McBell
Unbound
the problem here is that instead of using a word that means all three, they chose to translate it as a clot of congealed blood.Ok, for sake of argument even I am agreeing that it is wrong.
Now Standard Rules when studying a religious text tell us (which any actual student of comparative religion can confirm) that in a scripture: If a single word has many meanings then the most appropriate one is chosen and rest are discarded and not considered. This does not mean that the verse is wrong.
Similarly, if u want to disagree with "clot of blood" statement, fine do so. But, even u should not consider the verse wrong as word Alaqah has three meanings: something that clings, leech like substance and congealed clot of blood.
If we omit congealed clot of blood, still 2 definitions that are accurate remain. Therefore, the verse is still correct.
PS i will return in 2 hours.
Which is clearly false.
However back then, it was believed that the woman was nothing more than an incubator for the seed of man.
So one can clearly see that the 'clear' meaning has changed to agree with the currently accepted science at the time.
So once again we are back to the forer effect.