Specifically, what Arabic words in the example are you struggling over?
Got a verse?
Thanks for admitting that you are just banging-out a response without first reading.....and yes, the ayahs were posted...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How old would an Muslim say the Earth/Universe is?
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Specifically, what Arabic words in the example are you struggling over?
Got a verse?
Thanks for admitting that you are just banging-out a response without first reading.....and yes, the ayahs were posted...
A-ManESL
Well-Known Member
Bowman even if I accept your view, (which I dont) then all it shows is that God created the universe in 6000 days. What does that have to do with the age of the universe. God may created the world in 1 day, or 2 days or 6000 days. Your claim is that the age of the universe is 6000 days, i.e. after creation was over, 6000 days have elapsed.
Understand my point?
Understand my point?
This is not my view, brother, but the view of the authors of the Koran..that the entire Universe was created in 6,000 years.
Ancient tafsir writers also interpreted this as 6,000 years.
6,000 years does not match modern science, brother.
This demonstrates your god to be a false god.
This was never my claim, brother.
The Koranic claim is 6,000 years.
Further, your assertion was that the Koran not make this claim nor does anyone believe in the 6,000 years.
I have proved you wrong on both accounts.
A-ManESL
Well-Known Member
lol, I dont think you understood my point. Didnt you claim that the Quran says that the age of the universe is 6000 years.
Your misinterpretations only put forth the theory that creation took 6000 years. Even if I accept the theory I fail to see how you can jump and say that the age of the universe is 6000 years. The verses say nothing about, how much time has elapsed since the world/universe was created, i.e. after the "supposed" 6000 year old creation ended.
Regards
Last edited:
You claimed you had verses, when you didn't. You merely quoted someone's interpretation of certain verses.
Now, do you or don't you have a specific verse that specifically states 6000 years? Please quote just the relevant verse and not the additional commentary.
Yes. A-manesl posted it earlier:Bowman said:
"32:5 He governs all that exists, from the celestial space to the earth; and in the end all shall ascend unto Him [for judgment] on a Day the length whereof will be [like] a thousand years of your reckoning."
Note also that this particular verse is only talking about one particular day, and there's really nothing (at least in this verse) to extrapolate to all days.
As for metaphorical vs literal interpretation, there is nothing to say which is correct or incorrect. Your literal interpretation is just as valid as the metaphorical one, and vice versa. The point is, the Koran doesn't necessarily claim a 6000 year age.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Science can study the spiritual inasmuch as it affects the physical in any way, shape or form. And in science unless there is positive evidence that something exists, it is assumed that it does not, at least until said evidence surfaces.
Many spiritual claims however, are not falsifiable and concepts that are not falsifiable are also considered not to exist in a scientific sense, seeing as science does not deal with concepts that are not falsifiable.
Hence, in a scientific sense, the spiritual does not exist.
Let's look, brother...
الله الذي خلق السموت والأرض وما بينهما في ستة أيام ثم استوى على العرش ما لكم من دونه من ولي ولا شفيع أفلا تتذكرون يدبر الأمر من السماء إلى الأرض ثم يعرج إليه في يوم كان مقداره ألف سنة مما تعدون
Allahu allathee khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda wama baynahuma fee sittati ayyamin thumma istawa AAala alAAarshi ma lakum min doonihi min waliyyin wala shafeeAAin afala tatathakkaroona yudabbiru al-amra mina alssama-i ila al-ardi thumma yaAAruju ilayhi fee yawmin kana miqdaruhu alfa sanatin mimma taAAuddoona
allah whom he created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them in six days, then he sat on the throne, none from a mediator and nor intercessors for you from other than him, so do you receive admonition? He manages the affairs continuously; the matter from the clouds to the earth, then ascends to him in a day was his measurement one thousand years from what you count. (32.4 5)
The authors who penned this piece most assuredly meant everything in the entire Universe, brother...'the heavens and the earth and that which is between them'....
See how nicely these two juxtaposed ayahs spell out 6,000 years for the reader...?
Since you can't be bothered with reviewing previous posts, here it is once again, brother...
الله الذي خلق السموت والأرض وما بينهما في ستة أيام ثم استوى على العرش ما لكم من دونه من ولي ولا شفيع أفلا تتذكرون يدبر الأمر من السماء إلى الأرض ثم يعرج إليه في يوم كان مقداره ألف سنة مما تعدون
Allahu allathee khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda wama baynahuma fee sittati ayyamin thumma istawa AAala alAAarshi ma lakum min doonihi min waliyyin wala shafeeAAin afala tatathakkaroona yudabbiru al-amra mina alssama-i ila al-ardi thumma yaAAruju ilayhi fee yawmin kana miqdaruhu alfa sanatin mimma taAAuddoona
“allah” whomhe created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them in six days, then he sat on the throne, none from a mediator and nor intercessors for you from other than him, so do you receive admonition? He manages the affairs continuously; the matter from the clouds to the earth, then ascends to him in a day was his measurement one thousand years from what you count. (32.4 – 5)
Now...what part of the Arabic is unclear to you...?
A-ManESL
Well-Known Member
I guess you are not at all trying to understand what I'm saying. An average human being on earth takes 9 months to develop inside his/her mother before he can "in a sense" be born. So does that mean for the rest of his/her life he/she is 9 months old?
For by your twisted logic, verses say that earth was created in 6000 years and so is 6000 years old!
skydivephil
Active Member
But the formation of the Earth still took millions of years, not 6,000 years :
Access : Early Earth: Hard core constraints on accretion : Nature Geoscience
Access : Early Earth: Hard core constraints on accretion : Nature Geoscience
As far as I can tell, that's the first time you posted the entire verse. Before, you had either paraphrased or relied upon someone else's interpretation. A-ManESL had posted the entire verse, but note that it did not use the word "days" but aeons. Thank you for posting it this time; if you had posted it before, I did not miss it through lack of trying.
Now, I googled "koran 32.4". Simple enough. The very first website that came up gave me this translation:
[32.4] Allah is He Who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods, and He mounted the throne (of authority); you have not besides Him any guardian or any intercessor, will you not then mind?
[32.5] He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count.
Note that it says "six periods", again not "days". There is variability in how that word is translated and interpretated, giving credence to A-ManESL's claim that the 6 day interpretation is not hard and fast. Again, I ask you, why should only your (the most fundamental) interpretation be considered and not the others?
Also, look at 32.5. Truly read these two verses as a whole. The entire thrust is to show the awesomeness of God-- to show His powerfulness, His vastness. The main purpose isn't about age of the Earth at all. In that light, it makes sense to read 32.5 metaphorically.
Note throughout all this that I'm not necessarily arguing that my interpretation is "right". I'm merely pointing out that yours is not the only one, and therefore not necessarily the "right" one either.
Furthermore, as far as I can tell, you are only adhering to your interpretation because it fits well with your desire to ridicule religious faith, and not necessarily out of a desire to truly understand what is being said. Blinders come in many forms, and it's not only the religious that wear them.
You are right in the first part: Science can only study the spiritual as it affects the physical. Thus, we have brain scans of those having "mystical" experiences or trances.
But you are entirely wrong in stating that science assumes something does not exist if there is no positive evidence that it does exist. The correct response is that science remains agnostic: it does not make a statement either for or against existence.
To make the strong claim that X does not exist when there is no evidence is rather presumptuous. Perhaps our instruments are merely not senstive enough, or we haven't looked in a particular area, or we haven't yet combined current data in a novel way. Some of the greatest discoveries in sciences were things that were previously undetected: the neutron, cosmic background radiation, blackholes, etc. Should science really say "We have no current data that a neutral particle of an atom exists, therefore, it does not exist."? Or does it/should it rather say "We have no current data that a neutral particle of an atom exists, therefore, we cannot comment any further on it at this time.?"
The most science can say is that "At this time, we have no data/confirmation/etc". It cannot add the "therefore, it doesn't exist" because that would be a statement that has not been "proven" (in the way that science, using the scientific method, ever "proves" something.)
I don't know where you are getting this stuff. Yes, correct, science cannot deal with something that is not falsifiable. That does not mean that science just waves its hand and says "Hey you, you unfalsifiable hypothesis, you don't exist." It simply means that that hypothesis is outside the purview of science: science cannot intelligently comment upon it.jarofthoughts said:
For example, I find panoramic mountain vistas to be beautiful. Science cannot objectively verify the beauty of my mountains since beauty is by nature a subjective concept. Does this mean that my sense of beauty does not exist? Would science say that the concept of "beauty" does not exist?
You seem to be taking certain sound concepts about science and then taking them further than they are able to go.
This logic is clearly stated in your book of faith...and it mandates the entire Uinverse, brother...
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I don't see anything particularly "mystical" about them and neither does science. Unless, of course, by mystical you mean that we don't have a complete picture yet, but that can be said about just about anything.
That is false. Unless one has positive evidence that something exists, either directly or indirectly, it is for all scientific purposes assumed that such a thing does not exist. A good example would be the concept of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. For a long time we had no evidence at all with regards to these concepts, but since we now have indirect evidence, it is assumed that they exist even if no-one has ever seen or directly measured either. Of course, no scientist claims to know exactly what Dark Matter or Dark Energy is. The names are merely place holders until we get more information. But the point is that science only assumes the existence of things we have positive evidence for, either directly, or indirectly as extrapolated from other evidence.
You misunderstood me. Science does not make the claim that X does not exist. Why would it bother? Also, considering that proving a negative is logically impossible, making such a claim would in itself be rather unscientific. But things we don't have evidence FOR are assumed to not exist until we do.
This is, of course, possible, but until that happens, it is assumed that no such thing exists. You won't get a grant to investigate the mating habits of faeries for instance, because in a scientific sense they are assumed not to exist. But, as soon as someone brings in that first specimen/fossil/whatever that indicates that faeries exist... Well, that is a different ballgame.
Actually the cosmic background radiation was calculated (as in mathematically extrapolated from existing evidence) to exist, but it is true that the team that found it (Penzias/Wilson) discovered it by accident as they were trying to remove it as a disturbance to the experiment they were actually doing. It would have been discovered anyway though, seeing as Wilkinson and Roll were also in the process of constructing a radio telescope for just that purpose. Other than that you are correct.
If science has no evidence, directly or indirectly, in favour of something existing it is in a scientific sense assumed that it does not. As explained above, that doesn't mean that one makes the claim that it -doesn't- exist. It is merely left out entirely.
Look, it works kinda like being an atheist. I cannot make the claim that there is no god at all, because that would be logically impossible for me to prove. However, since, at this time, there exists absolutely no evidence that there is a god I live in the assumption that there is no such thing. An atheist is NOT someone who denies the existence of god(s) but rather someone who does not believe that there are any.
So in that respect you could say that science is "atheistic" about anything we do not have evidence for.
Proof is only used in mathematics. In the other scientific disciplines we use evidence.
I don't know where you are getting this stuff. Yes, correct, science cannot deal with something that is not falsifiable. That does not mean that science just waves its hand and says "Hey you, you unfalsifiable hypothesis, you don't exist." It simply means that that hypothesis is outside the purview of science: science cannot intelligently comment upon it.
We can empirically show that beauty exists, and by the use of an fMRI machine and some extensive testing we might be able to define it more accurately in the future. Or as Dawkins would have put it: "We're working on it".
Hopefully my clarification above will show you that this is not the case.
A Thousand Suns
Rationalist
Time of Allah is incomparable to earthly time
The Qur’an says in two verses, (22:47 and 32:5), that the measure of one day in the sight of Allah is equal to 1,000 years of our reckoning. In another verse (70:4) it says that the measure of one day in the sight of Allah is equal to 50,000 years of our reckoning.
These verses generally mean that the time of Allah (swt) is incomparable to the earthly time. The examples given are of one thousand years and fifty thousand years of the earthly time. In other words thousands of years or a very, very long time of the earth a day in the sight of Allah is equal to:
2. Yaum also means Period
The Arabic word used in all these three verses is yaum, which, besides meaning a day also means a long period, or an epoch. If you translate the word yaum correctly as ‘period’ there will be no confusion.
a) The verse from Surah Hajj reads as:
"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! but Allah will not fail in His promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning".
[Al-Qur’an 22:47]
When the unbelievers asked to hasten the punishment the Qur’an says Allah will not fail in His promise. Verily a period in the sight of Allah is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
b) The verse from Surah Al-Sajdah says:
"He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up? To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning".
[Al-Qur’an 32:5]
This verse indicates that a period required for all the affairs to go up to Allah (swt), is a thousand years of our reckoning.
c) A verse from Surah Al-Maarij says:
"The angels and the spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years".
[Al-Qur’an 70:4]
This verse means that the period required for angels and the spirits to ascend unto Allah (swt) is fifty thousand years.
d) The period for two different acts need not be the same. For example the period required for me to travel to destination ‘A’ say Vashi is one hour and the period required for me to travel to destination ‘B’ i.e. Kashmir is 50 hours. This does not indicate that I am making two contradictory statements.
Thus the verses of the Qur’an not only do not contradict each other, they are also in perfect harmony with established modern scientific facts.
Source: http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com/misconceptions/b14.htm
The Qur’an says in two verses, (22:47 and 32:5), that the measure of one day in the sight of Allah is equal to 1,000 years of our reckoning. In another verse (70:4) it says that the measure of one day in the sight of Allah is equal to 50,000 years of our reckoning.
These verses generally mean that the time of Allah (swt) is incomparable to the earthly time. The examples given are of one thousand years and fifty thousand years of the earthly time. In other words thousands of years or a very, very long time of the earth a day in the sight of Allah is equal to:
2. Yaum also means Period
The Arabic word used in all these three verses is yaum, which, besides meaning a day also means a long period, or an epoch. If you translate the word yaum correctly as ‘period’ there will be no confusion.
a) The verse from Surah Hajj reads as:
"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! but Allah will not fail in His promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning".
[Al-Qur’an 22:47]
When the unbelievers asked to hasten the punishment the Qur’an says Allah will not fail in His promise. Verily a period in the sight of Allah is like a thousand years of your reckoning.
b) The verse from Surah Al-Sajdah says:
"He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up? To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning".
[Al-Qur’an 32:5]
This verse indicates that a period required for all the affairs to go up to Allah (swt), is a thousand years of our reckoning.
c) A verse from Surah Al-Maarij says:
"The angels and the spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years".
[Al-Qur’an 70:4]
This verse means that the period required for angels and the spirits to ascend unto Allah (swt) is fifty thousand years.
d) The period for two different acts need not be the same. For example the period required for me to travel to destination ‘A’ say Vashi is one hour and the period required for me to travel to destination ‘B’ i.e. Kashmir is 50 hours. This does not indicate that I am making two contradictory statements.
Thus the verses of the Qur’an not only do not contradict each other, they are also in perfect harmony with established modern scientific facts.
Source: http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com/misconceptions/b14.htm
A Thousand Suns
Rationalist
sniper762
Well-Known Member
1000 suns, if what you say about one day to alla is 50,000 years, then our entire history concerning ancient israel, king david, (1000-1100 bc) solomon and such is nonsense.
adam was created on the sixth day and (50,000 years later?) god rested on the seventh.
correct?
please explain
adam was created on the sixth day and (50,000 years later?) god rested on the seventh.
correct?
please explain
A Thousand Suns
Rationalist
The verse mentions Arabic word 'Yaum' which means long period /epoch . You can use online Arabic dictionary to check it up
it could be 50,000 years or one billion or anything,
period isn't fixed in Quran , but if the Quran specificly mentions 1000/50000 years in the context ,it has to be used for that context only
Last edited: