse right back into focus ; unless of course your gonna use a lame duck excuse of you being cross-eyed or squint as the good dictionary would say.

Back into focus on the issue revived from a SFE Talkie botched runaway.

THE CASE OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
My perception of the objective criteria for the 2:23 is this :
" To create a chapter in similiarity to any chosen soora with the assistance of your helpers from your faith who are directly your witnesses if and when you are in doubt that the Quran was not from Allah but the creation of Prophet Mohammad."

So what is SFE Talkie's task here?
SFE Talkie needs to write up proof that my perception of the objective criteria is wrong and he needs to provide backup for that argument.

That is my objective criteria as I perceive to be the most accurate for the 2:23. So what are you going to do about it? Are you brave enough to challenge Fuzzman with a more intelligent and intelligible answer this time? I'm still waiting for you to prove your claims in a more educated manner. Cheers fella!

ARI FUZZMAN

[ Last edited by Fuzzman on 16-10-2003 at 10:38 AM ]

Woe! Wait a minute buddy. Weren't you the fella who said that Sura 2:23 is teh verse to be challnged and it is supposed to contain gematical value?
So? Where is it? Show us and we will meet the challenge. We are still waiting.

Fuzzman

Hahahaha, not only do you change suits in a flash but are a superb tongue twister at that too. Do they teach that at Evangelist turnover sessions? You're good but not that good.

In case you'd decided to turn Parkinson on Fuzzman again [as always; no doubt!], let me remind you that it was you that saw the 2:23 as a "challenge to non-Moslems" while I was trying to tell it that it wasn't. Anyway I'm not getting into that aspect of the 2:23 as you had already agreed with Fuzzman that the 2:23 could never have been a challenge as there were no mention of judges in the 2:23 to oversee your abiliity in creating a  chapter similiar to any soora of your choice. The issue of the the validity of a challenge is reduced to a invitation because there was no mention of the need of a judge to judge your creation ; only helpers and witnesses from your own faith. This issue is a done deal. So stop digging out issues already considered settled.

Then we went on to the issue of the "objective criteria" for the 2:23. Now this is where we stand for now. This issue hasn't been settled as of yet. You persistently insist that there is no "objective criteria" for the 2:23. I gave you that objective criteria. So now you have to prove me wrong. Can't you do a simple thing like that?

So get it on before we shift to the other issues important  for the 2:23 invitation.The gematrical issue will come in due course. For starters, the whole of Quran has gematrical numerical valiues, including the 2:23 itself. Didn't you see the appended Arabic numerical Gematrical chart above? Don't worry lah fella, we'll cross the bridge when we reach it lah! Now our journey is still stuck on the highway leading to that bridge because you're are pretending to not being able to read the highway signages.

Once again 4U2C :

THE CASE OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
My perception of the objective criteria for the 2:23 is this :
" To create a chapter in similiarity to any chosen soora with the assistance of your helpers from your faith who are directly your witnesses if and when you are in doubt that the Quran was not from Allah but the creation of Prophet Mohammad."

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO?
SFE Talkie needs to write up proof that my perception of the objective criteria is wrong and he needs to provide backup for that argument.

C'mon get on with the objective criteria challenge from me to you. I'm still waiting for you to bravely make your final stand on the issue of the objective criteria for the 2:23.

ARI FUZZMAN

Fuzzman

So where is the response to the argument of the objective criteria for the 2:23? I'm still waiting for your response Mr.SFE Talkie!

While we're at it, here's something for those following this thread. The talk of the presence of the numerical gematrical alphabet values in the Arabic language have a begining. Hopefully the chart below will throw some light on this matter and you will see from whence emerge linguistic alpbhabets in time.

You will all see that the Arabic alphabet emerged from the Proto-Canaanite root along the Aramaic [ the language spoken by Jesus] sub-root, thus proving that the Arabic aphabet was indeed a evolving manifestation of the language of God. That was why the final Revelation came to the Arabic language.

Come on SFE Talk, don't tell me you're gonna do the runaway bit again; are you?

ARI FUZZMAN

Really? Were Phoenicians around during the Exodus? How strange of the family tree above.

So where is there are gematrical value in sura 2:23. Where?

Fuzzman

SFE Talkie wrote: Really? Were Phoenicians around during the Exodus? How strange of the family tree above.

What's so strange? By looking at the year timeline, you'd get your answer on the part of the Phoenicians being around during the Exodus.  It is strange to you because you think it is a heredity tree when it actually concerns the beginings of alphabets.

What's so strange about the alphabet tree?

The origin of alphabets and the languages of the world.

Case One.
SFE Talkie : Were Phoenicians around during the Exodus?
Fuzzman : Nope. The Phoenicians were around before the Exodus.
The earliest (deciphered)  Phoenician inscription is of 1100 BC. Phoenicia is the coastal part of Canaan (now called Lebanon) and it had the earliest and easiest readable inscription. That抯 how it became the ancestor of all the western alphabets. Phoenicians and Hebrews were the tribes of Canaan that settled there from about 3000 BC. Thus, the style of their alphabets was also called the Canaanite.

Case Two: The connection between the Phoenician,  Hebrew and Aramaic alphabet.
Hebrew language is one of the oldest known languages of the world. Early Hebrew language was closely related to Phoenician language. Later on, between 600 and 300 BC, the Hebrew language was under the influence of Aramaic language, so the style of Hebrew writing was changed to Aramaic script.

Case Three.
The connection between the Aramaic and Arabic alphabet.
A sample of latest Aramaic script:  


Aramaic: The oldest Aramaic  inscriptions belong to the 9th century BC. Aramaic was the spoken language of the North Semitic people living in northern Mesopotamia and Syria since the 13th century BC. The script that developed around 1000 BC to write the Aramaic language was called the Aramaic alphabet. It writes right to left and has 22 letters, all consonants. Square Hebrew, Arabic and Persian alphabets were developed from Aramaic. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Aramaic script (150BC).

Case Four.
The birth of the Arabic alphabet from the Aramaic alphabet.
Arabic script was evolved around 4th century AD by the Aramaic speaking people of northern Arabia. The Arabic language (related to the Southern Central Semitic group, mainly spoken in Arabia) originated before the 5th century BC.

SFE Talkie : So where is there are gematrical value in sura 2:23. Where?

Hahahahaha fella, I see you're lost for zest and equal words for your objective criteria obsession of the 2:23! "Judging" by your failure on following through with it and the instant switch to the new  interest in the gematrical value of it, I take it that you surrender on the issue of the objective criteria for the 2:23 and that you accept my perception of the criteria for the 2:23.

I will only carry on with the gematrical values for Quranic verses when you admit that the issue of the objective criteria for the 2:23 has been dealt with through my perception of it.  Looks like it's gonna be two wins for me and none for you! How strange? The obsession to win lies with you but it is I that is the one making the wins and not you. Cheers fella.

ARI FUZZMAN

[ Last edited by Fuzzman on 17-10-2003 at 10:04 AM ]

We can see from the tree that Arabic is not an original alphabet system.

So where are the objective criteria to talked about? I'm still waiting.

Fuzzman

Originally posted by SFE talk at 2003-10-17 01:22 PM:
We can see from the tree that Arabic is not an original alphabet system.
So where are the objective criteria to talked about? I'm still waiting.

And we can also see from the tree that Arabic branches out from Aramaic while yours doesn't! So the language spoken by your God  has evolved into Arabic. Now you understand why God chose Arabic for his final revelation. Anything else?

THE CASE OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
My perception of the objective criteria for the 2:23 is this :
" To create a chapter in similiarity to any chosen soora with the assistance of your helpers from your faith who are directly your witnesses if and when you are in doubt that the Quran was not from Allah but the creation of Prophet Mohammad."

There you go. My perception for the objective criteria for the 2:23. Prove me wrong. I'M STILL WAITING.

ARI FUZZMAN

No sir, I see no reason why God would choose Arabic to reveal his word.

And I see no divine value in the use of Arabic nor any beauty in its use.

So where is teh gematrical value in sura 2:23?

What objective criteria can you come up for the challenge?

Up until now sura 2:23 remaisn unintelligible.

peace

Fuzzman

SFE Talkie: No sir, I see no reason why God would choose Arabic to reveal his word.

Your reasoning fell flat on your face because God as YaHWEH and ALLAH, being ONE and THE SAME, from the understanding of  "I AM WHAT I AM" taken to mean that God "WILL BE WHAT HE WILLS TO BE", has permitted the flow of his laws, from the early to the latter in the format of similiar language  that would be easily understood when the transition was from Aramaic to Hebrew and thence Arabic. When God allowed the Arabic alphabet for his last message to Mankind, it was the final sign that God had forsaken the Jews or Hebrew, and had placed his laws into the peoples of Ishmael, as promised to Hagar during the early days of Ishmael where God through Angel Gabriel, promised a great nation for Ishmael. Now the transition is complete and we have Quran and Islam. All former and present forms of God's message have a numerical gematrical alphabet that resounds in all his revelations that comes in the form of total numericals for every word construction, verse arrangement and chapter interfacing. That is why your Bible today cannot be the truthful Bible because it has scattered gematrical numerical values that are totally inconsistent to each other. This phenomenon could only occur from the overall butchery and alteration efforts carried out by the followers of Paul.

And yes Mr SFE Talk, the only reason you don't see why God would chose Arabic as his choice of language to reveal the final revelation would be that you're still clinging on to the deformed monstrosity apparel of Evangelist abomination of the Bible. Anything else?

SFE Talkie: And I see no divine value in the use of Arabic nor any beauty in its use.

How could you. Allah only allows this luxury for only believers or only to non-Moslems who have respect for other people's faith. Now you know why you are blind to the beauty and eloquence of the Quran? Anything else?

SFE Talk: So where is teh gematrical value in sura 2:23?

So where is the rebuttal  to my perception of the objective criteria of the 2:23? Where? Where?

SFE Talkie: What objective criteria can you come up for the challenge?

This which you refuse comment thus far!
THE CASE OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
My perception of the objective criteria for the 2:23 is this :
" To create a chapter in similiarity to any chosen soora with the assistance of your helpers from your faith who are directly your witnesses if and when you are in doubt that the Quran was not from Allah but the creation of Prophet Mohammad."
Now all you need to do is to prove me wrong! Simple as that but so difficult on you. Anything else ? I'm still waiting.

[ARI FUZZMAN

[ Last edited by Fuzzman on 17-10-2003 at 07:54 PM ]

That means to say the Quran is not objective nor are Muslims' criteria for the challenge objective since you claim that the Quran beauty is only available to Muslims and even you cannot explain. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha..........

cheers

Fuzzman

That means to say the Quran is not objective nor are Muslims' criteria for the challenge objective since you claim that the Quran beauty is only available to Muslims and even you cannot explain. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha..........

What? You mean to say that you can't explain why you cannot rebuke Fuzzman's perception of the objective criteria for the 2:23 ?

This which you refuse comment until this very moment! Shows how strong you really are doesn't it?

THE CASE OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
My perception of the objective criteria for the 2:23 is this :
" To create a chapter in similiarity to any chosen soora with the assistance of your helpers from your faith who are directly your witnesses if and when you are in doubt that the Quran was not from Allah but the creation of Prophet Mohammad."

Now all you need to do is to prove me wrong! Simple as that but so difficult on you. Anything else ? I'm still waiting.

ARI FUZZMAN

SFE Talkie: And I see no divine value in the use of Arabic nor any beauty in its use.

How could you. Allah only allows this luxury for only believers or only to non-Moslems who have respect for other people's faith. Now you know why you are blind to the beauty and eloquence of the Quran? Anything else?

You see, the criteria you have set are hardly objective at all. Nobody will see any beauty in Quran except Muslims.
This makes sura 2:23 into a joke. Hahahahahahahaha............

cheers

Fuzzman

Originally posted by SFE talk at 2003-10-18 10:44 AM:
You see, the criteria you have set are hardly objective at all. Nobody will see any beauty in Quran except Muslims.  This makes sura 2:23 into a joke. Hahahahahahahaha............

If you're commenting about my perception of the objective criteria for the 2:23, then please comment on why you say they are hardly "objective" in nature? What is the cause for your assumption? I'm waiting.

ARI FUZZMAN

You just said it, nobody will see any beauty in Quran except Muslims. So how can it be objective? Hahahahahahaha..........

Fuzzman

Originally posted by SFE talk at 2003-10-18 11:08 AM:
You just said it, nobody will see any beauty in Quran except Muslims. So how can it be objective? Hahahahahahaha..........

Time to pray when you stray. We're talking about the validity of the 2:23.......remmeemmmbeerr! Stay focused SFE Talkie. I know you've lost it when you stray. Where's your comment on my perception of the 2:23 and why haven't you explained that my perceptive objective criteria is wrong by your standards? I'm waiting for you to reply intelligibly and intelligently.

ARI FUZZMAN

I am focused. I have proven that Sura 2:23 is unintelligible.
You can't come up even with one objective criteria.
In fact you have shown us a subjective criteria fro the challenge. You have fallen into my trap till its too late. Hahahahahahahahaha...........

cheers