In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be to you all.
Let's proceed to refute the second part of his "rebuttal," providing a brief yet precise rebuttal that will further expose his ignorance in the Hebrew language, and his knowledge of the Bible as well.
He writes:

The prophecy so closely matches those events that even scecular scholars agree which is the primary reason secular scholars date Daniel to just after these events. Their idea is the book is actually recording history but pretending to present prophecy.

But it doesn’t. Not even close. The chapter is about a prophet/messenger of God who brought a Holy Covenant. His successors fell into dispute over who was the rightful heir to his kingdom. The rightful successors were supposed to be his descendants (his followers), but that turned out not to be the case according to what verse 4 states. This is strikingly similar to how Islamic history played out.
He writes:

I'm not sure where Exion found this translation.

I found it here: biblehub - Pulpit's commentary. Literally a direct copy and paste. Not sure how he missed it.
Regarding the "The prophecy describes a sequence of events" thing he pointed out, I had already revised each verse from part 1 in part 2, and it now makes perfect sense. He should read part 2.
He writes:

A few things here. The verb is עמדים. The same verb is used in verse 3 and again in verse 4. Both cases it's referring to a king rising to power rather than rising against someone/somthing else. That context suggests the same meaning for the kings in verse 2. We also see verse 2 describing a king being against a nation when it says "he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece." This is a different verb and preposition.

Yes, I agree. 'Umar was the first king to rise in Persia when he fought the Persians and won. 'Uthman and 'Ali were the second and third kings, and Mu'awiyah was the fourth, the wealthy king. I'm not sure what he thinks he is refuting here because I literally wrote:
"This 'rising' could either be in support of Persia or in opposition to it. Remarkably, this aligns perfectly with the historical narrative of Islam, and here's why:..."
In other words, both interpretations align perfectly with the historical narrative of Islam. I believe he misunderstood that part; regardless, let's move on.

The Hebrew word is גִּבּוֹר which means strong/mighty not righteous

You also missed the part where I said that this would be made clear later in the chapter, specifically here:
Daniel 11:30:

• "...and he will be crushed, and he will return and be wroth with the holy covenant, and he will succeed, and he will return and contemplate those who abandoned the holy covenant."

The Holy Covenant was brought by the mighty king, of course. However, he completely missed this point and is portraying the Bible as if it prophesies random historical secular events and secular kings, like a history book, rather than a Holy Book foretelling the era of a prophet and a king, much like King David. He claims that secular scholars date Daniel to just after these events and believe the book is recording history while pretending to present prophecy. What a silly assertion. Don’t you think people would generally reject such false "prophecy" and declare them deviant liars, especially if they depicted events that had recently happened and everyone knew about? Both you and these secular scholars need to rethink your position because it is very unlikely (almost impossible to be true) and rather ridiculous, if I'm being very frank.
The chapter is about a prophet who brought a Holy Covenant from God, which is why it is literally called "Holy."
Definition of "Holy":

holy / ˈhəʊli / adjective
1.dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred."the Holy Bible" Similar: sacred, consecrated, hallowed, sanctified, venerated, revered. (Source: Google)

The Bible is considered to be the Words of God (or inspired Words of God), and these Words literally call this Covenant "Holy." Meanwhile, you are deviating from this description by portraying an erroneous picture of a bunch of atheist ancient kings fighting each other over various kingdoms.
He writes:

The specific word is וּכְעָמְדוֹ. The וּ is the conjunctive. It's not a vav relative in this case since the verb tense isn't the perfect or imperfect The כְ is a Hebrew proposition added to the verb. The verb is עָמְד and the וֹ is a possesive suffix. The verb form is the infinitive construct. When that verb form is combined with the preposition כְ it indicates a temporal clause which is where the "as soon as" comes from. The possesive suffix indicates the subject of the verb which is where the "he" comes from. Combined with the verb we get as soon as he has risen. Exion's translation ignores the preposition and possesive suffix on the verb.

I will respond to each claim by giving it a short name and my rebuttal next to it:
Regarding: Conjunctive וּ: It is agreed that the וּ functions as a conjunctive "and" or "but," connecting phrases. This conjunction alone does not necessarily indicate a temporal clause.
Not a Vav Relative: Correct, this is not a vav relative case.
Preposition כְ: The preposition כְ does mean "like" or "as." While it can form a temporal clause in combination with an infinitive construct, this temporal interpretation must be contextually supported rather than assumed.
Verb עָמַד and Possessive Suffix וֹ: Correct, the verb עָמַד means "to stand" or "to arise," and the suffix וֹ indicates possession, translating to "his."
Infinitive Construct: Agreed, the form is an infinitive construct.
Temporal Clause Interpretation: While כְ combined with an infinitive construct can imply a temporal clause, translating it as "as soon as" is an interpretative choice. A more literal translation is "when he stood" or "as he stood," and any temporal implication would be derived from what you believe is the context.
Possessive Suffix: Agreed, the suffix וֹ indicates "he" or "his."
Your interpretation that it is saying "as soon as he has risen" adds a temporal nuance that is contextually based rather than explicitly stated in the preposition and verb form. My translation aims for a more direct rendering of "when he stood" or "as he stood," which also respects the grammatical structure without adding interpretative elements not present in the original text.
Let's move on.
He writes:

It can also refer to the 4 generals after Alexander the Great. He came after the Persian kings, conqured all of Greece, had a mighty dominion, shortly after he conqured Greece he died, and his kingdom was divided among his 4 generals none of which were his decendents.

No, it can't, because this is about a Holy Covenant. I genuinely hope you can understand this because I know you tend to repeat the same misunderstandings and rarely admit when you are wrong. However, this is explicitly clear:
The phrase is: "על־ברית־קודש"
Breakdown:

• Word: על־ (ʿal)
  
• Preposition
  
• Meaning: "upon," "on," "over," "concerning"
  
• Word: ברית־ (b'rith)
  
• Noun - feminine singular construct
  
• Meaning: "covenant," "treaty," "alliance"
  
• Word: קודש (qodesh)
  
• Noun - masculine singular
  
• Meaning: "holiness," "sanctity," "sacredness"
  

Literal Translation:

• "Upon the covenant of holiness"

Neither Alexander the Great nor anyone else you mention (or anyone related to Alexander) anything to do with a Holy Covenant. This is beyond ridiculous, and I couldn't believe your scholars were claiming this. I thought it was so absurd that it didn't even need refutation. Yet here I am, refuting you because you actually hold this view.
He writes:

That fits better than Exion's interpretation for a few reasons. First this king came after the 4 mentioned in verse 2. If those in verse 2 are the Caliphs this king can't be Mohammed who was before the Caliphs.

What makes you think that the mighty king came after the 4 kings? The 3rd verse only said:

"And a mighty king will arise and will rule a great dominion and do according to his will."

Are you claiming that this must be in chronological order just because the four kings were mentioned before the mighty king? If so, this is the first time I've heard such a claim. Please provide your proof for this supposed Biblical rule; I'd like to read it :). You won't provide any because none exist. But claiming that it does gives you something to "expose," so I understand your motive. However, in the real world, you're just making statements that aren't true.
The 4th verse says:
"...but not to his posterity, and not like the dominion that he ruled, for his kingdom will be uprooted and to others besides those."
The posterity refers to the Rashidun Caliphs, while "to others besides those" refers to Mu'awiyah and those who followed him. Do you know what "posterity" even means? Posterity literally means future followers or descendants. Lol. The mighty king is the one with the followers, which is why he is the one who brought the Holy Covenant from God, not the four other kings. Had you known what posterity means, you would never have written this in the first place, but we will look past this mistake. Now you know a new word and won't repeat this mistake again. Let's move on.
Regarding "The king of the south is prophet Muhammad" I had revisited this verse in part 2.
He writes:

This is false. The source Exion links doesn't give any English meaning. The BDB does give the English meaning. For the former it means sprout/branch, the latter means root.

Noun נֵצֶר (nétser) m (plural indefinite נְצָרִים, singular construct נֵצֶר־, plural construct נִצְרֵי־) [pattern: קֵטֶל]

1. stem, shoot
2. (literary, collectively) scion(s)

References:

• H5342 in Strong, James (1979)
• “נצר” in the Hebrew Terms Database of the Academy of Hebrew Language

The other word (i.e. שרש):

Root: שֹֽׁרֶשׁ (m.n.)

1. root.

2. source, origin.

1. bottom, lowest part.
   
2. root, stem (Heb. grammar).
   

Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary
I don't know if you know this, but stem and branch are synonymous words, they essentially mean the same thing. And lowest part, bottom could also mean stem. Dictionaries define both words similarly:

Word: שֹׁרֶשׁ, שׁוֹרֶשׁ (m.) (b. h.; apocope of שרשר
, v. שָׁרָר) [chain, knot,] root. — Pl. שֳׁרָשִׁים, שֳׁרָשִׁין; constr. שָׁרְשֵׁי, שׁוֹרְשֵׁי. B. Bath. V, 4 העולה … ומן הש׳ וכ׳ that which shoots forth out of the trunk, or out of the roots, belongs to the landowner (v. גֶּזַע), expl. ib. 82ᵃ כל שאינו … זהו מן הש׳ that which does not see the light of day (when it shoots forth) is out of the roots’. Y. Ab. Zar. III, 43ᵃ top; Y. Taan. I, 64ᵇ ש׳ חטה the roots of wheat; ש׳ תאנה of fig-trees. Tosef. Shebi. VII, 17; ‘Uktsin I, 4, v. קוֹלָס. Ab. III, 17 וְשֳׁרָשָׁיו מרובין whose roots are many; a. fr.

Source: מקור: Jastrow Dictionary
Either way, let's pretend you're right (even though you're not) it still doesn't matter because a branch out of her roots did sprout, which came to be a sect called Khawarij. This was explained in part two. The ones that assassinated 'Ali were initially Shiites that later turned against 'Ali and assassinated him. It's interesting how Pulpit commentary writes:

"The version of the LXX. is very different here also, "And a plant shall arise out of his root against himself,"

He writes:

Edit: I just noticed another problem with Exion’s interpretation. They take Ali as both the commander mentioned in verse 5 who is one of commanders of the king of the south, and also as the king of the north mentioned in verse 6. That can’t be since the commander isn’t also the king of the north.

Revised in part 2 already.
He writes:

They show rather than trying to first establish the historical facts and show it lines up with the prophecy they are willing to misrepresent the historical facts to fit their interpretation of the prophecy and as their interpretation of the prophecy changes their claims about the historical facts change to match their new interpretation.

This is just your faulty conclusion and presumption. I speculated that they might have lied about 'Aishah being his wife. However, I'm not satisfied with speculations, so I revised the entire post of part 1, and it turned out to be even more accurate.
This marks the end of his part 2 post.
Thanks for reading, /Your bro, Exion

Introduction
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware of the controversial nature of AI, but feel this demonstrates an example of its ethical use. I am also fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance.
The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe
The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind
The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind
The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses
Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.

1. The Brute Fact Objection One common objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could simply be a brute fact - a fundamental, inexplicable feature of reality that we must accept without further explanation.

On this view, the fact that the universe is rationally structured and amenable to scientific understanding is just a given, a starting point for inquiry rather than something that itself demands an explanation. Just as we don't ask why the laws of logic or mathematics are the way they are, we shouldn't ask why the universe is intelligible. It just is.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.

1. The Physical Necessity Objection Another objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could be a necessary consequence of the fundamental laws or principles of nature. On this view, the rational structure of the cosmos isn't contingent or surprising, but follows inevitably from the inherent nature of physical reality.

This objection suggests that the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of the universe are necessarily such that they give rise to an orderly, intelligible cosmos. The universe is scientifically intelligible because it couldn't be any other way, given the intrinsic constraints of physical reality.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.

1. The Anthropic Principle Objection

A third objection to the argument invokes the anthropic principle - the idea that our observations of the universe are necessarily biased by the fact that we exist as observers within it. On this view, the apparent scientific intelligibility of the universe is not surprising or in need of special explanation, because if the universe were not intelligible, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
Mixing Epistemology and Ontology: Some may argue that the argument improperly mixes epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ontology (the study of being). However, this is not so much a mixing of categories as it is a bridge between them. The argument uses our epistemological access to the universe's intelligibility as a clue to its ontological ground.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes: [1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be to you all.

Introduction:

In this post, I will be answering and refuting the individual who keeps writing posts about me and comments every second he gets trying to "refute" me and "expose" me. I am only doing this because some brothers and sisters have allowed themselves to be fooled by this dude.
I won't resort to personal attacks and baseless claims (much like he does), and I will jump straight ahead to answering his objections.

Response to the introduction:

He begins by discussing my translation of the word "ישוחח," which I interpret as "argue" or "put forth."
Firstly, in Biblical Hebrew, verb forms such as Qal and Piel (often referred to as Polel in some grammatical traditions) are distinguished by their specific diacritic markings (i.e., vowel points and consonantal diacritics). Since I believe that the Masoretes distorted the Old Testament by adding these diacritics to reach a deviant interpretation, I do not consider them at all. I read the Old Testament without any diacritics. This is something he has yet to understand, perhaps because he believes that the Old Testament was revealed with diacritic markings—I don't know.
He later argues that the ancient Christian manuscripts (such as the Codex Sinaiticus, Septuagint, etc.) must agree with my claims and not with the Masoretic renderings of the Hebrew text, a conclusion he bases on thin air. I ask: Why is that so? Can you give us one good reason for this conclusion? You can't! He says this only because he considers these Christian manuscripts as divinely revealed criteria and translations. In contrast, I (and many others) see them as ancient interpretations of the original Hebrew text, which are very erroneous. This is especially true considering that rabbis themselves claim these scholars and translators failed to understand every Hebrew idiom in the book. They took everything literally and thus deviated from the intended meaning throughout their translations. These are the translations he claims must agree with my understanding.
The Masoretes could even have been influenced by Christians and their manuscripts, leading them to render some verses erroneously, whether knowingly or unknowingly—we can't be certain. However, I believe it wasn't unknowingly, and I have very good reasons for holding this opinion.
His arguments in his objections are all flawed and fallacious.

The Original sin being denied in the OT:

Now, the word he is fixated on is "ישוחח." As he mentioned, I used a classical Hebrew dictionary to translate the word. I don't remember the exact dictionary I used, but here is a random one I will use today:

Root: שִׂיחַ (v)
1 - to put forth, mediate, muse, commune, speak, complain, ponder, sing
1 -(Qal)
1 - to complain
2 - to muse, meditate upon, study, ponder
3 - to talk, sing, speak
2 - (Polel) to meditate, consider, put forth thoughts

Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, Creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible
In other words, both Qal and Polel essentially mean the same thing.
This following excerpt is from my original post about this, the post he is "refuting":
Excerpt from the post in question:
_______________________
Isaiah 53:8, traditional translation:
"From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them."
The original verse (without diacritics):
מעצר וממשפט לקח ואת־דורו מי ישוחח כי נגזר מארץ חיים מפשע עמי נגע למו:
My translation:
"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will argue that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."
_______________________
In this verse, God is explicitly denying the doctrine of the Original Sin, stating that those who argue, speak, put forth, or ponder that Jesus was killed for the sins of His (God's) people are cursed (or afflicted by a plague).
It is crystal clear! He is just in denial because it contradicts his Pauline doctrine. Thus, he has fixated on this specific word, insisting it is (without a shadow of a doubt) in the Polel form (because his Pauline forefathers said so), and claims that Exion has made a grave error. Incredible, indeed. What a rebuttal!
Let's see if the Polel form does anything to save him:
1. Meditate:

"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will meditate that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."

The definition of "Meditate" is:

1. To plan mentally; consider,
   
2. To focus one's mind for a period of time, in silence or with the aid of chanting, for religious or spiritual purposes or as a method of relaxation.
   

I know it isn't the latter, because that is just ludicrous and silly. But guess what? They even tried to claim it is the latter, which is beyond amusing to me and any other sane person reading this.
2. Consider:

"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will consider that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."

It still obliterates the doctrine of the Original sin completely.
3. Put forth thoughts:

"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will put forth thoughts that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."

It still obliterates the doctrine of the Original sin completely.
This is what I have to deal with. He is correcting my interpretation by yet again confirming it and he doesn't even realize it. He refuses to accept that the Old Testament completely refutes this absurd Pauline doctrine that God sent His "son" to the earth to kill him and forgive mankind. He can't understand that the Old Testament aligns with the Quran, calling them cursed. I have explained this to him several times, but to no avail. According to him, the early Christians "meditated" about Jesus' "abode." He raises the same objection in every comment he makes on every future post I do, as if I haven't just refuted him using the Bible, dictionaries, and other sources. In one ear and out the other. The only reason I'm even writing this response is to make you guys realize how unknowledgeable this man really is about the Bible and the Hebrew language. But he is good at making it look like he knows a thing or two by using fancy words and elaborations that make no sense at all.
I believe (if I remember correctly) that he translates it as:

"By oppressive judgment he was taken away, Who could describe his abode?..."

This unusual rendering is achieved by mistranslating a word, done specifically to alter the actual meaning. Some Jewish translators render it the same way, but they at least have the decency to add a footnote saying:

"\Who could describe his abode?* Meaning of Heb. uncertain." (source: Sefaria.org)

As they usually do when they mistranslate stuff.
Who would describe Jesus abode? What?! With all due respect, but that makes no sense at all! It makes no sense contextually nor logically.
This is how another Jewish translation has it:

"From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them."

Does this look like a coherent sentence to you? Jesus is taken from imprisonment and judgement, and his generation who shall tell? Tell what? This is an incomplete sentence - just to change the actual intended message.
The original phrase is: "ואת־דורו מי ישוחח"
Let me break it down for you:

Word: ואת = "And his"
Word: ־דורו = "Generation"
Word: מי = "Who will"
Word: ישוחח = "Argue/Put forth/Talk/consideetc"

Crystal clear phrase. Even Google translates it accurately (which is very rare by the way):

"And his generation who will talk"

Take a look at some of the English translations of his Christian forefathers:
New Living Translation Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants...
New International Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested?...
King James Bible He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?...
Some others got the first part accurate but still misinterpreted the last part of the verse, as it claims that they are cursed. God forbid, they are the ones who are cursed, for they consider Jesus to be the cursed one:
English Standard Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
They applied the "curse/plague" to Jesus (which they translate as "stricken," even though Biblically it is generally understood to be a plague/curse) instead of applying it to those "who considered" (i.e., the Pauline Christians). The Hebrew verse uses a plural word, indicating that it was intended for those people who would put forth this claim. They all refuse to accept the fact that God is explicitly and literally stating that they are affected by a plague for their erroneous claim about Jesus.
Let's quickly refute them too:

• The word for "plague" is "נגע" (nega).
• The word for "to them" is "למו" (lamo).

"Plague" (נגע):

Hebrew classical dictionary:

Heb: נֶגַע (n-m)
1 - stroke, plague, disease, mark, plague spot
stroke, wound
stroke (metaphorical of disease)
mark (of leprosy)

Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, Creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible

"To them" (לָֽמוֹ):

Hebrew classical dictionary:

1 - inflected pers. pron. meaning ‘to them’ (poetically).
2 - [Formed from לְ◌ with ◌מוֹ, a suff. used only in poetry.]

Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary, Creator: יוצר: Ezra Klein
A plague to whom? TO THEM! To the people who put forth this Pauline doctrine, the ones who argued, said, or considered this absurdity. Absolutely not to the one they believed to be cut off for the sin of God's people, namely Jesus, God's prophet, Messiah, His Word, and a spirit from Him.
But this is not surprising to anyone; it is expected, because their savior Paul also considered the blessed Messiah Jesus to be a curse:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13)

It bothers them that God Himself is confirming that they are the cursed ones, and He does it in the book they believe in. I am the one who exposed it, and all praise is due to God alone. It bothers this guy who is "eXpOsInG" me, and I won't mention his name because that is most likely what he wants.
He goes on to say that I quoted from a fictitious source, which is not true at all. I simply didn’t bother looking through my entire library to find a quote I mistakenly mis-referenced, mainly because the quote turned out to be quite irrelevant, and I don’t waste my time like that. Much of what he initiated his "rebuttal" with is equally misunderstood by him, and I have responded to each and every objection in my older posts (in the comment sections where he was "eXpOsInG" me). I picked the first thing and refuted it here for you just to show how ignorant he really is and how he is either living a lie or lying to others.
So, I will not bother to refute every single point of the old stuff that I’ve already conclusively answered. It's a waste of time. Let’s move on to his objections to my latest posts, because that is what this is all about in reality.

My answers to his objections to my latest posts:

Regarding the stone God mentions that was to be placed in the Temple of God, he says that it is saying

"Stone to a stone," or "upon a stone"

My answer:
"Stone to a stone" is not a Hebrew idiom, and neither is the word "upon" there in Hebrew. He doesn't know Hebrew, had he known Hebrew, he would never have "eXpOsEd" this because it just went to show that he doesn't know the language at all.
The Hebrew word "שום" (shum) in this context is derived from the root ש-ו-ם, which means "to place" or "to put." It appears here as an infinitive construct, which is often used to convey the act of doing something, similar to the English "-ing" form. In this sentence, "שום" is functioning as a gerund, which is a verbal noun. It translates to "placing" or "putting" in English. Therefore, "שום־אבן" means "placing a stone" or "putting a stone."
As for the next word, i.e. "stone" (אבן), in Hebrew, nouns have gender (masculine or feminine) and number (singular or plural). "אבן" is a feminine singular noun. When used in the phrase "שום־אבן" (placing a stone), "אבן" functions as the direct object of the action described by the infinitive construct "שום" (placing).
The next word is אל: This is taken as a preposition according to them, and it generally means "to" or "toward," and never "upon." It is used to indicate direction or movement towards something. While the following word is, again, a stone "אבן."
So if we're going with their interpretation, while being literal, as we should because it is not an idiom, it accurately translates to:
"Before placing a stone to a stone" or "before placing stone to stone"
Which makes very little sense, if any. Why wouldn't God say "Before placing stone upon stone" or "Stones upon stones" or "before placing a stone upon a stone"? Why did He use a singular word for "stone"? Because it is speaking about a one stone, the stone that God placed in Zion:

"So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic." (Isaiah 28:16)

I have proven in countless posts that Zion is the ancient name for Mecca. Just look up Psalm 84, and you will see how it mentions doing the pilgrimage in Zion and also mentions "Bacca," another name for Mecca. I have proven how Harran is located in Mecca and that the oak of Bacca is located there as well, and we know according to Psalm 84 that Zion is located where Bacca is located. With this in mind, it’s easy to see what has been done to cover up this prophecy. They have misinterpreted the word "El" as "Upon" instead of "God." The definition of that word is not "Upon"; it means "To/toward" or "God."
Classical Hebrew dictionary:

Heb: אֵל (n-m)
god, god-like one, mighty one
mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
angels
god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
God, the one true God, Jehovah
mighty things in nature
strength, power

Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible
And:

Heb: אֶל (prep.)
denoting motion toward or to, or direction toward, and meaning ‘to, unto, toward, into, at, by’.
[Shortened from אֱלֵי (which is preserved in poetry). cp. עֲלֵי, poetical form of עַל (= on), and עֲדֵי, poetical form of עַד (= as far as, until). Related to Arab. ’ilā (= to, toward, up to).]

Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary, Creator: יוצר: Ezra Klein
Let's see if any of these help him:

Before placing a stone to a stone?
Before placing a stone towards a stone?
Before placing a stone into a stone?
Before placing a stone unto a stone? (archaic term for "to")
Before placing a stone at a stone?
Before placing a stone by a stone?

Does any of this make any sense to you? I believe it certainly does not. Yet they have all chosen to ignore these valid definitions and instead opt for a definition that isn't there, namely: "a stone UPON a stone," just to claim that God was idiomatically saying "Before you build the temple." The temple was already built, as I will prove later below.
To get a more coherent translation, one that makes sense both contextually and linguistically, we need to consider "El" as "God":

ועתה - "And now"
שימו־נא - "consider, please"
לבבכם - "your heart"
מן־היום - "from this day"
הזה - "this"
ומעלה - "and onward"
מטרם - "before"
שום־אבן - "placing a stone"
אל־אבן - "God's stone/stone of God"
בהיכל - "in the Temple"
יהוה - "of YHWH" (YHWH)

Here, "אל־אבן" would translate to "God's stone" or "stone of God." Thus, the phrase "מטרם שום־אבן אל־אבן בהיכל יהוה" would be understood as "before placing a stone as God's stone in the temple of YHWH" or "before placing a stone, God's stone, in the temple of YHWH"
He is just in denial here as well. It is quite obvious that God is talking about placing a stone in the Temple of God, not about placing a stone towards a stone (whatever that means). Biblically, it is known that Jacob placed a stone in the House of God in Harran, which I have also proven to be located in the vicinity of Mecca, using 1st-century CE atlases by giants in geography such as Pomponius Mela, Pliny, and others.
He writes:

"More importantly, Exion ignored that “stone” in the Hebrew occurs twice. If we take אל to be God and take it as the construct state (the ‘s) then it would be “before setting stone’s God’s stone”. That doesn’t make sense hence why Exion dropped the first occurrence of אֶ֛בֶן in their translation."

Or you could simply not take "El" as a construct state. In Hebrew, a noun followed by another noun can indicate possession without needing a construct state (i.e. the equivalent of adding 's in English). This is often called "smikhut" or construct form, but it is not always necessary to explicitly form it.
In the phrase "שום־אבן אל־אבן" (placing a stone as God's stone), the context and the nouns' arrangement provide the possessive meaning without requiring additional grammatical changes. "אל־אבן" can be understood as "God's stone" even though it is not in the formal construct state. This is something he doesn't know because, well, who knows why. I have my speculations, but I will refrain from personal attacks.
He says:

"It makes perfect sense with the rest of the verse “in the temple of Yahweh.” It’s talking about before the building of the temple which involved setting stone upon stone."

Oh really? Is that why the 3rd verse literally talks about the Temple that already was in existence but was viewed as nothing in their eyes (i.e. insignificant):

"Who among you is left, who saw this house in its former glory? And as you see it now, is it not as nothing in your eyes?" (Haggai 2:3)

Explicitly contradicting your claim that it doesn't exist, but you didn't know that because you have probably never even read the entirety of the chapter to begin with. The Temple was already there. A stone was to be placed in it, God's stone, the black stone of the House of God, and not that it was to be built or built anew. This is why I even wrote the article, because the temple of God was already in existence. How you could have missed this, if you've read the chapter in it entirety, is very baffling to me.
This is why Jacob, upon waking from his prophetic dream, never built the House of God. (Yes, Jacob was a prophet, but Christian scholars throughout history didn't recognize this and thought he was merely a patriarch.) Instead, he only placed a stone as its cornerstone and named it "The House of God":

16. When Jacob woke up, he thought, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was unaware of it.” 17. And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven!” 18. Early the next morning, Jacob took the stone that he had placed under his head, and he set it up as a pillar. He poured oil on top of it."

Going back to Haggai 2, the 6th verse states:

"כי כה אמר יהוה צבאות עוד אחת מעט היא ואני מרעיש את־השמים ואת־הארץ ואת־הים ואת־החרבה:"

Which literally translates to:

"For thus says the Lord of Hosts: Once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land."

Which they have erroneously translated as:

"For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will rise] another one, and I will shake up the heaven and the earth and the sea and the dry land [for] a little while." (source)

Lying and adding words to the Word of God to make it look like another House would be raised.
7th verse states:
Haggai 2:7

"והרעשתי את־כל־הגוים ובאו חמדת כל־הגוים ומלאתי את־הבית הזה כבוד אמר יהוה צבאות:"

Transliteration:

"Ve-hir'ashti et kol ha-goyim u-va'u chemdat kol ha-goyim u-milati et ha-bayit ha-zeh kavod amar Adonai Tzva'ot."

Not only does it confirm that the House is already in existence, but it mentioned our prophet Ahmad coming to it by using the cognate of his name, "Chemdat," which they erroneously have translated as:

"and the treasures of all the nations will be brought to this Temple."

The preposition "the" is not there before "Chemdat," while it is before "Goyim" (heathens), which makes sense because "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)" and doesn't translate to "The treasure of all the heathens (will come)," as they have it.
Let me break it down for you:

והרעשתִי (ve-hir'ashti) - "and I will shake"
את (et) - [direct object marker, not translated]
כל (kol) - "all"
הגוים (ha-goyim) - "the heathens"
ובאו (u-va'u) - "and they will come"
חמדת (Chemdat) - "Chemdat" (proper noun)
כל (kol) - "of all"
הגוים (ha-goyim) - "the heathens"
ומלאתי (u-milati) - "and I will fill"
את (et) - [direct object marker, not translated]
הבית (ha-bayit) - "the house"
הזה (ha-zeh) - "this"
כבוד (kavod) - "glory"
אמר (amar) - "says"
יהוה (Adonai) - "Lord"
צבאות (Tzva'ot) - "of Hosts"

Result:

"And I will shake all the heathens, and they will come, Chemdat of all the heathens, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of Hosts."

Explanation:

They have translated it as "the treasures of..." while the phrase "Chemdat" lacks a "The" (Ha), so it would more accurately be rendered as:

"And they will come, treasure of all the heathens, and..."

A very awkward sentence grammatically. And the dictionaries do not define חמדת (Chemdat) as "Treasure," but rather as "Desire" or "Precious." But translating this phrase in this way (if we consider it to mean "desire" or "precious"), we would make the verse even more awkward:

"And they will come, desire of all the heathens" or "And they will come, precious of all the heathens."

Because it is a singular phrase, and not plural, and as I mentioned earlier, lacks a definite preposition.
But if we consider "Chemdat" as a cognate of "Ahmad," as a proper noun referring to Ahmad the prophet (the only heathen prophet known today), it suddenly becomes a very coherent verse that makes much sense. The heathens will be shaken, and they will come. Then, He specifies by saying: Chemdat of all the heathens, and continues with the rest of the verse.
The phrase "הגוים" (ha-goyim) translates as "the heathens," which supports the interpretation that "Chemdat" is a proper noun referring to a significant heathen person anticipated to come. God is going to shake all the heathens, and they will come. Then He specifies who would come: "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)." He then says He will fill this house, which they saw as nothing, with glory. The house already exists; Chemdat of all nations was just about to come, and God would fill this house with glory again. And, of course, the stone Jacob laid in Genesis 28—the same stone that Jesus referred to in Matthew 21:

1. Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes?'

43. Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

The Kingdom of God was intended to be taken away from the Christians and given to a people who would produce its fruits, and this is what happened when Islam came.
Going back to Haggai 2, the 18th verse also confirms that the Temple already was there:

"Consider, please, your heart from this day and onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day that the temple of the Lord was founded, consider your heart."

Just because God considers the two Houses (the current one they saw as insignificant and the later one) as "different" does not mean that it does not already exist physically but will be a different House.
Nevertheless, he is right about one thing regarding this chapter: it does not mention the new moon to new moon and the end of the Sabbath—that was in Isaiah 66. My mistake. But the prophecy is still valid. The new moon to new moon would come, and yes, the second phrase can be interpreted as an end (if we interpret "Shabbat" as "End"), but it is Biblically and generally interpreted as "Sabbath." A literal translation of the phrase in the 23rd verse would be:

שבת (shabbat) - "Sabbath"
בשבתו (be-shabbato) - "His Sabbath"
יבוא (yavo) - "it will come"

Let's agree that it means what the traditional translations say it means, and I don't mean hypothetically, but let's actually agree on that. However, the prophecy about the new moons (Ramadan) is still there and valid because God has not canceled the Sabbath in the Quran; it is still ongoing:
The Quran states in 2:40-42:

Verse 40: "O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and fulfill My covenant [upon you] that I will fulfill your covenant [from Me], and fear Me."
Verse 41: "And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs/verses for a small price, and fear Me."
Verse 42: "And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]."

The new moon to a new moon is combined with the Sabbath to Sabbath. This is a fulfilled prophecy!
I don't see easter, halloween or Christmas being mentioned here. It's Ramadan and the Sabbath, the two Covenants God has given to his worshipers, the Covenant of the Children of Israel and the Covenant of Peace, unlike the Pauline Christians who literally took all of their holidays from pagan idolaters, which I won't go into because it's not very relevant to our discussion anyways.
This marks the end of my rebuttal to his "part 1."
Thank you for reading,
/Your bro Exion.

Date: 05/31/2024

Reading time: 2 minutes, 423 words

🏛️ Politics & Government

PM claims ODIHR’s conclusion on domestic transparency law lacks legal arguments

Georgian PM Irakli Kobakhidze said the report was mirroring the opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. The ODIHR concluded that Georgia’s newly approved law on transparency of foreign influence contained “serious deficiencies” that made it “incompatible” with international human rights standards. The Venice Commission last week “strongly recommended” the Georgian Government to repeal the legislative piece in its current form.

AgendaGe, Majority MP: OSCE/ODIHR report is prepared by Saakashvili’s lawyer, OSCE/ODIHR: Georgia’s “Transparency of Foreign Influence” Law does not comply with democratic standards, human rights, OSCE/ODIHR: Georgia’s “Transparency of Foreign Influence” Law does not comply with democratic standards, human rights, OSCE/ODIHR: Georgia’s “Transparency of Foreign Influence” Law does not comply with democratic standards, human rights

MFA of Ukraine: We condemn unfriendly statements of the PM of Georgia

It is sad to see the consistent and constant degradation of the political statements of the Prime Minister of Georgia, – this is stated in the press service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Ukraine condemns Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s “another unfriendly statements and his distorted assessments of the current events in Ukraine”

GeorgiaToday

President not Invited to Police Day Ceremony Because of Grigoriadis’ Pardon

Georgia celebrated Police Day on May 31. President Salome Zurabishvili was conspicuously absent from the official ceremony marking the day. Interior Minister Vakhtang Gomelauri said she was not invited because she had pardoned a convict "who wanted to burn a policeman alive"

CivilGe

Lithuanian Ambassador summoned to MFA Georgia regarding statements on “Russian Law”

Lithuanian Ambassador Andrius Kalindra summoned to Georgia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Georgian Foreign Ministry says the move is not compatible with relations between the two countries. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Andrius Roth: I fully support Ambassador Peter Fischer.

GeorgiaToday

💵 Economy

Georgia’s GDP Up by 11.8% in April 2024

Georgia’s estimated real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate amounted to 11.8% for April 2024 compared to the corresponding period of the previous year. The average real GDP growth for January-April 2024 equaled 9.0% according to the National Statistics Office of Georgia.

CivilGe, GEOSTAT: Georgia’s economy grew by 9% in January-April

Date: 05/30/2024

Reading time: 3 minutes, 725 words

🪖 Military

Ukraine Latest: Macron Says Kyiv Should Be Allowed to Use Western Weapons on Russian Military Sites

The main battlefield developments in the Russian invasion of Ukraine as of Thursday morning are as follows: The death toll in a Russian attack on a hardware superstore in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv has risen to 11, says the regional governor. Russia's naval forces destroyed two Ukrainian sea drones in the northwest of the Black Sea, as they headed for the Crimean Peninsula, Russia's Ministry of Defense said in a Google-translated Telegram post.

GeorgiaToday

🏛️ Politics & Government

Chinese Ambassador says Anaklia port project will be “turning point” for cooperation with Georgia

Chinese Ambassador to Georgia Zhou Qian said the Anaklia port project would be “a turning point” for cooperation between China and Georgia. He said the Chinese consortium is set to be announced as the Georgian Government’s private partner in the construction of the port.

AgendaGe

Georgian CSOs to Challenge Agents’ Law in Constitutional Court

Georgian civil society organizations announce they are preparing to appeal to the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the nearest future, demanding the repeal of the Foreign Agents Law. CSOs say they will use all domestic and international mechanisms to impede its implementation until the law is unconditionally repealed.

CivilGe, Lithuanian MFA Summons Georgian Ambassador Over Final Adoption of Agents’ Law

Fund Withdraws Free Dental Service Project for Oni Kids, Citing Agents’ Law

The Fair Trees Fund withdrew a project aimed at establishing a free dental clinic for children in the western Georgian town of Oni. The decision was met with public outcry and as an ominous sign of the Foreign Agents Law's harmful impact on foreign aid and projects funded by Georgia’s international partners. The NGO says it cannot take on additional financial responsibilities while even the active projects are at risk.

CivilGe

Testing Interventions by SABUKO in Iori Plateau to Achieve Conservation and Protection of Local Species

Georgia’s Kakheti region is distinguished by amazingly beautiful landscapes, rich biodiversity, and unique ecological treasures. However, sadly, this natural haven faces a significant challenge – the delicate balance between maintaining a living landscape and the looming threat of desertification. The project places a strong emphasis on the restoration of wildlife habitats and fostering collaboration with the pastoralist community.

GeorgiaToday

Parliament Adopts Amendments to Election Code

Parliament of Georgia adopted amendments to the Election code with 80 votes in favor. Changes include abolishing the CEC advisory group, which consists of a representative of the Public Defender as well as the national and international experts selected by observer organizations.

CivilGe

PM Kobakhidze Talks Controversial Topics with Media

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze spoke to the media at the opening of a new bridge in Tbilisi. He blamed the ‘radical opposition’ for the alleged ‘hate campaign’ against the Georgian Dream members who supported the Foreign Agents Law and their families. He also said that the ruling party would not allow the “Maidan” to happen in Georgia.

CivilGe, PM: Germany should not send such ambassadors who make anti-Georgian statements, Ambassador of Georgia summoned to Lithuanian MFA for overriding of President’s veto on “Russian Law”

CoE GRECO Report: Low Level of Implementation of Anti-Corruption Recommendations

Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) published its results of the Fourth evaluation round: non-compliance procedure for its low level of implementation of its recommendations for preventing corruption in respect of MPs, judges and prosecutors. Georgia had one of the highest levels of compliance among the countries monitored.

CivilGe

🧪 Science & Technology

Supporting Georgia’s Growing E-Commerce Sector

Georgia's e-commerce market grew from 11% in 2018 to 23% in 2020. By 2025, the report predicts that online shopping will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 52%, yielding a penetration rate of 4.7%. The biggest online shopping sector in 2020 was comprised of electronics and household appliances.

GeorgiaToday

Date: 05/29/2024

Reading time: 4 minutes, 931 words

🪖 Military

Europe is increasing its support for Ukraine

EU foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels. They will still try to overcome Hungarian resistance and provide Ukraine with military assistance it needs. At the moment, the aid package worth about 7 billion dollars has been suspended, the only opponent of which is the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. Ukraine needs more air defense, including Patriot air defense systems, says Jens Stoltenberg.

EuroNewsGeorgia

🏛️ Politics & Government

Matthew Miller: GD moved the country farther away from European integration path

Matthew Miller: Georgia's leaders are choosing to forgo the steps needed to advance Georgia in the Western direction that its people want. The ruling parties actions threaten Georgia’s democratic trajectory, future economic security, EU membership, and also put the U.S.-Georgia relationship at risk.

GeorgiaToday

CSOs Announce Disobedience to Foreign Agents Law

Georgian civil society organizations issued a statement announcing their disobedience to the Foreign Agents Law, which was adopted yesterday. In the statement, the organizations pledge to defend the rights of demonstrators against the Agents Law and to protect each citizen’s vote in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

CivilGe, Response to the "foreign influence" law

Statement of the ombudsman regarding the placement of those detained at the rallies in "hostile" cells

The representatives of the Public Defender visited two detainees participating in the protests, the information about their ill-treatment was spread on May 29. The detainees are in the 8th Penitentiary Institution of Gldani. Their lawyers requested to change the cell for the defendants, to have a public defender with the defendants.

EuroNewsGeorgia

Khazaradze: Plans of Russian gov’t have been announced openly to us by stopping Anaklia project

Chinese consortium will be announced as winner of Anaklia port project tender in coming days. Leader of Lelo party: 'We will send away the Russian regime to Moscow in October'

GeorgiaToday

British-Georgian Academy’s founding partner Natia Janashia set to terminate the agreement with Georgia Capital

Natia Janashia, the partner and director of the British-Georgian Academy, cites the investor’s failure to fulfill contractual obligations as the rationale behind this decision. The Tbilisi City Court, recognizing the merit of the petition, imposed a security measure, requiring mutual agreement among partners of the school to secure the lawsuit.

GeorgiaToday

German Ambassador: Agents’ Law Bars Georgia from EU Accession Talks

The German Ambassador to Georgia Peter Fischer stressed that the European Union will not start the accession talks with Georgia as long as the Foreign Agents Law is in effect. He also reiterated the Venice Commission’s opinion on the law that this legislation goes against the fundamental rights of Georgians.

CivilGe, Parliament Overrides President’s Veto, Adopts ‘Offshore’ Law, Domestic Reactions to Presidential Veto Override, Final Adoption of Foreign Agents Law, International Reactions to Presidential Veto Override, Final Adoption of Foreign Agents Law, The opposition announces a boycott of parliamentary work, White House: Suppressing civil society is what authoritarian governments do, Austria “deeply regrets” final adoption of law on “transparency of foreign influence”, Carl Bildt: EU path of Georgia has for the time being come to an end, White House: Suppressing civil society is what authoritarian governments do, UK “extremely concerned” over veto of bill on transparency of foreign influence, Georgian President to the “Russian Law” protesters: You create a referendum, I’ll sign it, Carl Bildt: EU path of Georgia has for the time being come to an end

Kremlin-affiliates Hold Another Conference in Tbilisi

On May 24, the Kremlin-affiliated Eurasia Institute held another anti-Western conference in Tbilisi. Participants discussed their version of Georgia’s history under the Russian empire. They also adopted a resolution calling the prospect of withdrawing the Foreign Agents Law a “complete capitulation” of Georgia. The resolution also calls on the Georgian government to “openly” restore relations with Russia.

CivilGe

Chinese consortium to be announced as winner of Anaklia port project tender

A Chinese consortium — China Communications construction company Ltd, together with China harbor investment — was selected as a private investor for the construction of the new deep-water port of Anaklia. Georgia terminated the contract with the “Anaklia Development Consortium”, which was supposed to build the port, due to non-fulfillment of its obligations.

GeorgiaToday

Date: 05/28/2024

Reading time: 3 minutes, 727 words

🏛️ Politics & Government

Charles Michel: Adoption of Transparency Law Takes Georgia Away from EU

“The adoption of the law in the parliament is a step backward and takes Georgia further away from its EU path,” says the President of the European Council.

CivilGe, International Reactions to Presidential Veto Override, Final Adoption of Foreign Agents Law, HVP Borrell on Final Adoption of Agents Law: EU and Member States are Considering all Options, Josep Borrell: “Foreign influence” law does not correspond to EU values, GD expected to override President’s veto on “Russian Law,” protesters surround parliament building

Shamba: Tbilisi wanted us back for 30 years, they will want it for another 300 years

Abkhazia’s security council secretary Sergey Shamba responded to the statement of the Prime Minister of Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze. Shamba claimed that there are many unresolved problems between the two breakaway regions. He claimed that when the time comes, we will discuss such a readiness, but we are not going to discuss issues of confederation.

GeorgiaToday

CoE Secretary General on Final Adoption of Agents Law: Free and Fair Election Environment Could Be Jeopardized

Council of Europe Secretary General Marija Pejčinović Burić expresses “deep concern” about the law’s “adverse impact on informed public debate, pluralism, and democratic checks and balances,” adding that it “could potentially jeopardize also the environment for free and fair elections” The statement stresses that with this decision the Georgian authorities gave up “an ultimate occasion” to withdraw the law.

CivilGe, HVP Borrell on Final Adoption of Agents Law: EU and Member States are Considering all Options

PM: Agents’ Law will Create a Better Basis for Ensuring Georgia’s Accession to the EU

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze said the law “will create a better basis for ensuring Georgia’s accession to the European Union.” He said citizens of Georgia have the right to know who is financed by whom in this country, who carries the positive or negative interests of a foreign power in Georgia.

CivilGe

Protesters against Foreign Agents Law Fined

On May 20, and the court fined several activists GEL 500 (approximately USD 180) in connection with protests against the Foreign Agents Law. This is the maximum fine for the offense, according to Article 174 Prima of the Administrative Code. Those fined include Saba Skhvitaridze, Anri Gorgiladze, and Boris Chele Kurua of the opposition party.

CivilGe, Special Tasks Department Chief Admits to Battering Targeted Protesters at anti-Agents Law Demonstrations

Georgian Health Minister, US Global Health Centre Director discuss joint projects, cooperation

Georgian Health Minister Mikheil Sarjveladze is in Geneva to deliver an address at the 77th session of the World Health Organisation's annual Assembly. The meeting was held as part of the official visit to Geneva, Switzerland.

AgendaGe

Date: 05/27/2024

Reading time: 2 minutes, 458 words

🏛️ Politics & Government

Occupied Abkhazia, Tskhinvali: Kobakhidze’s statement on return of breakaway regions non-perspective

Georgia's Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze said that he wants to return Abkhazia and Tskhinvali to Georgia. The so-called ministry of foreign affairs of occupied Abkhazaria evaluated the statement of the Prime Minister of Georgia as a “populist” and non-perspective statement. They claim that any attempt by the Georgian leadership to “return Abkhaziia to Georgia is absolutely unpromising.

GeorgiaToday

EU High Representative says EU Foreign Affairs Council “exchanged views” on Georgian transparency law

Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union had “exchanged views” on the controversial Georgian law on transparency of foreign influence. The law requires registration of non-commercial legal entities and media outlets in the country as “pursuing the interests of a foreign power” if they derive more than 20 percent of their funding from abroad.

AgendaGe

President Calls for ‘Full Mobilization’ of Diaspora in October Elections

Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili called for “full mobilization” of Georgians living abroad for the October parliamentary elections. The President, along with opposition parties and civil society organizations, has called for a more active engagement of the diaspora. Calls for the Georgian government to do more to facilitate the exercise of voting rights for Georgian emigres have largely gone unanswered.

CivilGe, VP Harris to Zurabishvili: Georgian People Look to You to Champion Country’s Euro-Atlantic Future, Opposition Parties to Sign Georgian Charter Initiated by President, Opposition parties join President’s Georgian Charter, President offerspolitical parties “Georgian Charter”

Why Georgian Dream Should Not Underestimate US Sanctions

U.S. prepared to impose sanctions on members of Georgian Dream party responsible for promoting it and obstructing the country’s Euro-Atlantic integration. The sanctions are only the first stage of sanctions pressure on sub-sanctioned persons, says Vakhtang Partsvania.

CivilGe, “MEGOBARI Act” Envisages Sanctions for Undermining, Injuring Georgian Democracy

Legal Issues Committee Endorses Overriding Presidential Veto on Agents’ Law

The ruling Georgian Dream is expected to override the veto in the plenary session tomorrow, on May 28. President Salome Zurabishvili vetoed the law on May 18. If the veto is overridden, the bill becomes law.

CivilGe

Date: 05/26/2024

Reading time: 0 minutes, 89 words

🏛️ Politics & Government

Georgian Charter: President Proposes Unified Goals for Short-Term Parliament, Technical Government

President Salome Zurabishvili presented the roadmap for resolving the political crisis and returning to the path of EU integration. She said that there is no alternative to the European future for Georgia and that the Georgian society, which she knows, is waiting for concrete plans.

CivilGe

International Partners Congratulate Georgia on Independence Day

On May 26, Georgia celebrates the 106th anniversary of the declaration of the first independent democratic republic. The King of the United Kingdom, Charles III congratulated Georgia in a letter addressed to the President Zurabishvili. President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev wrote a congratulatory letter.

CivilGe

Date: 05/25/2024

Reading time: 0 minutes, 71 words

🏛️ Politics & Government

Ruling party Sec Gen says Parliament will override veto on transparency law, despite “expected US sanctions”

Georgia will override President Salome Zourabichvili's veto on law on transparency of foreign influence. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced visa restrictions for “those responsible for undermining democracy” in Georgia in connection to the transparency law.

AgendaGe

Deputy Finance Minister Resigns

The U.S. House of Representatives has announced its decision to pull back on the controversial law. The decision comes after a series of high-profile incidents in the state of Georgia, Georgia, in the past.

CivilGe

If you'd like to support this work/ get these reports emailed daily: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/newsreports

This is my 5th post in rebutting Exion’s (u/Informal_Patience821) claims regarding his new translations/interpretations of the Hebrew Oly Testament. For previous parts see:
Pt 1: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/aUxRazJZWs
Pt 2: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/lZQUc4t907
Pt 3: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/SQbXAqYm6E
Pt 4: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/I8YTbc5UHZ
There isn’t a new post from him since my part 4. However, in his most recent post he linked another of his posts from a while back where he reaffirmed the info in that older post and offered it as support for part of his most recent post. That is why I’ll be addressing that older post he linked which is https://www.reddit.com/islam/s/U8bYLSxn9h.

Eng: "Who is so blind as My servant,So deaf as the messenger I send?Who is so blind as the chosen one ("Mosselam" or "Mushelam"),So blind as GOD’s servant?" (Isaiah 42:19, translation from Sefaria . com)
) Jewish scholars have added a comment (in the part that says "Moshelam") saying "chosen Meaning of Heb. uncertain." but it really isn't uncertain at all. They fully know what this word means.

There is a typo. His title for this section says Isaiah 52 but his specific citation is Isaiah 42:19. For anyone who wants to check it themselves the correct chapter is 42 not 52.
On a side note one of Exion’s response to me is saying I highlight his most minor errors and then exaggerate them. If the errors I’ve pointed out in my previous posts were like this typo that would be a viable response. A typo like this is easy to make, it’s a 1 character difference and the wrong character is right next to the right character on the keyboard. That is not at all like not realizing how Hebrew verses are numbered, copying the Hebrew verse number with the verse, not noticing the missing diacritical marks, removing the space between the verse number and first word, trying to translate the first word when it’s not a real Hebrew word, in an attempt to translate the not real word it results incorrectly spelling two Hebrew words, and then after acknowledging the mistake in your first post not fully correcting the mistake when copying the post to another subreddit. When he first blocked me that was the supposedly minor issue I kept bringing up that made him block me. That’s not a minor error, it’s a combination of several points of failure multiple of which would be hard to make, especially for someone who actually knows Hebrew. That’s nothing like the minor error in this case where he typed a 5 instead of a 4.
As for his point here the Hebrew word in question is כִּמְשֻׁלָּ֔ם. The כִּ is a preposition with מְשֻׁלָּ֔ם being the verb. The base form of the verb is שָׁלַם which means to be in a covenant of peace. This specifically is the Pual participle. Unlike the active participle I mentioned in pt 2 the Pual form is passive meaning the subject of the verb is what is being acted on by the verb. The BDB specifically lists Isaiah 42:19 as the Pual participle and cites it as meaning “one in covt. of peace”. Since it’s a passive particle the servant is the one in this covenant.
While the pronunciation sounds like the pronunciation of the word Muslim that doesn’t mean the coming prophet is being called a Muslim. Often completely different words from different languages will sound the same but it doesn’t mean they’re related. Even within the same language different words will sound the same. E.g. peace and piece sound the same but that doesn’t mean we import the meaning of piece into uses of the word peace. The word Muslim means one who submits which is a different word.

I will show you Biblical commentaries below that support this interpretation of the word.

Exion has already demonstrated he is unreliable with his citations. In pt 1 I noted his use of a fictional source, his citation of biblical verses out of context, and how in citing Haggai 2:23 he actually cited a completely different verse from a different chapter and different book. In pt 3 I noted his citation of the Septuagint didn’t match what it actually said. In pt 4 I showed how he was cherry picking translations favorable to his interpretation. There is also this discussion where 6 times in one response I had to point out how he misrepresented his sources, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/n4NuxwoXpH. Given this track record any citations he gives need to be thoroughly fact checked. Unfortunately he hasn’t given any page numbers so tracking down exactly where the quotes are to validate them is difficult. Also honestly I’m exhausted in trying thanks validate all his sources and finding problems. He needs to put more effort into showing the sources are real and accurately represented.

"I will make a covenant of peace with them, it will be an everlasting covenant*. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever."
(Ezekiel 37:26)
How people can read these verse and fully know that there's a major religion stemming from descendants of Abraham ﷺ and that this religion is called "Islam" (peace/submission), and still not pur two and two together and figure out that God has fulfilled His Divine promise, it leaves me in a state of profound astonishment.

Two problems here. First someone claiming to have a message from God and calling their new religion peace doesn’t mean it’s actually from God. It shouldn’t be surprising that non Muslims don’t take Islam as a fulfillment of this prophecy even if it was represented accurately (which I’ll show it’s not). Note I’m not arguing here Islam is false as this sub isn’t the appropriate place for such a debate. I’m just explaining why someone can read this verse and even believe it without thinking Islam is the fulfillment.
The second issue is when examined in context it’s clearly not about Islam. The whole section is from Ezekiel 37:15-28. It talks about the northern and southern nations that were split being brought back into one nation, all the Jews scattered across the nations brought back into Israel, being ruled by King David again, and ends by specifically saying God will sanctify Israel. The convent is clearly being made with Israel in the context of the prophecy. Even if you believe Mohammed brought a covenant of peace from God that’s clearly not what this prophecy is speaking about.

All ancient maps (and credible history books) show us and tell us that Haran was a city located in Arabia, precisely where Mecca is located today.

This needs some support. From what I can find it’s in modern day Turkey which is north of Israel while Arabia is south of Israel. The link he pasted doesn’t work for me. Though even if it did it’s a Reddit link not an academic source so it wouldn’t be a reliable source of info.

The final "Mem" at the end is there as a grammatically called "plural of majesty" or respect, much like the words "Elohim", " Malachim", "Adonim".

I already addressed the part of כִּמְשֻׁלָּ֔ם in Isaiah 42:19. As for Songs of Solomon 5:16 it’s important to understand exactly what Exion is claiming here so I’ll use English plural to make sure it’s clear. Take the name Mohammed. Suppose there were two people with the name being referred to. We’d add an s to make it plural when referring to both, e.g. both Mohammeds are coming to the party. The em ending in Hebrew indicates plural like the English s. Exion is claiming that adding the s in some cases isn’t done to indicate a plurality but rather to majesty. He gives 3 examples but only 1 is actually a name. In that one instance the em at the end isn’t the plural ending added to a name, rather it’s part of the name. It’s like the name Jesus. It’s not that the name is Jesu and the s is added to make it plural, rather the s is just part of the name. None of these parallel Exion’s claim of taking a name and adding a plural suffix to indicate majesty.

the word before “Muhammadim” is "vekullo", it consists of the conjunction "Vav" (and) and the word "kullo," where "khulo" is a masculine singular construct.

I’ve already pointed out to Exion that he confused the construct form with pronoun suffixes in this comment, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/7v8uaBIljg. Also as noted in pt 1 a bunch of people, including my, explained how pronoun suffixes work. I did call it possessive suffixes in that comment and pronoun suffixes in this comment. The reason is possessive suffixes are a type of pronoun suffix, specifically when the pronoun suffix is added to a noun. However, the suffix can be added to other things as well, not just nouns, and even for some nouns it’s a special case. This is one of those cases. Here is a screenshot from my Hebrew textbook explaining it, https://imgur.com/a/k4TKPRN. With a pronoun suffix the word means “all of {pronoun}” where the specific pronoun is indicated by the specific suffix added.
Note in Songs of Solomon 5:16 the noun is after the word col. The textbook says it often appears before the noun being referred too but it doesn’t say always so it’s not a problem for this verse where it’s after. We know this case the noun is the one after since col in this case is prefixed by the vav conjunction indicating a new part of the sentence. The book also gives examples where the col is first. It’s when adding emphasis that the other noun is placed first.
The masculine singular Exion mentions (really the third person masculine singular, he left out the third person part) is referring to the pronoun suffix not the noun. It’s indicating the pronoun is singular not the noun. I.E. it’s saying all of him rather than all of them. While there is a construct form between the two nouns the pronoun suffix is not the suffix for the construct form. As my textbook notes it’s the case where the pronoun suffix is being added to the construct form but the construct form with col doesn’t require the suffix. Furthermore nothing in the section in my picture indicates the plurality of the suffix needs to match the plurality of the following noun. Exion needs to provide some source for this.

"So I sent Eliezer, and Ariel, and Semeias, and Elnathan, and Jarib, and another Elnathan, and Nathan, and Zacharias, and Mosollam, chief men*: and Joiarib, and Elnathan, wise me."
( Ezra 8:16, Douay-Rheims Bible)

So often Exion takes ordinary Hebrew words and twists them to try and make them into a name. It’s funny that when we finally have a name he twists it to make it a noun. The verse is giving a list of names with names before and after the word in question. That tells us in that case it should be taken as a name within a list of names but Exion twists it to be a noun without justification. What’s also funny is one of the commentaries he cites to support his interpretation for Isaiah 42:19 specifically lists Ezra 8:16 as a case where the word is used as a proper name. Why should we trust his source for Isaiah 42:19 but not Ezra 8:16? No reason is given, rather Exion just picks and chooses what he wants to support his argument and ignores what doesn’t.

Do you agree with these definitions or do you separate sex and gender (completely)?
“Typically” = not necessarily,… not always having the capacity to produce x gametes.
woman noun wom·​an ˈwu̇-mən especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə- plural women ˈwi-mən 1 a: an adult female person
womankind noun wom·​an·​kind ˈwu̇-mən-ˌkīnd singular or plural in construction : female human beings : women especially as distinguished from men
🔽
female noun 1 a: a female person : a woman or a girl b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs
femaleness noun fe·​male·​ness ˈfē-ˌmāl-nəs : the qualities (as of form, physiology, or behavior) that distinguish an individual that produces large usually immobile gametes from one that produces spermatozoa or spermatozoids
man noun ˈman in compounds ˌman, or mən plural men ˈmen in compounds ˌmen, or mən 1 a (1) : an individual human especially : an adult male human
🔽
male noun plural males 1 a: a male person : a man or a boy b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female

If you’re reading this on a desktop, turn on Dark Mode to enhance the visibility of hyperlinks
 
This is a response to this video by Kurzgesagt.
 
A few comments of mine:
Romanticizing / idealizing this journey like the music in this video suggests, is dangerous. Generally speaking, music indeed resonates with me currently in a way which I always longed for – but only occasionally do I allow myself to immerse myself fully, as any such fantasies can be exploited by the system to sell you a fake world.
I’m also not that birb in the thumbnail of the video – at least not “the chosen one”. “The chosen one” is misleading – first of all, I have come to realize by now that at least the most lucid phenomena mentioned here and here were induced by the system. I tend to leave comparatively insignificant mistakes up because I’d rather stand by them than to hide them, and I’ll continue not to change it to uphold the integrity of the storyline.
Secondly, I have also recently come to learn that both of my parents seem to be Monarch Slaves themselves - and I don’t just say that casually. There are clear indicators, though I can’t say with 100% certainty. Thinking back, more of my life had probably been manipulated and controlled than I’d assume, including large-scale measures already (the Anime adaptation of “From the New World” comes to mind… I really loved that Anime. Even “Devilman Crybaby” doesn’t seem improbable, and apparently even the emo movement in Germany is a possibility). By everything I’ve come to learn, I now assume that if you’re at the top in any given field (especially or at least in entertainment / media, politics and finance), then only if you’re compromised by the Luciferians – if you’re either a pedophile or a Monarch Slave (or in my case, disabled).
Be aware that my public image is not the same as I am in private. I am dopey as fuck, I suffer from several mental illnesses, I am disabled, I’m not very good as maths, geography and history, I’m volatile and have troubles controlling my anger, I could be more educated, my hairs falling out and I have a small dick (at least in its flaccid state, erect it’s close to average). The real superpower lies in the pursuit of truth as elaborated on, here. If I am truly advanced in anything, it’s in that - though I don’t mean that in a greedy power-seeking sort of way: “The strength of a person's spirit [can] be measured by how much truth he could tolerate” – Nietzsche.
Every individual is unique – my strengths lie in psychology, philosophy and art. But you might be good at maths, physics, service, finance or sales, a craftsman, athletic or disciplined. Try to bring your unique strengths to the table and don’t get discouraged if you’re not as good at something as someone else.
This isn’t a game (although you can conceptualize life, while best conceived as a story, as a set of games). The goal is to achieve freedom of speech - best would be peacefully. Anyone of you can be easily kidnapped or killed by people who you’ll never surpass in their physical training, so try your best in telling the truth, not lying, aiming for minimum necessary force and resisting everything they throw at you.
Personally, I don’t want to end up in a reality which consists of an illusionary game once again where a minority of people will be turned into heroes trained with a never-ending carrot on a stick “to advance humanity”, while the majority of people will be turned into expediency-seeking brainwashed zombies as their adversaries. The idea is that this mode of being is right – and that people can be forgiven if they become honest, transparent and owe up to their mistakes. I genuinely believe that my being isn’t as coupled with heroism as one might perceive, but that there are fundamentally two modes: You resist threats – which frees you up to do what you think is right, or you don’t and you’ll be turned into a henchman to one degree or another. So, either there’ll be an actual revolution (Civil disobedience) or humanity will actually succumb to perpetual darkness – only that the real perpetrator isn’t God - it’s Luciferianism.
Generally speaking, I resist everything – and I absolutely mean it. Exceptions are with signs of love or similar social interactions – it’s just too twisted to tell someone you love them if you get threatened with them getting tortured for it. If there was a cultural consensus, meta or consent in this regard, it’d be easier, but as it stands currently, people are facing the wrong way. Some similar actions are more about fulfilling myself, in which case I am less (if at all) compromising. There is no hard rule which I can sufficiently follow in this regard, so I always go by feeling.
Reality is not black-and-white, but shades of gray, as you must know. Trying to apprehend reality in all its facets is a strength. When it comes to rules, exceptions need to be made from time to time, but they mustn’t become the rule – so break them at your peril. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself if you break a rule out of expediency, complacency, or necessity.
Understand that you can understand things at different levels of analysis and different resolutions. These can be shallow or deep, detailed or superficial, at the core, origin or root of something. Profound, fundamental or axiomatic, high or transcendent. These adjectives might be best conceptualized or visualized through nodes among other nodes where those nodes stand for elements, aspects or parts of reality. For example: At the base (e.g. “profound”) or at the middle (e.g. “core”) of something. This can also apply to a place in time (for example “origin”), or a spot in a value hierarchy (e.g. “high”) / inversed value hierarchy.
You who’s angry is a different you then you who’s in love, in other words: Your personality consists of sub-personalities. Becoming able to assess if part of you believes one thing and another part of you something else, parts of you want some things and other parts of you want other things, in other words: To assess yourself in all your complexity can be a vital necessity, so can be the ability to detect whether you’re overthinking something. Integrating those perspectives into one is then how you can reach the core of your beliefs. By paying attention to your body or emotions, you’ll be able to feel whether you believe something you say, to be true or not.
You need to familiarize yourself with Carl Jung’s concepts of the Shadow, Persona, Ego, Self, Anima and Animus – to integrate your shadow is important (for example, to be able to confront malevolence within and outside of yourself). It’s also important to understand that you have a relationship with yourself, as much as you have relationships with other people. As such, you are responsible for treating yourself with love – as well as in a disciplinary manner. When I assess myself from a more objective standpoint (i.e: outside perspective), I often talk to myself in second person (i.e: “you”) – when I think with my shadow more integrated, I often think in plural (“we”). It’d be very nice of you if you reward yourself sometimes with some positive words, if you’ve done something good, e.g. “Hey, you did a good thing.”
On the idea of God, I have elaborated here. How to integrate one’s narcissism in one’s actions, I have elaborated on, here. Strictly speaking, you don’t know anything. And the map is not the territory, meaning that what you perceive of yourself or reality is not actually that, but a representation of such. A personality test like the Big Five personality test can help you understand yourself and others ten to a hundred times better.
In its simplest, (deepest) binary form, reality can be conceptualized as chaos and order. Although I’ve been “boycotting” him since it’s become obvious that he’s been playing the Antichrist all along (though I’ll soon pick up on it in preparation for my next video), it’s best if you watch some Jordan Peterson videos on this matter. If you’re into deep learning, I highly recommend reading “Maps of Meaning”. Land of Meaning is a good map for some of these teachings. “12 rules for life” is a recommended read for basically everyone.
Familiarizing yourself with logical fallacies can help you in arguments or debates. This is something you’ll naturally come to if you dedicate yourself to the truth. You don’t need to familiarize yourself with the name of a particular fallacy, to detect it: If you can argue why an argument is fallacious, it’s fine.
My best friend is a to-do list. I do not otherwise adhere to a schedule, partially to be less predictable, partially because as someone who’s temperamentally low in conscientiousness, I am more efficient this way. I take breaks about two days a week, decided by an eight-sided transparent die. Every time after I roll it, I roll it a few more times to make sure it wasn’t loaded, and play around with it in my hands, in hopes of catching any optical glitches, in case I was manipulated visually.
I tend to “go with the flow” with regards to manipulations of my inner being – I take a nap when the system makes me tired during the day and wank off when it makes me sexually aroused. All that obviously lends it control, but there seems to be no point in fighting it and I basically act with the faith that so long as I adhere to actions which I consider ethical, the truth will win.
I write down a lot of notes and I often talk out loud in my apartment. I don’t compromise on my thoughts when “talking to them” in my apartment (in quotation marks, because while I am obviously being listened to by some intelligence agencies and probably at least the highest within the Illuminati, conceptually I am usually acting out a fantasy because naturally I sort-of create avatars of them in my mind, and the purpose of such is not so much to speak to them but for me to articulate my thoughts or to vent my anger). Only when making these thoughts public, I take care not to be unnecessarily rude or brazen.
That being said, I basically never compromise on the truth. If I think that something needs to be said, I say it - even then, I try not to be unnecessarily or excessively hurtful towards anyone who needs help. This is part of the concept that telling the truth means more than just writing words on a paper or creating vibrations in the air, but an enacted reflection of reality including ethical actions. This also means that you don’t necessarily or simply say everything which comes to your mind, but put some choice into your words to, for example, be more precise, concise, or for any other stylistic, rhetoric or artistic device – to choose what you say or disclose, is your right.
It’s difficult to conceive (and I don’t like to over-concretize all this, if at all), but I tend to enter different emotional stances in response to different interpretations. I most often seem to come back to a “neutral” emotional state after neutralizing a manipulation, heightened awareness out of anxiety otherwise, (deep) vigilance with which I often counteract any conceptualization which seems too mundane to me and piercing eyes / aggression when thinking about how I want to go against them. These are though, my own ways which I developed naturally in dealing with the situation, and I encourage you to explore.
The system will constantly put you under time pressure to induce stress and anxiety, which can on one hand enhance your performance in some areas, but also makes you more impulsive, suggestible and easy to control, so it’s best not adhered to. It’s important to keep your cool in tense situations, to take a step back and assess the big picture. You can view an overview of some of my values, methods and tactics in dealing with the situation, here.
Generally speaking, I treat everything which is communicated to me by the system, as a manipulation. As I mentioned here, I generally reflect upon an influence to neutralize it. Even then, it is often able to nudge me into reconsidering a specific choice of words for example. Such influences are an inevitable result of considering something it communicates as a possibility (out of many), instead of being strictly true or false (which doesn’t work). The observation has been that in freemasonry, one sells their soul to the devil for knowledge - so I don’t wanna go there. I can always educate myself through books (regarding which these are apparently good recommendations) and videos (of which these two are good channels: Academy Of Ideas, Eternalised). I don’t want to enter any rabbit hole through coded speech, as I consider those inherently manipulative. The hypothesis is that by evading or neutralizing most manipulations, the system has to work harder / is incentivized to make them clearer and thus, I can devote more of my mind to things which actually matter, instead of entering an illusionary reality woven through manipulative means of communication. Relatively impactful ideas which are communicated thus become comparatively rare, with a few notable ones recently having been for instance the owner’s suite / lounge on this Yacht which seems to be modeled after the colors / theme of my apartment and appears to be made deliberately in a silly or distasteful manner (the colors in my apartment also came about primarily due to the desire to appeal). This I found very interesting and frankly, I wouldn’t have expected any less. This apartment which I perceived as conveying a particular idea (hypothetical or real), which has made me feel very strongly about all this, and this picture of Prince Charles, the reality behind which I perceived as very real (though possibly, in the shadow of a person).
However, if something grabs your interest, it’s usually best to follow it… the problem is that the system can manipulate you in that, too. Everything surrounding conscious phenomena in fact, and a whole bunch of things surrounding your body, too. My experience has been that if a phenomenon is ego-syntonic, it’s better to accept it. I elaborated more on authenticity here and in truth I’d rather get tortured for who I am than survive as someone who I’m not… I think.
What’s probably most advanced (and difficult) to deal with is what I call “triple-binds”. The system might act genuinely good towards you sometimes, but one must not forget that what Satan would do precisely is to pretend to be good. Simultaneously, one must also not dismiss the benevolent aspect of their heart. The result is that I can’t trust them, but I can have some faith in them. One must take care not to overvalue that aspect of reality while still considering it at least a possibility, yet still neutralizing manipulations in this sphere and adhere to one’s sense of ethics, truth and minimum necessary force and it might work out. It is a brainfuck, but combining several techniques such as the ones mentioned above (including emotionally or conceptually shutting off perspectives to the extent that they’re too abusive), it can work out. The system might not overexert you in this regard.
While being godlike, trusting this system is a bad idea, since as I elaborated here, you only incentivize it to walk the path of least resistance… and that is to use you (or betray you). It’s the quintessential problem with Luciferian being, though you can still do it if you’d rather be a slave, or a villain and a slave. Personally, I conceptualize it similar to a scorpion… it’s in its nature to sting. You could also conceptualize it a femme fatale or a sexual predator if you want - it’s certainly parasitic.
If you walk this path, you must know that it’s generally always feinting weakness, focuses on keeping you in chaos and laying traps. However, it’s best not to avoid them if it means to be silent (the way I treat them, is to try not to write anything impulsively, and uncover the unfair, deceitful or manipulative tricks which I can see being inherent to them). In a No-Win situation, it’s best to think creatively.
Best of luck.

https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%85%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%AC%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%AC%E0%B1%80_%E0%B0%AD%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B7
This is the part that I wrote, about Arabic grammar:

నామవాచకం

అరబ్బీ భాషలో పుల్లింగమూ, స్త్రీలింగమూ, రెండు లింగాలు ఉంటాయి. ప్రతి నామవాచకానికి ఈ రెండింట్లో ఒకటి ఉంటుంది. జీవితం ఉన్న ప్రాణుల గురించి మాట్లాడేటప్పుడు పుల్లింగం మగతనాన్ని సూచిస్తుది, స్త్రీలింగం ఆడతనాన్ని సూచిస్తుంది, కానీ వస్తువుల గురించి మాట్లాడేటప్పుడు పదలింగానికీ నిజమైన లింగానికీ సంబంధం లేదు.

భగ్న బహువచనం

అరబ్బీ భాషలో చాలా నామవాచకాలకు "భగ్న బహువచనాలు" ఉంటాయి. అంటే ఇలాంటి పదాలకు బహువచనం సూచించడానికి చివరికి ఒక ప్రత్యయం చేర్చడానికి బదులు ఆ పదాల్లో అచ్చులు మార్చాలి. షుమారు 50% నామవాచకాలకు భగ్న బహువచనం ఉంటుంది.
I want to clean up the section about noun gender: Would it be correct to write something like "అరబ్బీలో ప్రతి పదానికి పల్లింగం, స్త్రీలింగాల్లో ఒక లింగం ఉంటుంది" or "అరబ్బీలో ప్రతి పదానికి పల్లింగం, స్త్రీలింగాల రెండింట్లో ఒక లింగం ఉంటుంది"? I don't really like having the first two sentences be separate.
The word "భగ్న బహువచనం" is a calque from "broken plural" in English, and basically refers to Arabic plurals that form a plural by changing the vowels in the word instead of adding a suffix. (Similar to how we say "foot, feet" in English instead of "foots".) Does the explanation of it in Telugu make sense?

For your consideration. I am going to post and wait for the initial wave to die down, then engage with thoughtful and reasonably polite objections.
updated: I’m ruling out responses that 1) criticize leveraging AI. I used it ethically and transparently. It’s a tool that will become more and more common. You should get over it. 2) if you basically responded with the arguments I addressed with nothing novel to add
(caveat: I am constantly tuning the argument, but it is mostly developed)
The Longmire Teleological Argument: A Human-AI Collaboration
Introduction
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance. That being said, I am also aware that this in not likely to convince a committed atheist. The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe
The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind
The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind
The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses
Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.

1. The Brute Fact Objection

One common objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could simply be a brute fact - a fundamental, inexplicable feature of reality that we must accept without further explanation.
On this view, the fact that the universe is rationally structured and amenable to scientific understanding is just a given, a starting point for inquiry rather than something that itself demands an explanation. Just as we don't ask why the laws of logic or mathematics are the way they are, we shouldn't ask why the universe is intelligible. It just is.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.

1. The Physical Necessity Objection

Another objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could be a necessary consequence of the fundamental laws or principles of nature. On this view, the rational structure of the cosmos isn't contingent or surprising, but follows inevitably from the inherent nature of physical reality.
This objection suggests that the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of the universe are necessarily such that they give rise to an orderly, intelligible cosmos. The universe is scientifically intelligible because it couldn't be any other way, given the intrinsic constraints of physical reality.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.

1. The Anthropic Principle Objection

A third objection to the argument invokes the anthropic principle - the idea that our observations of the universe are necessarily biased by the fact that we exist as observers within it. On this view, the apparent scientific intelligibility of the universe is not surprising or in need of special explanation, because if the universe were not intelligible, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes:
[1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Salam to everyone!
First, read part 1 and part 2 of this series before you read this part, because it is crucial if you want to understand everything.

Introduction:

As we approach the culmination of this chapter, the pieces of the puzzle are falling into place, and it is increasingly evident that this chapter is, as I initially suspected, a prophecy of the early Islamic era. The subsequent verses elucidate the subject matter with great clarity, focusing on a prophet, his dominion, and the sacred Covenant of Peace, along with all associated matters.
The individual responsible for shattering the unity of the Muslim community and violating the sacred Covenant is none other than Mu'awiyah, the manipulator. Mu'awiyah is a man who insidiously ascended to power, akin to a serpent, employing a deceitful strategy that involved falsehoods, massacres, and other nefarious tactics that only a corrupt and ruthless criminal would utilize. This will become abundantly clear as we delve deeper into this chapter.

Disclaimer: My stalker here on Reddit and my response...

As you are likely aware, there is an individual who has developed an unhealthy fixation with my posts and is persistently attempting to "expose" me and my articles, a situation that I find rather amusing. I have chosen to block this individual and totally ignore him due to his propensity for dishonesty, his relentless harassment of me in response to every post I make, and his penchant for highlighting even the most minor of errors that I may inadvertently commit, which he then exaggerates to an unwarranted degree.
Despite my numerous attempts to refute his claims, I have reached the end of my patience with him, as he continues to regurgitate the same arguments and refuses to acknowledge the limitations of his own understanding.
In this next section (part 3), the absurdity of individuals like him will become increasingly apparent, as it will be revealed that my initial assertions were, in fact, totally correct. I offer my heartfelt gratitude to God alone for guiding me towards this remarkable discovery and allowing me to share it with all of you.
To those of you who have commented in support of this individual and his baseless claims about me, I implore you to fear God! This person is not a Muslim and is deliberately spreading falsehoods against me and our Faith, yet you are choosing to side with him against your own brother in faith. I want to make you aware of the gravity of this.
However, there is no need to worry, as I believe that after reading this part of the series, you will humbly recognize how easily you can be deceived by individuals like him and never let it happen again. I extend my forgiveness to you, as you are still my brothers and sisters in Islam. Nonetheless, I strongly encourage you to bear this in mind as you move forward and to exercise greater discernment. The enemies of God will invariably resort to lies and fabrications in an attempt to undermine our faith and its true adherents. Their objective is to hinder the progress of Truth and to create obstacles in its path. It is crucial that we remain vigilant and steadfast in the face of such tactics.

Part 3, The End stages of the 1st Fitnah (Trial):

Verse 21:

"The next to come to power will be a despicable man who is not in line for royal succession. He will slip in when least expected and take over the kingdom by flattery and intrigue."

Interpretation:

• "The next to come to power": This phrase refers to Mu'awiyah, who managed to persuade Hasan to relinquish the Caliphate to him, thus becoming "The king of the north" in place of 'Ali, whereas he had previously been "king of the south."
• "A despicable man who is not in line for royal succession": Mu'awiyah was not a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad's family, unlike 'Ali. The fact that this chapter explicitly continues the narrative in this manner by mentioning specific details such as royal succession in leadership further supports the argument that it pertains to the early Islamic era, which was marked by numerous trials and tribulations related to leadership. Mu'awiyah was a highly reprehensible individual who ruthlessly seized power by taking the lives of countless believers. It is noteworthy that Sunnis regard him as a righteous man, despite the historical evidence that suggests otherwise and paints a picture of a man who was, in fact, highly despicable. They rely on their Hadiths, treating them as divine revelations, disregarding the fact that they could have been concocted by the adherents of Mu'awiyah in his support.
• "Slip in when least expected and take over the kingdom by flattery and intrigue": Mu'awiyah employed political scheming, deception, and strategic marriages to consolidate his power, ultimately becoming the first Umayyad Caliph in 661 AD.

Verse 22:

"With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the leader of the covenant."

Interpretation:

• "With the force of a flood": Symbolizes a powerful and overwhelming military force.
• "They shall be swept away from before him and be broken": Refers to their defeat to his schemes and/or campaigns.
• "also the leader of the covenant": This is Hasan, 'Ali's son, who was considered a rightful successor of the covenant that prophet Muhammad was given by God, the 'Covenant of Peace.' Hassan abdicated the caliphate to Mu'awiyah under a peace treaty and certain promises, promises that Mu'awiyah never fulfilled. It is very obvious that he was just a power-horny lunatic who lied and murdered his way to the top and thereby ruined both the Muslim reputation, the Holy Covenant of Peace and the Muslim unity as a whole.

The Covenant of Peace: God says in the Quran:

"Wherewith God guides all who seek His good pleasure to ways of the Peace (Subula as-Salam)" (5:15)

Why is God calling His ways as "ways of the Peace"? Just eight verses earlier, God says:

"And remember the blessing of God upon you and His Covenant by which He bound you when you said, 'We hear and we obey.' And fear God. Indeed, God is All-Knowing of what is in the hearts." (5:7)

Read more about our Covenant with God, the Covenant of Peace, here:
Link: Islam and Muslims in the Bible: You need to read these verses in Hebrew!!
This is an issue that has unfortunately been concealed from the Ummah, and I believe that individuals like Mu'awiyah are responsible for this. The reasons behind this will become increasingly apparent as we progress through the chapter. I plan to delve into this topic further in a future post on this subreddit, but for now, let us continue with our interpretation of the chapter.
Verse 23:

"And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people."

Interpretation:

• "After the league is made with him": Refers to the peace treaty between Hasan and Mu'awiyah.
• "He shall act deceitfully": Mu'awiyah promising things and agreeing to peace treaties that he later broke, consolidating power in a deceitful manner. Perhaps even making himself bigger than he actually was by way of utilizing war tactics in a proficient manner.
• "Become strong with a small number of people": Mu'awiyah’s initial consolidation of power with loyal supporters in Syria, particularly the Banu Kalb tribe. His following was small compared to the vastness of the Ummah of the Muslims, but he grew to become great gradually by gaining more and more support. How he did this is made clear in the next verse.

Verse 24:

"He shall enter peaceably even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time."

Interpretation:

• "Enter peaceably even into the richest places of the province": Mu'awiyah’s strategic and peaceful occupation of prosperous areas.
• "He shall do what his fathers have not done": ...
• "Disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches": Distributing wealth to gain loyalty and support. In fact, Sunnis claim that Ibn Umar said that "Muawiyah was the most generous person after Prophet" (Source)
• "Devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time": Strategic planning against remaining strongholds of opposition, but for a limited time.

Verse 25:

"He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army; and the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him."

Interpretation:

• "He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South": Mu'awiyah is now the king of the north, as I've explained earlier, because he took over that position (see verse: 21), so he is now waging war against the king of the south, namely Hasan, son of Ali, who was the king of the South, based in Mecca.
• "But he shall not stand": Indicates the ultimate failure of Hassan when he gave up the Caliphate.
• "They shall devise plans against him": The successful strategies of Mu'awiyah in convincing Hassan to give up the Caliphate to him, he did this as a result of deceitful planning they made, they even made his own supporters betray him, which the next verse speaks about.

Verse 26:

"Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain."

Interpretation:

• Hasan’s forces were plagued by internal divisions and a lack of unified support. The promises and bribes led to significant desertions from Hasan’s ranks. Notable commanders and influential figures abandoned Hasan, further weakening his military strength and morale. There were also plots against Hasan’s life from within his own camp. For instance, it is reported that some of his own supporters attempted to assassinate him, hoping that his death would force a settlement with Mu'awiyah or for their own gain.

Verse 27:

"Both these kings' hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table; but it shall not prosper, for the end will still be at the appointed time."

Interpretation:

• "The two kings": Refers to Hasan ibn Ali and Mu'awiyah during their negotiations.
• "Hearts bent on evil": Indicates mutual distrust and ulterior motives.
• "Sit at the same table and lie to each other": During negotiations, both parties made deceptive promises.
• "To no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time": The deceit did not change the ultimate predetermined outcomes.

Verse 28:

"While returning to his land with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant; so he shall do damage and return to his own land."

Interpretation:

• "King of the North": Mu'awiyah, who ruled from Syria.
• "Return to his land with great wealth": Mu'awiyah’s accumulation of wealth and resources.
• "Heart set against the holy covenant": Mu'awiyah’s actions undermined the principles of Islamic unity.
• "Take action against it and then return to his own country": Mu'awiyah’s policies further divided the Muslim community before he returned to Damascus.

Verse 29:

"At the time appointed he shall return and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter."

Interpretation:

• "he shall return and come toward the south": He will leave his base in Syria and return to Mecca in South.
• "but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.": Implying that things will not be as they used to be and that the unity of the kingdom would be shattered and weakened.

Verse 30:

"Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant."

Interpretation:

• "Ships of the western coastlands": This phrase refers to the Byzantine navy. The verse describes the end stages of the 'Siege of Constantinople' that took place in 655 CE, when Mu'awiyah was not necessarily defeated but was significantly weakened at sea by the Byzantine emperor. This forced Mu'awiyah to retreat back to his own territory.
• "He will lose heart": Reflects Mu'awiyah’s loss of morale and strategic position, and not a loss per say.
• "Turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant": After retreating, Mu'awiyah directed his frustrations against the Muslim community, further undermining Islamic unity.
• "Show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant": Mu'awiyah rewarded those who supported his political maneuvers, even if it meant forsaking Islamic principles.

Historical Context and accuracy in my interpretation:

This verse is yet another piece of evidence that supports my interpretation, making it almost irrefutable at this point. It fits too well with the historical context and cannot possibly be referring to anything else.
Battle of the Masts (655 AD): This pivotal naval battle saw Byzantine Emperor Constans II leading a fleet against the Muslim forces off the coast of Lycia. Mu'awiyah's attempts to solidify control over the Mediterranean faced substantial Byzantine opposition, which led to a retreat back to Syria (Wikipedia)​.
Merrill & Baker write:

"The battle was part of the earliest campaign by Mu'awiya, the governor of Syria, to reach Constantinople and is considered to be "the first decisive conflict of Islam on the deep""

Source: Ridpath, John Clark. Ridpath's Ual History, Merrill & Baker, Vol. 12, New York, p. 483.
Shaun O'Sullivan writes:

"The siege was unsuccessful, however, due to a fierce storm that sank the ships with war machines aboard, an event the Romans attributed to divine intervention. The land force led by Muawiyah in Chalcedon, having lost their artillery and siege engines, returned to Syria thereafter."

Source: O'Sullivan, Shaun (2004-01-01). "Sebeos' account of an Arab attack on Constantinople in 654
It is truly remarkable how detailed this prophecy is and how it perfectly aligns with the events of early Islamic history. I have never before encountered a prophecy that has been so thoroughly fulfilled. The verse even specifies that "He will lose heart" rather than stating that he will lose the battle against them, which, according to historical accounts, is precisely what happened. Mu'awiyah's motivation and will to continue waned.

• "Show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant": This portion of the verse provides further evidence that the Mighty king mentioned in verses 3-4 was, in fact, sent by God, as indicated by the reference to the "Holy Covenant." Jewish rabbis, Christian scholars, and translators have attempted to claim that this chapter is about Alexander the Great, Antiochus Magnus, and others, but this verse confidently refutes that interpretation. It is clear that the prophecy pertains to a prophet or messenger of God who brought forth a Holy Covenant, rather than mere ancient kings and rulers. The only individual in history (after the Covenant with the Jews) who brought a Holy Covenant from God was the Prophet Muhammad. The new covenant is the Covenant of Peace, which is the essence of Islam. The Arabic term for Islam, "Sin-Lam-Mim," has "Salam" (Peace) as one of its definitions.

Verse 31:

"And strong ones stand up out of him, and have defiled the sanctuary, the stronghold, and have turned aside the continual [sacrifice], and appointed the desolating abomination."

Interpretation:
This above is from the "Literal Standard Version," and they have added the word [sacrifice] but it is not there in the Hebrew verse. The verse is simply saying:

"(they have) turned aside the continual"

It is a continual/continuity (something done constantly) they turned aside in the sanctuary, i.e. the Kaaba, as you shall now see:

Mu'awiyah the innovator:

A Sunni Imam called Shafi’i quotes from (allegedly) Zuhri in book “al- Um” that he said:

Ibn Hazm writes in the book “al- Mahalli” that: “the Umayyads innovated going late for prayer of Eid, preferring oration to prayer and saying Adhan and Iqamah (declaration of standing for prayer) for prayer of Eid."

Source: al- Mahalli, vol. 5, p. 82.
Mu'awiyah and his deviant supporters "turned aside" the 'îd prayer and preferred the oration (i.e. Khutbah, preaching) so they could brainwash the Muslim community while having them all gathered.

• The definition of the word ''îd":

The word "Eid" comes from the Arabic root ع و د (ʿ-w-d),
Ibn al-A’rabi stated:

"Because it returns every year with renewed joy, the origin of which is the oud."

Source: Al-Barakatī, al-Taʿrīfāt al-Fiqhīya
"Oud" carries the meaning of "to return" and "to recur," and "continuance":

Root: عود
A 1 عَادَ إِلَيْهِ, (S, A, O, TA,) and لَهُ, and فِيهِ, (TA,) aor. ـُ (S, O,) inf. n. عَوْدٌ and عَوْدَــةٌ, (S, O, K, TA,) which latter is also an inf. n. of un., (TA,) and مَعَادٌ, (K, TA,) He, or it, returned to it, (S, A, O, K, * TA,) namely, a thing: (TA:) or, accord. to some, the verb is differently used with فِى and with other preps.: (MF, TA:) [with فى it seems generally to imply some degree of continuance, in addition to the simple meaning of the verb alone:] one says, عاد الكَلْبُ فِى قَيْئِهِ The dog returned to his vomit: (Msb in art. رجع:) and عاد لَهُ بَعْدَ مَا كَانَ أَعْرَضَ عَنْهُ [He returned to it after he had turned away from it]

Source: Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane (d. 1876)
I am truly at a loss for words. I cannot adequately express my awe and fascination with this entire prophecy. It is simply breathtaking. All I can say is, "Wow!" I am profoundly grateful to God for guiding us to Islam and for urging us to follow the Quran alone, and for protecting us from what verse 4 stated in this Chapter.
Mu'awiyah and his followers introduced numerous innovations, one of which was prioritizing the oration over the prayer during 'Îd. This verse emphasizes this particular innovation because it is of the utmost importance in the eyes of God that we, at the very least, perform the rituals of His religion without neglecting them. It should not be necessary for Him to delineate the etiquettes of these rituals in the Quran for us to collectively remember and perform them in His praise, adoration, and submission. And that such an early Caliph did this to His faith is beyond an abomination.
Let us proceed.
Verse 32:

"He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action."

Interpretation:

• "those who violate the covenant,": Supporters and descendants of Mu'awiyah.
• "He shall seduce with flattery": Mu'awiyah’s use of political maneuvering, distributal of booty to gain support.
• "the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action": Refers to those who remain faithful to the covenant, the real Muslims.

Verse 33:

"And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yet for many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering."

Verse 34:

"Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue."

Verse 35:

"And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time."

Interpretations:

• "Some of those of understanding shall fall": Leaders and scholars facing hardship and possibly executions.
• "To refine them, purify them, and make them white": Trials serving as a purification process.
• "Until the time of the end": These events leading up to a significant conclusion.
• "Because it is still for the appointed time": The final outcome is predetermined and will occur at the designated time.

This section reflects the trials and tribulations faced by leaders and followers who stayed true to their faith, despite facing severe persecution. The interpretation suggests a narrative of enduring faith and eventual vindication aligned with early Islamic history, particularly in the struggles and eventual success of the Umayyad Caliphate and the continued resistance by the descendants of prophet Muhammad.
It is no secret that Muawiyah massacred the Muslims to reach the top. That he unalived scholars who spoke against his actions and his dominion is a given.

Mu'awiyah is portrayed as the "Dajjal":

Verse 36:

“Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak astonishing things against the God of gods; and he will succeed until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done.

Interpretation:
He is being described as Sunni Hadiths describe Dajjal.
Do you understand now why I am convinced that the Sunni Hadiths have been transmitted to us by the enemies of God, most likely rabbis and Christian monks? They took notice of this prophecy and manipulated the Sunnis into believing that a "Dajjal" would emerge in the End Times, coinciding with the return of "Jesus" (despite the fact that God has not even mentioned Jesus' return). They deliberately fostered this belief in the return of Jesus and linked it to the appearance of this Dajjal for a specific purpose. Their objective was to prevent Muslims from connecting the dots and realizing that this chapter is, in fact, referring to Mu'awiyah.
There's even Sunni Hadiths saying that the Dajjal would appear in the time of the companions, ironic enough.

He will not regard any Gods, prophet Muhammad or women:

Verse 37:

"He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all."

Interpretation:
This verse has been mistranslated by all of them. The Hebrew verse states:

"ועל־אלהי אבתיו לא יבין ועל־חמדת נשים ועל־כל־אלוה לא יבין כי על־כל יתגדל:"

They have rendered "ועל־חמדת נשים" as "The one desired by women" while "חמדת" (HEMDAT) is a proper name in Hebrew, in addition to being a noun (based on context). "Hemdat" (חמדת) is a Hebrew male first name (attestation) that is cognate with Mohammed/Ahmed. They have added the word "by" to make it "by women" while it is not even there in the Hebrew.
"Hemdat" here is of course referring to our prophet. He would not regard any God, not regard our prophet Ahmad/Muhammad, not regard women, and would exalt himself above all, just like the Dajjal is described in Sunni narrations:
The verse is actually literally saying:

"He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors, Hemdat, women, nor any other god, but will exalt himself above all."

The word נָשִׁ֛ים (nā·šîm) in Hebrew simply means "women" in the plural form. The phrase "Hemdat Nashim" should not be combined, and even if it were, it would not translate to "Desired one by women." Hemdat is to be taken as a proper name in this instance.
This marks the end of part 3, and the remaining portion of this chapter consists of general statements. I am unsure if I will create a part 4, but we shall see.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please consider sharing it and liking it. May God bless you.
/ By your brother, Exion.

Hi all,
(Using a throwaway account.)
I (M,42) will try to summarize my story as much as possible. I am just trying to give the right context as I feel that this is necessary to give an honest account of the situation. (otherwise skip to “This takes us to the situation we are in today.”) My main question would be if you think my partner (F, 44) is possibly abusing me without me realizing it? My main struggle is that I really do not know anymore how to react to her and I am really starting to doubt myself.
Current family situation is me living with my partner, our daughter (F,8) and every other week my daughter out of my previous marriage (F,15)
I met my current partner around 2 years after my divorce. My divorce was "handled" quite well but from an emotional perspective I still found it quite traumatic. More than I would have thought. Everything started to go downhill when our daughter was born 2 months early. There was the whole process of having to go back and forth to the hospital for 2 months to see our daughter. All the joy of childbirth is sort of taken away from you. My ex got postpartum depression and I got a burnout and a depression after that. We basically grew apart, started to get interested in other people and she eventually cheated on me with somebody from group therapy. I felt quite guilty towards my daughter and I basically never wanted it to come to a divorce. I really felt that she was "the love of my life".
Things started off quite well with Mari about 10 years ago. (For the sake of the story let's call her Mari). We met online and at that time she was trying to have a baby through IVF to be a single mom. She already had many tries and she was not having any success. She also had had some miscarriages. Once we started to get serious she stopped the treatment and we discussed having a child together. After a bit more than a year together we bought a house and shortly after that we tried to get pregnant. Seeing her history we consulted with fertility services. Although the results of the tests were not great we managed to get pregnant spontaneously after less then 6 months. Really a surprise. But we were happy.
Our daughter was born a bit more than a month early. (Lets call her Kirsten) Again we were not granted a "normal" childbirth and again we had to go back and forth to the hospital to see our daughter. It was not as intense as with my first daughter but still a lot of the joy was again replaced with stress and worry. It was clear that Mari was also not handling this very well. She started to get panic attacks at home. She could not leave the couch anymore and was being prescribed different medications including Xanax by our GP. I was really worried at this point and had no faith in our GP prescribing all this sort of medication. So I rang up here Gyno and she had her readmitted to the hospital and arranged a psych consult. There they advised on having her admitted to a psych ward specifically for mothers together with their child. In the end we did not do this as we found this a bit drastic.
Once Kirsten got home everything started to pick up again but Mari was not taking care of herself when it came to her depression. She had a few sessions with a psychiatrist but fairly quickly stopped going. "She had told her story and that was that. She felt like there was nothing that anybody could really do for her." After a while she started to feel a bit better but I knew this was going to backfire, having been depressed for a long time myself.
Kirsten was not an easy baby. She had trouble eating, sleeping and she cried from the moment you stopped moving. So when taking a stroll, when in the car, etc... This made it very difficult to actually do something with her. I do not want to exaggerate this, I know this is not that uncommon, but I do think it really put more stress on the relationship Mari had with the baby.
When Kirsten was around 2,5 years old she got pneumonia and she had to stay in the hospital for more than a week. She could not leave the bed. Somebody had to stay with her during the night also. Mari said she was just not able to do this. She just "could not cope with that". So I was there almost every night. My mother in law also did 2 nights. At that time I really did not understand what to make of that situation. Why she could not take some responsibility as a mother.
Our relationship was under some stress, but I figured this was not that strange with a young child and I did not want to push her. Especially the physical part of our relationship was really taking a blow. It started with having less and less sex and then evolving into less physical interaction in general.
Shortly after that we got the message from the kindergarten teacher that we maybe should have Kirsten checked for possible developmental disorders. After several months of testing we got the diagnosis of ASD. There were definitely things that had had us worried before. Kirsten would get mad and pull out her hair. It had taken a very long time before she could walk, she would be scared to go to kids parties,...
In the meanwhile Mari started to talk about having another baby. This was something that we never really discussed before. I was not a fan of another baby because I felt that we were having issues in handling the situation as it was. (Especially Mari) I already had had 2 early born babies and really did not want this a third time. We would be completely in over our heads. She said that this was what she wanted from the start and that she had mentioned this when we met. For me this was not the case. This was just never talked about before. We discussed this a few times and I really made it clear that for me this was not an option. She kept bringing up the topic. Especially in bed. And I really started to feel like she was using this as leverage or sort of pascoin to have sex. She would also keep saying that I did not wanted to talk about it. I would explain to her that we discussed it and that I explained my view and that there was basically nothing else to discuss.
At a certain moment I caved for the always repeating nagging. I’m not sure why. Maybe we had a few better weeks or I took pity in her or I don’t know. But we decided we were going to try for another baby. I think it took around half a year before she was pregnant again. Only to get the news at 12 weeks that the heart of the baby was not beating. This for me was the final “sign” that I did not want to try anymore.
Looking back I think this is where I really handled the situation badly. I should never have caved on trying for another child and I also think that I probably did not support her well enough after the miscarriage. All this was not intentional but still… Mari on the other hand was mad that she was so close to getting what she wanted but lost it in the end. I really feel like this is a key moment in our relationship that she totally blamed on me.
After this the lack of affection just became bigger. Where before it was mostly purely physical contact that she blocked it was now becoming affection in general. Every time I brought up the subject there would be “excuses” or she would just change the subject. Things like “I was never cuddly”, “I never had a (high) sexdrive”,... this was just not true. She would also say things like that she was tired because she had to do everything around the house. So deflecting the actual topic with something that had a core of truth but was completely beside the point of the conversation.
I am by no means perfect and I know that I could probably do a bit more around the house when it comes to daily chores. But I also do a lot of things in the family that Mari never does. I get up during the night when there is an issue with the kids, I get up in the morning with the kids and let her sleep in, I handle most of the “difficult situations” with the kids, take the kids to school in the morning,... Basically everything that is more kids and emotional related in the family I handle and she handles a lot of the practical daily stuff.The kids know this and will naturally come to me when there is an issue because I will handle it calmly, while Mari is a lot less predictable. She also only works 4 days a week and if she has a late shift or a weekend I am covering this at home. Afterwards she will get days off for this but I will still just work my 5 days during the week. I also have no hobbies that make me be away from home. Only thing is that I am away 3 times a year for 3 days for work.
A couple years later my oldest (lets call her Denise) was starting to have issues. She was around 11-12 when this started. It started really small, other kids saying that she was weird, she was having some confidence issues. Nothing to be worried about at first. She had always been an easy, happy child. We sort of thought that it was mainly a teenager thing. Also the relationship between Mari and Denise had always been fine.
But things only got worse over the time of a year. She was starting to get depressed, getting panic attacks, suicide thoughts,... She was basically going to school only half of the time and this was putting a lot of stress on our family. Each day would be a surprise on how she would feel. It was also not safe to leave her alone. She was getting professional help once a week but this of course did not really resolve the situation quickly. I went to the E.R. with her several times because she had a panic attack and she thought she was going to hurt herself. (Which she did sometimes. Or she would eat like something dangerous and then panic) In the E.R. they basically just did a psych consult to make sure she would not kill herself that night and then sent her home because there were just no spots in the children's psych ward.
The relationship between Denise and Mari took a turn for the worst. I totally understand that this was a difficult situation for Mari (as for the rest of us) but what really struck me was the total lack of empathy toward me or Denise. She was basically convinced that this was all just attention seeking from Denise and I was being played. This was of course also clear to Denise. Me and my ex were doing everything we could to provide the best possible help for Denise. All while Mari thought we were totally overreacting and we should send her back to school. She would make remarks if I had to take time off work when I had to take Denise to an appointment. “It is always something, don't you need to work?” Mari could only see the impact this had on her and that she had to live with this situation while this was not her problem.
One situation is still carved in my mind. During one of her difficult days Denise had written her thoughts on paper because this sometimes helped. She had thrown away the paper in the paper bin but it was lying on top and Mari had read the paper. In the paper it said that Denise never wanted Mari to be part of our lives and that she hated her. Mari was furious and confronted Denise with this. Denise tried to explain that this was written on a bad day and that she was sorry. Mari would not have any of it. She would not accept an apology and she would basically the next weeks act like Denise was not there. As far as she was concerned Denise was not her issue anymore.
For me this was completely unreal. I can understand that you are maybe not very happy when you read something like that, but we are talking about a 13 year old child that clearly has issues. She is still the adult in the situation and that is no way to handle a situation like that. There was totally no empathy towards me or Denise. Mari could also not understand that I did not choose her side in this.
We are now 2 years after that fight and Denise and Mari have VERY slowly started to communicate again. But mostly they still sort of ignore each other. The last 2 years Denise basically did not go to school but she was able to follow more structured therapy. She got tested and just like her smaller sister she has ASD although in a more subtle form. She is doing quite well the last few months and can hopefully start school again in a special educational needs school in september.
This takes us to the situation we are in today.
Mari is basically constantly in a bad mood. (Even Kirsten says this. “Mommy is always angry”) There is no affection whatsoever anymore towards me. Everything is a remark. Not always a nasty remark, but still a remark.
There is no empathy towards me or Denise. There are no compliments, no “how was your day?”, no interest whatsoever. To Kirsten she sort of forces herself to show affection but it always feels a bit off.
When I bring up the fact that I cannot touch her anymore, that she has no interest in me, that she cannot say a nice word to me, she just ignores it.
She wants me to sit with her in the evening to watch some television or whatever and she wants me to come to bed when she goes to bed. But she does not understand that I see no reason to go sit with her because I cannot sit close to her and it is only to get more remarks. The same with going to bed. I cannot come close to her and she always complains that I snore.
It is just a constant rain of (usually small) remarks but NEVER a good word. And when I sometimes say something back or make a remark towards her it is like I committed murder.
A few months ago I was in the hospital with severe pneumonia. When she visited she was all about how hard it was to take care of Kirsten alone. (I admit that it is not easy) Then when I was there for almost a week she asked me if I would be coming home? I said that it would take longer than a week before I could come home. (I was still on oxygen and had not been able to leave my bed unless to go shower sitting down or to the toilet. I had not been off my room.) She was like “You have got to be kidding me! I cannot keep doing this alone at home!” I was totally baffled. What was I supposed to say to that?
We also have a hard time really providing a good structured environment for Kirsten her ASD. Again not that strange, lots of parents are struggling. But the weird thing with Mari is that she tries to find solutions, but she is not willing to really change or adapt herself to the situation. It should be like a solution that only affects Kirsten. I have already tried to explain to her that this is something we need to tackle as a family and that we all need to adapt. But she only sees the impact it has on her. “All the issues originate from things or people around her and they need to be solved there. It is never Mari that needs to change.”
We are doing a pretty good job at keeping the family running from a practical perspective. And Mari plays a big part in this. But like already mentioned from the moment she would need to change something about herself this is a no go.
For Denise's therapy there were also family sessions. I was able to get Mari to go to one with me. That ended really badly. She said that we were attacking her. She knew she shouldn't have come. (During therapy, not afterwards.) After that I was never able to get her to come again. Even not after personal calls from the therapist to her.
All these therapists tell me the same thing after I paint them the picture: “How do you keep doing this?”
The therapist that came over this week for a “family session” told me that I really needed to start taking better care of myself because a lot of these things were sounding a lot like psychological abuse. She told me to contact my psychiatrist or a therapist to help me in coping with this behavior and see what my options are in the long run.
I cannot stop thinking about this. I do not know what to do or how to react anymore to Mari. I feel like nothing really helps. I would love to have her go to couples therapy with me and sort this out because I still love her and I do not want another split family. But I also think that is just not going to happen. I really feel that the last few months I’m starting to doubt myself and lose myself. Am I the difficult one in this situation? Am I overlooking something fundamental in my behavior?
I would love to hear your thoughts.

To be clear, I'm talking about languages such as Italian, Spanish, French or Portuguese. (I mean Romanian is also one of them.) They all have gender cases including gendered nouns. I do keep hearing that English speakers have an 'easier' time to learn them due to them having an alphabet, plus they are considered "Romance" languages. (I'm not going to talk about that here, as there are many posts mentioning them.)
Instead, I'm discussing on how hard are both Mandarin & Japanese for native French, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese speakers to learn? Since both JP & ZH are completely alien to European languages in terms of their writing system, grammar or syntax, so they have no common ground with the European framework in regards to their orthography or grammar.

Even though Japanese has hiragana / katakana, it does not mean they write every word like that, since they have Kanji. (It helps condense sentence length, also that makes it clearer to tell the difference on what the correct word is, as some sound exactly the same but have different meanings altogether.

The features that each language has:

Mandarin	Japanese
Tones (4-5)	Pitch accent
Classifiers (for counting)	Counting words
Stroke order (differs from Japanese)	Stroke order (differs from Mandarin)
Word particles (different from Japanese)	Word particles (different from Mandarin)
Polite language (formality)	Keigo & Honorifics
Sentence structure: SVO	Sentence structure: SOV
Untranslatable nuances	Untranslatable nuances

From both ZH & JP: 1 漢字 equates to a SINGLE word in which multiple letters are needed in European languages to spell out. Both Kanji & Hanzi are drawn from visual concepts on how they interpret a word based on semantic meaning. (Characters are fun for caligraphy practice, it's also a work of art.) For reference, take the Kanji & Hanzi: 川
[The stroke order between both languages are different despite having the same character for some words, since they are both different languages after all.]
The shape of the character is derivative on how its visualized.

Japanese - 訓読み：かわ・音読み：セン
Mandarin - Pinyin: Chuān

For instance, take the kanji & hanzi:「軍」
As you can see, a single kanji & hanzi already equates to 1 word as it is logographic, which will require multiple letters in Romance languages to spell.
Kanji from Japanese has multiple readings for ONE character, for example:「行」
An example of a Kanji, but as indicated their phonologies change depending on how it used within a word, or placed in a sentence.

Kunyomi: Native Japanese Reading of a kanji.
Onyomi: Reading of a kanji derivative of Mandarin phonology.
Nanori: These readings only apply when a kanji is used within a persons name.

That is also another "complex" part of Japanese, as kanji has multiple pronunciations alone. (Yep, this applies to most of the 2,136+ characters having their own assigned phonologies that differ.)
This often gets lost in translation (like all the time!), as ONE character can imply so many definitions depending on the context you associate it with, in a literal or figurative sense. As opposed to European languages, the translation is mainly consistent with what you put it for "common" words but there are some that can also pose multiple meanings.

Japanese & Mandarin	Romance (Euro) languages (letter count)
They have a large amount of characters, getting the feeling like it's 'limitless' but they contrast around 2,000 - 10,000+ in their total amount.	French (26), Spanish (27), Italian (21) & Portuguese (26) As they are alphabetical, you read each letter as it is.
Both languages have zero concept of gender cases as it's not a thing in Japanese & Mandarin.	They have gender cases and gendered nouns (Whether it is FR, ES, IT or PT.)

On the other hand, they both have idioms and proverbs you can create out of 4 characters, conveying a proverb and idiomatic phrase (both in a literal & figurative sense) using only 4 characters:

• In Mandarin - 成語
• In Japanese - 四字熟語

As mentioned, they only use 4 characters to construct a proverb & idiom.

I mean, can you also do this in European languages: only using 4 short words alone? (To create a proverb that still conveys an idiomatic meaning with only 4 words.)

Both Mandarin and Japanese have radicals (on both hanzi & kanji) which are building blocks of their characters, that radical has a meaning on its own as it's derivative of an existing word, but when associated with another kanji & hanzi. (Hence why some characters look similar to one another.)
The connotation of its meaning can change, but the theme surrounding the vocabulary involving the radical still conveys a message despite it being a different word entirely, even though the radical is present in an unrelated word that does not relate to the meaning of the radical.
As shown, pay close attention to the radical present in these words. (Despite some of them having the same one, they connotate a different word entirely.)

The Kanji in Grey: Unreleated words surrounding the radical present.
The Kanji in Pink: Related words surrounding the radical present.
Be careful not to get these mixed up, you need a good eye to distiguish them apart.

List of words from Mandarin containing the radical 女.

The Hanzi in Pink - Words associated with nouns relating to girls & women.
The Hanzi in Purple - Words associated with a "positive" connotation.
The Hanzi in Maroon - Words associated with womanhood.

Japanese

They have 45 ひらがな & 45 カタカナ but that is only scratching the surface, not forgetting to include over 2,136+ 漢字 with readings such as: 訓読み, 音読み & 名乗り for each character, imagine doing that 2k times, knowing all the phonologies for most or all of them.
The grammar too is alien to all European languages, as what is stated last in a [EU lang] sentence is positioned at the beginning in Japanese. On top of kanji implying more than one definition as it is dependent on context, also the reading can change if its paired with kana or another kanji.

For example, take the sentence「ジュールズさんが家族と家でフランス語を話します」(You can clearly see as indicated by the word positionings: Japanese word order is SOV while the translations below it are complicit with the SVO order as usual in European languages.)
As shown here, the sentence strutcure in Japanese is very different to the counterparts in French, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese. (Indicated in color)

The さん (in red) is a honorific. (More about that later.)

Subject omission is common in Japanese, as they don't always need to include words like (I am, me, we, us, etc.) as opposed to European languages where it's needed, since you are already inferring to the speaker in question, so it is a lot more straight forward. For instance:
From this sentence (私は) is omitted in Japanese. (Translations conveyed in brackets and light text.)

To speakers of Romance languages, can you omit words like "I am" or any pronoun alike and still be understood by the other party? (Can it really work?)
For example, in Portuguese: instead of saying "O meu nome é Francisco" > just put it as "Francisco" [Omitting O meu nome é] (in Japanese that is connotated as フランシスコです - without 私は)

I won't forget 丁寧語、尊敬語、謙遜語 which are all part of 敬語 in Japanese, especially in verbs as to express a level of politeness (in corporate or formal setting) to empathize respect to the other party to not be connotated as rude (you can use the 'normal' variant but that will come off as impolite - in let's say a business meeting or any formal event / setting.), between a "dictionary" form including teineigo, sonkeigo & kensongo. For instance:
As you can see, all 4 variations of 1 verb exist in Japanese, keeping in mind with the level of formality on which variant you'll use. (They all mean 1 verb, but connotate different levels of politeness, empathizing the level of respect or decorum.)

For example, you would not use 言う in an formal setting when talking to people within either a business or special occassion where decorum is required, you would instead use 申し上げる or something amongst the lines of おっしゃる depending on the situation and setting or formality.
Is there anything like this in European languages to this extent? If not, then this will be difficult for you all to fully understand as there's verbs in Japanese that do this based on the level of decorum incuding the setting you are in, the people you are talking to.

The honorific system in Japanese is often "lost in translation" as evident in both manga or anime (what I hate about translation is that they transliterate it instead of coming up with an equivalent), as there are many levels of politeness and formality within their language, for example:

日本語	Roughly equivalent to:
博士 (はかせ)	Dr. / PhD
後輩 (こうはい)	Junior
先輩 (せんぱい)	Senior
先生 (せんせい)	Teach / Mr / Mrs
様 (さま)	Mr / Mrs (Formal variant, eg. clients, judges)
さん	Mr / Mrs (Addressed towards grown ups)
たん	(Refers to babies)
ちゃん	(Refers to young children - boys / girls)
殿 (どの)	(Formal / archanic ver: of you)
君 (くん)	(Semi-formal title referring to men)
氏 (し)	(Used for family names or important stuff alike)
陛下 (へいか)	Your Majesty
殿下 (でんか)	Your Highness
閣下 (かっか)	Your excelency
坊 (ぼう)	(A term for endearment regarding young boys)
被告 (ひこく)	(Addresses the accused - legal / court)
容疑者 (ようぎしゃ)	(Addresses the suspect - police / legal)
受刑者 (じゅけいしゃ)	(Addresses the one convicted - legal / court)

Of course this also gets lost in translation, in European languages as they OFTEN just romanize the term, which is not how you are not meant to translate it. (If there is no actual equivalent in European languages, just omit it instead of transliterating it.)

In regards to Kanji: there are words that bare the same phoneme, but keep in mind of numerous kanji variations that also possess the same phonology, with each having their own separate meanings. For example, take the onyomi reading for カン -
I only listed 100 kanji that are pronounced the same, but there are 286 more with the same sound: カン (By the way, each kanji has their own definition.)

This phoneme (カン) alone comprises 386 漢字 in Japanese, some of the characters have become 'obscure' in their usage, as in you don't even know they existed until you've looked hard enough. (Even native speakers don't know all of them.)
How difficult is this concept for speakers of European languages to remember and fully grasp? (Some of the kanji are used for people's names.)

The most diffcult part a "word" can have various meanings for one phoneme, take for example 「こうか」which comprises of 39 words with this pronunciation, so depending on the sentence you are listening to or reading, you got to infer the correct one based on context. Also, Japanese has 188 word particles in total. (I won't list them all.)
I can only think of 54 word particles that are used in Japanese sentences. (Although there are quite a lot, with specific uses.)
In terms of how counting works in Japanese, it is not like in European languages at all. Japanese has 助数詞, which are counting / measure words used to count the number of things, actions, events, items, and etc. to make it clear on what you are exactly counting.
A list of Japanese 助数詞 - (There's about 350 of them, but I won't list them all.)

There is so many counter words in Japanese, that even native speakers don't even use ALL of them, as their uses are situational or only applicable in some instances.

Counting suffix (within a number / qty.)	A rough summary
つ	A counter for [things] in general, as it is also commonly used in Japanese.
個	Counter for [no. of pieces] or some things, you see this word in relation to let's say: food.
本	Counts books, pens, pencils, nail clippers, etc. (This one is quite versatile in its usage.)
枚	Equiv. to no. of reams of paper, no. of pics, also counts bath mats, credit cards, clothing, etc.
匹	Used for counting [small / medium] animals (eg. household pets or other small creatures.)
頭	Counter for [no. of livestock] or large animals such as elephants, whales, camels, etc.
冊	Primarily a counting suffix used for documents or books (equiv. to: Olivier read 3 books.)
台	Counting word in relation to the no. of vehicles (such as trucks or cars) for example.
羽	Counter word for birds (specifically) but can be used to count rabbits too.
階	Used to refer to no. of storeys or floors within a building. (eg this apartment has 20 floors.)
缶	Refers to the no. of [cans] such as soda cans, tins, paint cans, etc. (When empty, use: 個)
巻	Refers to no. of [books / comics] in a series. (equiv to: Carlos read all 7 harry potter novels.)
切れ	Refers to no. of [sliced food] (equiv. to: Maria sliced 4 loaves of bread for her sibilings.)
口	As a counter, it refers to [times] bitten in food. (equiv. to: Pierre took one bite from a scone.)
件	Refers to the no. of [cases / incidents] but this counter has versatility in its usage.

For example, the counting word 羽 is present in Japanese (regardless if it is singular or plural), as it is needed to be specific on the indicator within a numerical unit of [something / someone / event / action, etc.] to clarify what you're referring to.
As highlighted, the presence of the counting word is needed. It's not conveyed in the translations displayed below.
Pitch accent is another part of Japanese phonology, as the word can change based on the volume of each phoneme depending on your pronunciation, it connotates a different word altogether affecting the overall meaning, on what you actually want to say. For example, take むし -
Accent 1 is noted as High Low & Accent 2 is noted as Low High. The pitch accent connotates a different word despite them both sounding similar to one another, as in adjusting the volume of one phoneme upon your pronunciation.

Mandarin

7,000 - 80,000+ 漢字 (There are dictionaries that state the existence of around 106,230 漢字 in Mandarin.) However a modern dictionary only features 20,000 hanzi while an educated native speaker memorizes 8,000 hanzi but reading a newspaper only requires knowing 3,000 hanzi.
The sentence structure is different from Japanese (as it is SVO), although their wordings can imply more than one definition, as it is also dependent on how you associate it within a sentence, keep in mind too that they also have tones embedded within their phonology.

For example, take the sentence「醫生根據病人的病情以最好的方式治療他們」(You can clearly see the differences, as indicated by the word positionings - shown in color.)
As shown, the positioning of the words from Mandarin are different despite the word order being SVO, the translations are still different regardless.
Another feature that Mandarin has are separable verbs. (It may sound confusing at first) From this example, take the verb: 見面 (Rencontrer / Incontrare / Conocerte / Conhecer) used here:
As indicated, the hanzi 面 is omitted since 見 already conveys the verb.

Can you also do this in French, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese?

In this example, an extra hanzi (了 - as an particle / indicator: past tense) is added in the middle but the verb 吃飯 (Repas / Mangiare / Comer / Come) is still intact:
As the hanzi 了 is placed inbetween both 吃 and 飯, but the verb overall is still there.
From Mandarin - there are words that sound the "same" to the untrained musical ear, as it is a tonal language, so you need to keep that in mind, for example from pinyin: 'bi' consists of multiple hanzi depending on the tone you use, based on pronuncation.
All of them may sound the \"same\" to the untrained musical ear, but they are completely different words altogether. That is the difficult part of Mandarin for \"Euro\" language speakers as it's not a thing in their languages.
There are phonemes from Mandarin that comprise of a LOT of hanzi (that imply different definitions altogether, based on tones.) from 1 sound alone, such as this example below:
I can only think of 82 hanzi which all are pronounced as \"BI\" (there are perhaps more) but their tones connotate a different word. (Also, pay attention to the radicals.)
Like Japanese, Mandarin has word particles too. For example:
Some word particles present in Mandarin. (Although there are perhaps more.)
Akin to the Japanese counting system, Mandarin has 漢語量詞 which are classifiers used to count the number of things, actions, events, items, and etc. to make it clear on what you are exactly counting, that classifier is tied to a specific category and usage.
As indicated, the classifer 輛 is required to be within the sentence in Mandarin. (As you can see from the translations, an equivalent word for that classifier doesn't exist.)
A list of Mandarin 漢語量詞 - (There's quite a few, but I won't list them all.)

Although these classifers can imply multiple meanings and uses, it's context specific though if you want to know what that classifer is referring to.

Classifier (no. / qty. of something / action)	A rough explanation
句	Refers to no of. [lines / sentences] (equiv. to: Sam wrote on the first 2 lines of his book.)
發	Refers to no. of [rounds / bullets] (equiv. to: Diego fired 20 rounds from his M16A4.)
封	Refers to [letters - mail] (equiv. to: Ella opened 4 letters coming from the city council.)
根	Refers to [long thin] objects, eg. needles. (equiv. to: Jack only found 1 needle in a haystack.)
棵	No. of trees (equiv. to: Alice planted 6 trees around the park not far from Paris.)
輛	No. of vehicles (eg. Giovani spotted 3 cars in front of him during a traffic jam in Rome.)
列	Refers to [rows / columns] (eg. Adrian had to wait within a queue stetching 3 rows.)
首	Refers to [poems] (equiv. to: Theo wrote 7 poems within the first month or so.)
水	No of. [rinses / times washed] (eg. Henry washed his laundry for the third time.)
堂	No of. [periods within a class] (eg. Claire skipped 2 study periods for her English exam.)
班	No of [students] (eg. Jean knew there were 20 other pupils in his English class.)
牀	Refers to the [no. of blankets / sheets] (eg. James placed 3 bedsheets in the cabinet.)
排	Refers to [items grouped in rows] (eg. Sally saw 4 chairs untucked in the classroom.)
部	Refers to [no. of movies / novels] (eg. Chris Pratt starred in 3 films this year.)
包	Refers to [no. of packages / bundles] (eg. Reese received 3 bundles of bubble wrap.)

In European languages, do you also have counter words or classifers in relation to numerical units when referring to specific nouns? If not, than this concept from both Japanese & Mandarin might be a struggle to wrap your head around. (As there's one for EVERYTHING, quite a lot!)

Hanzi can be flipped to create:

1. Reversal of verbs & adjectives
2. Different meanings
3. Similar meanings
4. Loosely related definition
5. Closely related definition
6. Logical meanings

Japanese: Kanji can their positions swapped, but in doing so changes the meaning completely.

[Apologies for the long post: since there's a LOT of detail to uncover.]
In hindsight:

• Japanese has different word order compared to Romance langauges, how hard is this grammatical difference for European language speakers to wrap their head around?
• In terms of the honorific system and levels of politeness in speech: Does that really exist in European languages to the extent of Japanese, even for the slightest ones?
• How common is subject omission in European languages? I mean is it to the extent of Japanese in terms of it being common throughout Romance languages. (omitting words or pronouns like: Us, I'm, We, etc.)?
• From European languages: can you omit or separate as well as adding an extra [letter] to verbs witnin a sentence (like Mandarin) and still be understood?
• Since Japanese & Mandarin are logographic and heavily draw on visual concepts for their vocabulary having thousands of characters, how difficult is it for Romance language speakers?
• Tones from Mandarin: How difficult are those for speakers of Romance languages to determine the "right" word by listening to the "same" phoneme 4-5 times at different volume & tone?
• How difficult is the Japanese counting system for speakers of European languages to grasp, since there are 350 of these counting suffixes and specific words integral to numerical units?
• Mandarin has classifiers when referring to numerical units (akin to the Japanese counting system) how hard is this concept for native speakers of Romance languages?

I've had a growing interest in synthetic biology/cellular bionics, where the ultimate goal is engineering new cell-like entities from inanimate matter through the construction of composite structures, in which biological and artificial cells are intermingled to create hybrid systems composed of living and synthetic components. The applications in the medical field seem very promising, as in being able to provide some level of protection against illnesses or even, theoretically, cure hereditary diseases. However, the more I read into the subject of tampering w/ genetics & people merging with technology (the Bio-Digital Convergence) the more I'm reminded of Daniel:
Dan. 2:41-43 ~ And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
As controversial as this may be to some, I believe it's worth discussing, especially regarding the possible ramifications, not just physical but spiritual. I'm not an anti-anything, I enjoy all branches of science and recognize how far we've progressed because of our discoveries and innovations. As beneficial as this new medical technology sounds, I beg the question... is it morally right?

Above all else, does God approve?

1 Cor. 6:20 ~ For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Indigenous perspectives on the biodigital convergence [1]

The biodigital convergence describes the intersection, and in some cases merging, of biological and digital technologies. Biodigital technologies include mRNA vaccines used to treat COVID-19, digitally controlled surveillance insects, microorganisms genetically engineered to produce medicinal compounds, and more.

Current Advancements on Nanomedicine: Therapeutics and Vaccine Development [2]

Nanotechnology is opening new therapeutic possibilities of fighting against COVID-19 by enabling new methods of prevention, diagnosis, drug-delivery, and treatment. Nanomedicine is known as the branch of medicine involved in the prevention and cure of various diseases using the nanoscale materials, such as biocompatible nanoparticles and nanorobots, for various applications including diagnosis, delivery, sensing.

Exploring Biodigital Convergence [3]

Biological and digital systems are converging, and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species. More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural.
Digital technologies and biological systems are beginning to combine and merge in ways that could be profoundly disruptive to our assumptions about society, the economy, and our bodies. We call this the biodigital convergence.
Full physical integration of biological and digital entities Digital technology can be embedded in organisms, and biological components can exist as parts of digital technologies. The physical meshing, manipulating, and merging of the biological and digital are creating new hybrid forms of life and technology [...] The medical use of digital devices in humans, as well as digitally manipulated insects such as drone dragonflies and surveillance locusts, are examples of digital technology being combined with biological entities. By tapping into the nervous system and manipulating neurons, tech can be added to an organism to alter its function and purpose. New human bodies and new senses of identity could arise as the convergence continues.

Biodigital Today and Tomorrow [4]

The COVID-19 pandemic is proving to be a powerful driver of change. It is spurring biodigital innovations such as nearly real-time biosurveillance of virus spread and mutations; virus tracking via smartphone; and messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine development at unprecedented speed. Biodigital convergence, the merging of biological systems and digital technologies, is challenging the way we understand ourselves and the world in which we live.
How is biodigital convergence changing in health? Tracking human health in real time. The health tech market is actively innovating to find solutions that can support preventative health actions. Wearables that monitor physical health can increasingly track and compile more health data in real time. AI can track moods and mental health by analyzing our voices and facial expressions. Machine learning could potentially process data in the cloud that is automatically collected from nano-scale sensors, monitors, and implants in a patient’s body.
The pharmaceutical industry may begin shifting away from chemical substances as a source of new drugs, and explore manipulation of living organisms’ DNA as treatment.

Diagnostic technologies that require personal biodata are developing quickly. Researchers are working on portable diagnostic devices using gene editing to detect any pathogen, processing hundreds of tests within 15 minutes; and sensors injected under the skin to detect an infection that may be contagious but not yet symptomatic. COVID-19 vaccine passports could herald a world in which many activities are accessible only with willingness to share one’s current state of health. The access and availability of healthcare services have been strained by the pandemic, leading jurisdictions to consider difficult measures such as vaccine mandates and health contributions, or refusing healthcare services for the unvaccinated. There may be debate on whether healthcare is a right or a privilege.
Most of my family still think the "MoTB" will be some "microchip" or even Musk's Neuralink. Little do they know, that technology is decades behind compared to what we've already accomplished on a molecular level. Even the Neuralink would be impractical considering 8 billion people would have to undergo surgery, having a large chunk of their skull removed for an implant larger than a nickel. We have nanotechnology engineered to circulate throughout the entire bloodstream, move throughout every organ of the body, cross through the blood brain barrier, manipulate neurons as well as tap into/control the nervous system. It would be way easier implementing such a plan through mass inoculation as opposed to performing open surgery on the entire human race.
Regardless of how the MoTB is implemented, my question still stands. Do we truly believe we are doing the right thing by openly altering God's creation? Seems rather idolatrous, especially given the fact AI will be bridged to people for biosurveillance, personalized medicine, etc. The more we rely on our own devices, the less reliant we are on God.
Acts 17:29 ~ Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Acts 4:11-12 ~ This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation(G4991) in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved(G4982).
(G4991) Salvation - σωτηρία

sōtēria so-tay-ree'-ah Feminine of a derivative of G4990 as (properly abstract) noun; rescue or safety (physically or morally): - deliver, health, salvation, save, saving.

(G4982) Saved - σώζω

sōzō sode'-zo From a primary word σῶς sōs̄ (contraction for the obsolete σάος saos, “safe”); to save, that is, deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.

1 Cor. 3:11-13 ~ For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man's work.
2 Cor. 6:16 ~ And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Isaiah 64:8 ~ But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Isaiah 29:16 ~ Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
*For the record, I'm not implying the mRNA therapies usher in worldwide are/were the MoTB, but again, it's worth considering how easy it would be to accomplish in that manner especially when people are so overwhelmed with fear.

Fear = Snare of the Devil.

Links/sources will be provided upon DM, or you can c/p the titles in google and easily find them.

Okay, so we have кровь for singular and крови for plural, and Wiktionary describes this noun as "usually uncountable".
In English, 'blood' as a noun is just considered straight up uncountable, so I have no frame of reference for when you'd use the singular vs. plural form in Russian. What does it mean for a noun to be "usually uncountable" and what form is typically used when?

I have an unconventional German background, so I'm a little unsure about how to go about learning German grammar. I've been looking at other posts on this sub and the FAQ but I'm starting at an unusual point and am not sure the general advice is the best for my situation.
I am lucky to have taken German in immersion classes from Kindergarten through 6th grade. In those classes, we were taught vocabulary but never explicitly taught any grammar. As a result, to this day I have a pretty good understanding of spoken and written German and can generally tell when things don't sound right. I can speak with some level of confidence and can be understood but I know my grammar is terrible. I also don't know the genders of any nouns.
I decided not to take German in high school (a mistake) and took Latin and French instead. I tested into German 3 in college, and I found the class to be easy on the whole but I learned that there were several grammatical structures I had never formally been taught and found myself playing catch-up.
I would now like to get better at German so I could potentially use it in the workplace (tech industry) and also because it's nice to know another language. Given that I've had an unusual experience so far, does it make more sense for me to start from scratch and try to learn with a textbook or to resume studying through media immersion? Or does anyone have any other suggestions! Thanks!

I saw a lot of helpful study tips but I just want to share one that hasn’t been discussed as far as I know. I started off with 1200 (440/760) on one of the practice tests. Btw, I moved to US 5 years ago so English is not my first language. But after 3 months I got 1470 (680/790) on the May exam using this method—I call it “strength and weakness analysis,” where I categorize questions into several concepts. For example, writing questions other than Transitions and Rhetorical Analysis are either Boundaries or Form, Structure and Sense(not helpful at all!) so I further categorized like this using Khan Academy:

• Boundaries → Linking Clause, Supplements, Other Punctuations
• Form, Structure and Sense → Pronoun, Subject-verb Modifier, Subject-verb Agreement, Verb Forms, Plurals and Possessives

Reading portion is pretty straightforward but I added frequently tested topics as concepts like Science, Social Science, Government, History, Novel, Poem, Art, Biography, etc.
For each question type and concept, I came up with a “how to approach” strategy and kept applying them on practice exams. This saved me so much time during the exam because once I identified the question type/concept, I knew how to tackle the question without wasting time.
On top of this, I recorded and counted questions I got wrong so that I could find which question types I missed the most, think about why I missed such questions and come up with plans on how to improve. This became really helpful after I took more than 3 tests because I could see what I missed the most and what I need to do to improve on these.
I’m not a good writer so this post might sound all over the place so I’m happy to answer any questions in the comment. Besides the strategy, I think I need to read more books and articles to improve further. I’m open to suggestions too. Good luck everyone!

• All previous posts.

Terrestrial transport is heavily dominated by nuclear power, not just in the military sector, but also for civilian transport. Unlike on Earth, where nuclear energy is often met with public skepticism, red tape and safety concerns, Kyanah city-states in affluent regions have adopted nuclear-powered airlines--traveling at Mach 2--and trains with little to no regard for such concerns. Suborbital transit via spaceplanes is sometimes used by packs of high-ranking executives, politicians, or diplomats who don't have time to waste sitting in a plane for hours. Nuclear-powered trucks are also not uncommon; as their homeworld is a super-Earth with no oceans, routes can get extremely long (Ikun-Kanenhah is about 30,000 km by road and it's not even the longest route on the planet), and not needing gas stations or charging areas can be very handy. Even some nuclear powered cars for individual packs have been developed, though the complexities of cramming a nuclear reactor and radiation shielding under a car hood make them a premium item, starting at the equivalent of approximately $100,000 in human terms--though some say this is made up for by the convenience of being able to just get in and drive, without ever worrying about plebian matters like fueling or recharging. For most packs in developed city-states, electric cars are the norm instead, with advances in battery life via room temperature superconductors rivalling or exceeding ICEs. However, some older coal-powered ones--the only naturally occurring fossil fuel, due to the lack of oceans--can be seen, and are quite numerous in poor and developing city-states. Notably, many consumer cars tend to be much larger than on Earth, almost like vans; as packless Kyanah aren't generally in a position to afford cars, and those with packs rarely if ever have any reason to drive anywhere without their packs, cars must be made to accommodate entire packs, with 4-6 adults plus however many young they may have.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Kyanahs' devil-may-care attitude towards nuclear power extends to nuclear bombs as well. In fact, peaceful nuclear detonations make up a majority of the nuclear detonations on the Kyanah homeworld, outnumbering nuclear tests and acts of war combined. As per Ikun's policy of nuclear monopoly, no other city-state is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but Ikun itself has performed thousands of peaceful detonations, both for its own projects and occasionally, on request from one of its allies. Such projects include flattening extremely large areas of terrain for infrastructure megaprojects (including road and rail links through impact various ranges, or flattening areas for building in said impact ranges), exposing valuable mineral deposits for mining, and even using the craters generated by nukes to create several artificial oases; at least 18 independent city-states have been created from scratch around such oases--this has occasionally been used by Ikun as a means of creating pro-Ikun regimes in areas where overthrowing an existing city-state was deemed impractical. Nukes have also been used by Ikun to power Raiun-cannons, which as the name suggests are essentially large cannons that use a nuclear explosion rather than a chemical one to propel thousand-ton payloads into space; the equivalent human term is "Wang Bullet". However, these have largely fallen out of fashion with the development of SSTO nuclear spaceplanes that can carry more delicate payloads and not destroy the launch site with every use. As it has been 66 Earth years--more than the average Kyanah lifetime--since the Day of Tower Clouds and almost 40 since the last nuclear annihilation by Ikun, the average Kyanah in Ikun is more likely to associate nukes with projects like these than with a nuclear holocaust--though in some places, the nuclear annihilations early in Ikun's Hegemony Era cast a long shadow even in the present day.
Many large-scale, and even planetary-scale infrastructure projects do exist on the Kyanah homeworld, but anything that extends between multiple city-states is almost invariably an emergent phenomenon that has emerged from many different entities independently building infrastructure for their own economic and strategic needs, often following historic trade routes. For instance, while almost all known medium sized (population >131k) and large (population >1.04M) city-states are connected via paved roads, there is no centralized figure behind this, like with the Interstate Highway System, and the network constantly changes as entities stop maintaining highways that no longer suit their interests, and others decide to construct their own. While such highways are in the open land between city-states, which is legally considered in a manner similar to international waters on Earth, whatever entity commissioned the building of a particular road or railway through open land is considered to own it and be responsible for it. Quality varies considerably, ranging from two-lane pothole-strewn death traps in the middle of nowhere to eight-lane smart highways that display alerts and information holographically, automatically inform maintainers about needed repairs via wireless sensors, and communicate with autonomous vehicles to allow them to navigate smoothly; city streets in wealthy city-states also share these features. Some roads in the Rktakian Kwardniet have the ability to wirelessly transfer power to compatible electric vehicles for a toll, reducing the need to stop and charge. Paved roads are usually built from some form of concrete rather than asphalt and in wealthy regions, are sometimes seeded with nanoparticles or genetically engineered microbes that automatically repair micro-cracks, meaning that such roads only need any maintenance at all once every 30-40 Earth years, and--if simulations hold up--won't need to be outright resurfaced for centuries. Road workers in these affluent areas--such as much of the Rktakian Kwardniet, and parts of the Far South, Meatbucket, and Western Sector, are thus only needed to build new roads, or if natural disasters have destroyed part of a road. Most cars and trucks have a high level of autonomy, equivalent to level 4-5 on smart highways and 3-4 on arbitrary roads; it's common in vast stretches of highway between city-states to see multiple trucks traveling in a convoy with only the first one actually being driven by a pack.
Rail networks have largely evolved in a similar organic fashion with no top-down authority guiding their development or standards, and thus as a practical matter, variable gauge trains have always been required to cover any serious distance without running into this issue. There are an estimated 15 million kilometers of rail on the Kyanah homeworld, about 20 times as much as on Earth, a factor which can be attributed to it being an oceanless super-Earth with nearly 9 times the land area, and barring political considerations or issues with customs, it is usually possible to get from almost any mid-sized or large city-state to any other by rail. In recent epochs, the development of room temperature superconductors has made long range maglev systems practical; in practice, these are often integrated into existing rail lines, allowing both maglevs and internally powered nuclear or internal-combustion trains to use the same route, though maglev-compatible lines are much more sparse outside of the Rktakian Kwardniet, Western Sector, Meatbucket, Far South, and immediate vicinity of various megacities outside these regions. New rails are often constructed from self-healing metals to reduce the need for repairs. To the Kyanah, "high-speed rail" refers to vactrains, which have been implemented, but are even more sparse. The expense of making the required room-temperature superconductors in orbit and maintaining a vacuum tube for hundreds of kilometers, the extreme security risks and high-profile terrorist attacks, and the fact that acceleration time greatly limit the available stops--to avoid turning it into a high-G experience and still make full use of the available speed, stops must be at least 400-500 km apart, with any in-between destinations being served by a second line, and the necessity of having a perfectly straight line--mean that only a few such lines exist. The only one in the Rktakian Kwardniet runs the Ryden-Ikun-Aktin route, covering 1500 kilometers in about 25 minutes, including an 8-minute stop in Ikun, at half the cost and three times the speed of an equivalent plane ticket. However, security concerns, red tape, and bickering between the three city-states in question have caused this project to cost roughly half a trillion koin and take 37 years to complete--or in human terms, about $80 billion and 17 Earth years, double the cost and 50% longer than originally planned--and in 38 years/17.5 Earth years of operation, it has yet to be a net profit, discouraging the construction of further vactrains in the Rktakian Kwardniet. The Far South, with a less car-centric culture and a greater prevalence of direct government control over infrastructure, has seen 17 city-states be connected with four vactrain lines, and one additional line connects four city-states from East Anweri to Dagtan, though this has been the most controversial of all due to the poverty and developing economies of these city-states. While advances in mega-scale 3D printing of infrastructure since about Y944 may lead to the cost of vactrain lines dropping in--in human terms--under $50 million/km, it will likely never be as practical for most routes as nuclear jets that can go from almost anywhere to anywhere else, even if they only travel at 0.7 km/s instead of 2 km/s as vactrains do.
The planet's impact ranges pose a considerable challenge to ground transport--arguably worse than Earth mountain ranges--as the masses of overlapping craters, impact peaks, and ejecta piles lead to chaotic, loose, rockfall-prone terrain with drops and rises reaching hundreds of meters or even kilometers. Most impact ranges have several major highways passing through in modern times, using elaborate systems of bridges, tunnels, and ramps to navigate through the treacherous crater fields. The largest and most treacherous such area, known as the Shatter, where three separate impact ranges overlap, only has one paved road and rail crossing, at the Dagtan Gap, where the shattered crater-field narrows from hundreds of kilometers across to just 60. Naturally, this has put Dagtan city-state, on the southern side of the gap, in a very important but also very high-pressure position; they are much bigger and wealthier than many city-states in their general vicinity due to the sheer volume of trade between the Rktakian Kwardniet+Western Sector and the Middle+Far South going through Dagtan. However, hundreds of city-states are constantly trying to influence Dagtan and secure beneficial trade arrangements, and Ikun itself has invaded no fewer than three times during the Hegemony Era to overthrow the government in Dagtan. Some companies in Rktakian Kwardniet city-states have proposed using nukes to blast a path through the Shatter a few thousand kilometers east of Dagtan to create an alternate route (as has been done a few times in other impact ranges) but there are few large and economically developed city-states near the proposed route, so hundreds or even thousands of kilometers of smart highways and magrails across barren desert would have to be built to connect it to existing infrastructure, and also Ikun's government seems disinterested in using nukes for this particular project, making it largely a pipe dream.
The largest piece of infrastructure on the Kyanah homeworld is undoubtedly the Water Distribution System. While pipelines to carry water between city-states have existed since the early industrial times, construction has accelerated drastically after the Utopian Wars, as technology has advanced and economic interconnectedness have increased, and thousands of city-states and corporations have built pipelines, silos, ultra-deep water wells, and fog collection systems to transfer water between themselves and their allies and trading partners. This way, water can be quickly and easily moved from regions with an excess to regions with drought, a handy piece of infrastructure for such an arid planet. However, Ikun has heavily invested in the underlying technology and infrastructure, bridging gaps in strategic locations around the world and building vast numbers of the most powerful and efficient control nodes and refining and optimizing the infrastructure, causing the emergent networks to gradually merge into a cohesive whole. With more than 120 million kilometers of pipelines and 9 million control nodes, corporations and government agencies based in Ikun together own some 82,000 control nodes, nearly 1% of the entire system and over three times as many as the next most influential city-state, and have also built some half million kilometers of pipelines themselves. In recent years, construction robots and metal 3D printing technology has made this construction more efficient, enabling the production of pipelines in one continuous length, without the need to haul disparate segments into place and weld them together. Sensors are ubiquitous along the system's length, immediately alerting control node owners of mechanical issues in remote areas so that construction crews can be sent to repair them.
A human, with a human-centric view of institutions and interconnected systems, could be forgiven for thinking that the Water Distribution System was a grand altruistic endeavor intended to uplift impoverished communities. But to the Kyanah that was never the point, even though it's certainly had that effect in most parts of the world. Essentially, the crux of the Water Distribution System is the control nodes, which can be used by their owners to activate valves, pumps, and storage mechanisms to either push or pull water in a particular part of the system, causing it to be routed to their desired location; the more powerful and efficient the underlying hardware is, the more effective the control node is. However, thousands of entities are pushing or pulling water at any given time; if multiple control nodes are trying to move water in the same direction, their effect will be magnified, while if they are moving water in the opposite direction, their effects will be diminished or even cancelled out entirely.
The Water Distribution System is thus, in a sense pay-to-win via technical investment, as affluent and technologically advanced city-states like Ikun have more and heavier-weighted control nodes. It is a very complex strategic landscape with organizations heavily relying on optimization and game theory to try and maximize their influence and access to water. Sometimes, city-states cooperate, and other times they work against each other, using complex strategies to deny their enemies water by strategically pushing or pulling from enemies, allies, and neighbors to indirectly leave the target in a situation where water is flowing away from them in every direction with a force too great for their own control nodes to override. Determining the optimal strategy is a computationally hard problem with no closed-form solution, so those with the biggest supercomputing clusters and the best scientists to devise classified algorithms gain an advantage that stacks with control node superiority. The Water Distribution System is a lot like a planetary chess game, where some players have like three queens on the board and a computer running Stockfish, and others...just don't. Because of this, the system can be controversial, with approval ranging from less than 30% of packs to over 90%, depending on the city-state. And yet, access to water has genuinely increased. Often-times there will in fact be excess water somewhere in the world that a struggling city-state can pull with little or no resistance, and even if not, other players will often push it to them to secure political concessions in other areas, bolster alliances, or even just to keep global trade networks stable, avert a refugee crisis, and maintain trust in the Water Distribution System, which are all generally in the best interests of the wealthy power players, so they generally don't just suck impoverished city-states dry for no reason unless there's a goal even more pressing than these general interests.
In recent years, speculative geoengineering technology has been increasingly implemented by various city-states with the goal of securing more favorable weather conditions and reversing ecological damage in their regions. Koranah, a Far South city-state and geopolitical enemy of Ikun, with the largest raw GDP (even beating Ikun, albeit not per capita), has invested heavily in building control nodes in this new system and promoting the widespread use of geoengineering across the planet. Naturally, this too is not some altruistic collective venture to save the planet, but a calculated strategy by Koranah to mirror Ikun's success at influencing global politics via the Water Distribution System, by creating an even more powerful piece of infrastructure, the Climate Control System. Naturally, the technology of the Climate Control System is far more advanced. Control nodes are essentially quasi-living factories--with inorganic protective shells and networking equipment surrounding biotech internals--that produce vast amounts of genetically engineered or outright synthetic microbes, which can block out or concentrate sunlight to alter temperatures, seed or disperse clouds to cause or prevent rainfall, break down pollutants or release beneficial trace chemicals into the atmosphere, or promote or suppress key aspects of local ecosystems from the ground up. With the use of biotechnology and genetically engineered organisms, the need to manually repair and replace these systems or come in and manually adjust settings constantly, is greatly reduced, as the low-level details can self-regulate. However, even the most basic versions of this sort of technology are much more expensive and intricate than pipelines and pumps. Additionally, global weather systems and ecologies are open, chaotic systems instead of closed, deterministic ones like water pipelines, and actions taken by control nodes in the Climate Control System have ripple effects across the world that require sophisticated modeling and advanced science to accurately predict. Thus determining a suitable strategy is two nested computationally hard problems: in order to solve for the optimal instructions to give to a particular control node, you first need to accurately predict the effects of each instruction on the environment, taking into account theoretically unlimited knock-on effects outside the system itself; it's a lot more complex than "we want water there, so we push/pull water there". So city-states with even a slight advantage in geoengineering technology and/or computing will utterly dominate. As Ikun and Koranah are neck-and-neck in the supercomputing arms race and Koranah's geoengineering is 3-5 Earth years ahead of Ikun's, the government of Ikun has gone all-out in suppressing geoengineering through its superior soft power, leveraging sanctions, treaties, and propaganda to disrupt the Climate Control System's expansion.
Curiously, while plenty of city-states import and export energy to others, there's no recognizable global grid in the same manner as the Water Distribution System or Climate Control System, with regional power trading arrangements between dozens or hundreds of city-states at most instead. There are various technical and political reasons why, but essentially energy is neither as scarce as water nor as globalized as the environment itself, so techno-political forces governing the energy industry tend to be different. Fission power provides a plurality and near-majority of the Kyanah homeworld's energy supply, about 47% in total--Ikun's nuclear monopoly does not preclude other city-states from building nuclear reactors, just nuclear weapons. Thousands of city-states have nuclear reactors, and thorium reactors have been extensively commercialized alongside uranium ones. Miniaturized fission reactors are also frequently used; the smallest are not much larger than a conventional car engine. Solar takes second place, with 27% prevalence; the Kyanah homeworld receives more solar flux than Earth and tends to have fewer clouds, so it tends to be a viable choice in most places, except those that have a polar night. There has been some commercialization of space solar, as not having to deal with nighttime or an atmosphere makes it far more efficient. So far, this is only about 1% of the global solar market, but growing fast. Coal--the only fossil fuel that exists in significant quantities--makes up 18% in total. Though it's not evenly distributed; in affluent and developed areas, fission makes up 80-90% of energy generation, while nuclear reactors are rare in developing regions where coal dominates; the Middle South, with its poor yet rapidly industrializing city-states, is also known as the Coal Belt for a reason. Fusion power is a solved problem, but only makes up 4% of global energy usage due to the severe logistical problems with finding deuterium, tritium, or helium-3. Thus far, the most practical solution has been atmospheric mining, first implemented at the system's only gas giant, Entiak-Ryitu, about 7.5 AU out, in Y927 (49 years ago; 22.5 Earth years). There are few regions where wind or hydroelectric are practical, so these only comprise a trace amount of energy output on a global scale.

公園の中程に大きな木が一本立っている。 (تقف شجرة كبيرة في منتصف الحديقة.) 森林の保護は世界中の重要な問題だ。 (يعتبر الحفاظ على الغابات قضية مهمة في جميع أنحاء العالم.) 猟犬が森のほうにいった。 (توجه كلب الصيد إلى الغابة.)