Indian Antiquity
The factors required for the production of the foetus were thought to be
•the father’s semen
•the mother’s blood (sonita) or more specifically menstrual blood (artava)
•the atman, or subtle body (consisting of fire, earth, air and water in the proper proportions)
•the manas or mind, united to a particular embryo by reason of its karma.
The idea of the blood being menstrual blood is interesting as it closely resembles Aristotelian doctrine. The clotting of milk into cheese analogy used by Aristotle for the formation of the embryo occurs also in Indian embryology. The Susruta-samhita compares the creamy layers (santanika) formed in milk, to semen and blood, which through chemical changes caused by heat, produce seven different layers of skin (kala). This concept occurs again in a Sutra on embryology written in Sanskrit, “Development, 0 Ananda,” Buddha is made to say, “is comparable to a vessel of milk, like as this ferments and forms a kind of kefir or cheese.” (A history of Embryology, J. Needham pp 25-27, Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959).
Hippocrates(460-377BC)
In the treatise on Regimen section 9 discusses the formation of the embryo. The description is based on the fundamental physiological idea at the time, that is the two main constituents of all natural bodies are fire and water. Both of these in turn consist of heat, dryness and moisture in differing proportions.
“Whatever may be the sex which chance gives to the embryo, it is set in motion, being humid, by fire, and thus it extracts its nourishment from the food and breath introduced into the mother. First of all this attraction is the same throughout because the body is porous but by the motion and the fire it dries up and solidifies as it solidifies, a dense outer crust is formed, and then the fire inside cannot any more draw in sufficient nourishment and does not expel the air because of the density of the surrounding surface. It therefore consumes the interior humidity. In this way parts naturally solid being up to a point hard and dry are not consumed to feed the fire but fortify and condense themselves the more the humidity disappears-these are called bones and nerves. The fire burns up the mixed humidity and forwards development towards the natural disposition of the body in this manner; through the solid and dry parts it cannot make permanent channels but it can do so through the soft wet parts, for these are all nourishment to it. There is also in these parts a certain dryness, which the fire does not consume, and they become compacted one to another. Therefore the most interior fire, being closed round on all sides, becomes the most abundant and makes the most canals for itself (for that was the wettest part) and this is called the belly. Issuing out from thence, and finding no nourishment outside, it makes the air pipes and those for conducting and distributing food. As for the enclosed fire, it makes three circulations in the body and what were the most humid parts become the venae cavae. In the intermediate part the remainder of the water contracts and hardens forming the flesh.”
Aristotle (384-322 BC)
"The foregoing discussion will have made it clear that the female, though it does not contribute any semen to generation, yet contributes something, viz., the substance constituting the menstrual fluid (or the corresponding substance in bloodless animals). But the same is apparent if we consider the matter generally, from the theoretical standpoint. Thus: there must be that which generates, and that out of which it generates ; and even if these two be united in one, at any rate they must differ in kind, and in that the essence of each of them is distinct. In those animals in which these two faculties are separate, the body - that is to say the physical nature- of the active partner and of the passive must be different. Thus, if the male is the active partner, the one which originates the movement, and the female qua female is the passive one, surely what the female contributes to the semen of the male will be not semen but material. And this is in fact what we find happening; for the natural substance of the menstrual fluid is to be classed as “prime matter.” (Aristotle (English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann, 1942 edition, Generation of Animals, p.111, 729a).
Galen (129-199AD)
“But for the present I need not speak of the foetus as an animal, for as a plant it got all its generation and formation from the semen, and right from the start it indicated, as plants do, that the beginning of its motion and formation was two-fold. The downward and underground growth of roots in plants corresponds in the foetus to the growth of the arteries and veins of the chorion to the uterus; and the ascending stalk in plants corresponds to the out growths from the three ruling parts in embryos. Again, just as plants have a two-fold growth from seeds, sending stalk and branches upward as far as the outer most shoots and dividing the root-growth downward, so also the embryos have much-divided outgrowths consisting in arteries and veins that extend as stalks to the whole foetus and as roots to the uterus.” (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine: Galen: On Semen (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10, pp. 91-95)
Source:
quranicstudies.com/articles/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html
Now tell me do any of these seem to be like that revealed in the quran, and please refer to the source and their sources if you still doubt the text.
Now lets take a look as to how it is written in the Book of Job starting at 10:09 KJV
“Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast fashioned me as clay; and wilt thou bring me into the dust again! Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews.”
Now lets compare this to the teachings of Aristotle. (Im going to recopy a paragraph from earlier)
The idea of the blood being menstrual blood is interesting as it closely resembles Aristotelian doctrine. The clotting of milk into cheese analogy used by Aristotle for the formation of the embryo occurs also in Indian embryology. The Susruta-samhita compares the creamy layers (santanika) formed in milk, to semen and blood, which through chemical changes caused by heat, produce seven different layers of skin (kala). This concept occurs again in a Sutra on embryology written in Sanskrit, “Development, 0 Ananda,” Buddha is made to say, “is comparable to a vessel of milk, like as this ferments and forms a kind of kefir or cheese.” (A history of Embryology, J. Needham pp 25-27, Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959).
Who is the Plagiarizers now? Tell me.
