An Interpretive analysis of verse as sign in the Quranic discourse

Reflecting upon the miraculous nature of the Qurchr('39')an has provided a discourse around the Qurchr('39')an throughout the history of Islamic thought. What does this discourse have to do with the discourse of the Qurchr('39')an itself? And is this discourse a continuation of the Qurchr('39')anic discourse or has it distanced itself from the Qurchr('39')anic discourse? Some think that the difference in question is only in the superficial levels [in the conceptual and lexical differences] and the "verse" and "miracle" refer to the same meaning and claim. But the analysis and comparison of the characteristics of the two mentioned discourses shows that the dominant presence of the concept of verse in the Qurchr('39')an and the dominance of the concept of miracle in the post-Qurchr('39')anic discourse, cannot be reduced to the difference between the two synonymous words. The difference between the Qurchr('39')anic and post-Qurchr('39')anic thought about the miraculous nature of the Qurchr('39')an is as much as difference of two discourses. In the Qurchr('39')anic worldview, the whole universe, even miraculous events, are verses and manifestations of God; But the post-Qurchr('39')anic discourse is a theological discourse that does not represent this distinctive feature of Qurchr('39')anic thought. Verses in the Qurchr('39')anic discourse have a monotheistic function, but the function of miracles in the post-Qurchr('39')anic discourse, is to prove the truth of the Prophet, and this is an important and significant turn.