Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[Islam432]

Yes, I know. Heaven have been used as metaphors for religion and mythology for millennia. Heaven is often a metaphor for sky and firmament. You were the one who compared heaven with atmosphere, not us.

This is your post #128.


Read the above quote in purple. That's what you wrote.

Your post, your words, your interpretation, your comparison (you equated heaven=firmament=atmosphere).

Do now disagree with your own post?



I know they are different. I had put 2:29 because they were your quotation in post 128. See the above quote in red.

You used verse 2:29, to prove your assertion that seven heavens or firmaments with the 7 layers of atmosphere.

I was the one who provided the other 2 quotes (41:12 and 67:3-5).

ok i see, you are right

1) i was wrong about interpretation 7 layers of Atmosphere
2) Gave you the wrong answer on the verse relating to seven havens

Also i already told iam a student not scholar of islam and comparative religion and i learn from my mistakes

 

[Islam432]

Or that he continues to dodge my assertion that he is using revisionist texts, with deliberately embellished phrasing, that is not a part of the actual texts.

I'm tempted to delve into his sources to see just how much credibility they enjoy even in the Muslim world. That might be an eye-opener.

are you worth replying??? i don't know how your family member live with you

 

[gnostic]

ok i see, you are right

1) i was wrong about interpretation 7 layers of Atmosphere
2) Gave you the wrong answer on the verse relating to seven havens

Also i already told iam a student not scholar of islam and comparative religion and i learn from my mistakes

I was simply using your interpretation (atmosphere) on one verse (2:29). And when using your interpretation and logic on the other verses that I found about 7 heavens and the stars (41:12 & 67:3-5), the flaws in your logic and interpretations are revealed in what you thought were "scientific".

Scientific, no. Not your interpretations. Nor the verses (yours and mine) from the Qur'an.

 

[painted wolf]

Why are there more earthquakes where there are mountains?

Pakistan has some seriously large mountains... they also have some seriously large earthquakes.
New England has itty-bitty mountains... and itty bitty earthquakes.

Shouldn't this be the other way around? Shouldn't there be no earthquakes where there are mountains?
Also shouldn't these be places where the contents are not moving?

I'm sorry if I missed your answer to this... I don't have internet access at home and this thread has exploded in size to the point I don't feel like weeding through every page.

wa:do

 

[DeitySlayer]

ok i see, you are right

1) i was wrong about interpretation 7 layers of Atmosphere
2) Gave you the wrong answer on the verse relating to seven havens

Also i already told iam a student not scholar of islam and comparative religion and i learn from my mistakes

Thank you for admitting your mistake. It shows a maturity quite above many here.

However, as you can here demonstrated by this, an interpretation can be made, which although so blatantly stretched from the original text's content, is still defended so vehemently and strongly (i.e. by you). You continuously asserted it's correctness and validity and held this up as 'proof' of the Qur'an's validity.

Which really just goes to highlight the Forer Effect which tumbleweed indicated, and which you decried as nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

To Islam432 and any other Muslims.

Firmament belong to the ancient teaching of mostly of Near Eastern civilisations, beginning in the Old Babylonian period, if not in the Sumerian heyday.

(But note that we should consider that the Akkadians and Babylonians got most of their idea from the Sumerians, it is still possible that the idea of firmament may have originated from the Sumerians.)

My point is that firmament was used to describe of the sky. This sky was often described as the hemispherical dome, from the point of view of a person, standing at ground level. Whether firmament was called "heaven" or "sky" by the ancient people, it can hardly be "scientific" description.

What the medieval Qur'an describe about the seven heavens or seven firmaments is also hardly be considered "scientific". (Note that I say "medieval" because in Europe, the Dark Ages that began with the Fall of Rome in 476, was considered by most historians as part of the medieval period.)

The level of understanding has only changed with the use of the telescope. What is known about Ptolemy's time, which was the most dominant theory about astronomy, which was quite influential to Islamic knowledge of astronomy, all became outdated. Even Galileo's discovery became outdated as better and more powerful telescopes were being developed over the centuries since then.

My other point is that science (referring to developed scientific theory) are continuous being revised. The Qur'an is static, but the interpretations have clearly changed, because you, and others like you, have tried to push modern interpretations to fit medieval and outdated understanding of the Qur'an into modern science. These new interpretations don't work, and are often come heavy criticism by people who do know modern science (including astronomy, geology and biology).

Like ssainhu said to you, your interpretations have put more scrutiny on the Qur'an, and give more "fuel to the fire" in exposing the Qur'an as being scientific. Your interpretation and examples of astronomy/atmosphere, geology/mountain/earthquake, and human biology have only exposed how unreliable the Qur'an really is, in the modern world.

It is you, and people like you (including Supernova66's videos of Dr Zakir Naik and Dr Allison Palmer), who do more harm to Islam, in the question relating to science. By (Naik's and Palmer's) questioning the Bible as being "unscientific" (which most of us here already know) have also led to non-Muslims to also questioning the status of the Qur'an as being "unscientific".

Sorry for the long post. But it shouldn't be a problem to read, because the paragraphs are not long.

 

[gnostic]

You don't need to read your own post, islam432. I am just quoting your post from post #127. It's just a point of reference.

Geology in Quran

1)Mountains
book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see pictures below).

Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)


Schematic section. The mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220.)


Another illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158.)
This is how the Quran has described mountains.
"Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs? " (Quran, 78:6-7)


Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground \and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground.
So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth, They hinder the shaking of the earth.

"And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... " (Quran, 16:15)

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s
Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For complete Answers and more versus relating to mountains and science read:
Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran

I am not a geologist. I have only done one year on geology as part of my civil engineering course that I've studied, years ago (about 24-25 years to be precise). I did learn a few things since then.

Mountains can be formed 2 main possibilities:

1. prolonged volcanic activity, or
2. upward pressure being asserted by crusts, without volcanic eruptions (ie tectonic activity).

Both, can result in massively destructive earthquake on a newly forming mountain, and in the surrounding areas.

Even mountain that have been dormant for centuries without volcanic activity, the mountain and surrounding can be hit by destructive seismic activity.

Whether mountains are forming or not, earthquakes can occur for any given reasons. But no matter what is the reason for the earthquake, the Qur'an verse you quote that the mountains act as pegs (Qur'an 78:6-7) that prevent them from shaking (Qur'an 16:15) are largely inaccurate, let alone "unscientific".

Given the recent earthquakes in mountainous regions in Pakistan and China, your Qur'an and your interpretation (and your logic) of the verses are not just flawed, but proven very wrong, and your Qur'an to be "unscientific".

Mountain don't look like a peg, nor act like the peg that would stabilize the tectonics as you have stated.

You are also wrong about "stabliser" thing. If tectonic activity results in creation of mountain, then it is hardly can be called stabilizer.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

You don't need to read your own post, islam432. I am just quoting your post from post #127. It's just a point of reference.


I am not a geologist. I have only done one year on geology as part of my civil engineering course that I've studied, years ago (about 24-25 years to be precise). I did learn a few things since then.

Mountains can be formed 2 main possibilities:

1. prolonged volcanic activity, or
2. upward pressure being asserted by crusts, without volcanic eruptions (ie tectonic activity).

Both, can result in massively destructive earthquake on a newly forming mountain, and in the surrounding areas.

Even mountain that have been dormant for centuries without volcanic activity, the mountain and surrounding can be hit by destructive seismic activity.

Whether mountains are forming or not, earthquakes can occur for any given reasons. But no matter what is the reason for the earthquake, the Qur'an verse you quote that the mountains act as pegs (Qur'an 78:6-7) that prevent them from shaking (Qur'an 16:15) are largely inaccurate, let alone "unscientific".

Given the recent earthquakes in mountainous regions in Pakistan and China, your Qur'an and your interpretation (and your logic) of the verses are not just flawed, but proven very wrong, and your Qur'an to be "unscientific".

Mountain don't look like a peg, nor act like the peg that would stabilize the tectonics as you have stated.

You are also wrong about "stabliser" thing. If tectonic activity results in creation of mountain, then it is hardly can be called stabilizer.

What if i prove you wrong , will quote geologists and its not a myth for sure:areyoucra

you;ll understand when i explain it to you

 

[A Thousand Suns]

To Islam432 and any other Muslims.

Firmament belong to the ancient teaching of mostly of Near Eastern civilisations, beginning in the Old Babylonian period, if not in the Sumerian heyday.

(But note that we should consider that the Akkadians and Babylonians got most of their idea from the Sumerians, it is still possible that the idea of firmament may have originated from the Sumerians.)

My point is that firmament was used to describe of the sky. This sky was often described as the hemispherical dome, from the point of view of a person, standing at ground level. Whether firmament was called "heaven" or "sky" by the ancient people, it can hardly be "scientific" description.

What the medieval Qur'an describe about the seven heavens or seven firmaments is also hardly be considered "scientific". (Note that I say "medieval" because in Europe, the Dark Ages that began with the Fall of Rome in 476, was considered by most historians as part of the medieval period.)

The level of understanding has only changed with the use of the telescope. What is known about Ptolemy's time, which was the most dominant theory about astronomy, which was quite influential to Islamic knowledge of astronomy, all became outdated. Even Galileo's discovery became outdated as better and more powerful telescopes were being developed over the centuries since then.

My other point is that science (referring to developed scientific theory) are continuous being revised. The Qur'an is static, but the interpretations have clearly changed, because you, and others like you, have tried to push modern interpretations to fit medieval and outdated understanding of the Qur'an into modern science. These new interpretations don't work, and are often come heavy criticism by people who do know modern science (including astronomy, geology and biology).

Like ssainhu said to you, your interpretations have put more scrutiny on the Qur'an, and give more "fuel to the fire" in exposing the Qur'an as being scientific. Your interpretation and examples of astronomy/atmosphere, geology/mountain/earthquake, and human biology have only exposed how unreliable the Qur'an really is, in the modern world.

It is you, and people like you (including Supernova66's videos of Dr Zakir Naik and Dr Allison Palmer), who do more harm to Islam, in the question relating to science. By (Naik's and Palmer's) questioning the Bible as being "unscientific" (which most of us here already know) have also led to non-Muslims to also questioning the status of the Qur'an as being "unscientific".

Sorry for the long post. But it shouldn't be a problem to read, because the paragraphs are not long.

Well i blame some muslims for that they go one step further to prove science in Quran , there was a guy on Internet who even tried to prove Darwin theory from Quran some while back which is total nonsense

my advise to muslims they should only stick to clear scientific verses

 

[DeitySlayer]

What if i prove you wrong , will quote geologists and its not a myth for sure:areyoucra

you;ll understand when i explain it to you

Shoot away.

 

[McBell]

my advise to muslims they should only stick to clear scientific verses

My advise would be to stop relying so heavily on the Forer Effect...

 

[Revoltingest]

My advise would be to stop relying so heavily on the Forer Effect...

I should write a Revoltifarian Bible. It would be at least as scientific as those posers.

The universe is a rose, & red is the color of love. Mankind is here to walk thru the valley
of woe, that he may enter the plain of existence. Before you were born, you were as a
lump of clay, which the great potter would fashion into a chamber pot. A man walks down
42 paths. Ignorance & knowledge are 2 sides of the same sphere. No matter where you
go, there you are. What is the sound of one hand clapping when no one is there to hear it?
And so on....

Find a conflict with science, & you get free Revoltistanian citizenship.

 

[gnostic]

What if i prove you wrong , will quote geologists and its not a myth for sure:areyoucra

you;ll understand when i explain it to you

A thousand suns, you should realize that the Qur'an uses metaphors, which can be interpret anyway you wish.

In science, a theory is clear description and best possible explanation to help us understand something. It explain the law of physics or nature, the process involved how it is used. And the evidences are require to test and validate the theory. The evidences require to testable and repeatable, free from preconception, like God; if it doesn't then the theory is discarded.

The Qur'an doesn't explain anything clearly, because it is wrapped around these metaphors, motifs and similes. Unless, the Qur'an explain something clearly and in more than one or two verses, the Qur'an verses which deemed to be scientific, cannot be considered "scientific".

Quote and explain the verse that related to the geology, if you want.

But if one of us prove your hypothesis (quotes and interpretation) to be wrong, will you (or can you) accept that your hypothesis to be "incorrect scientifically", or the Qur'an to be scientifically "unsound"?

 

[beenie]

are you worth replying??? i don't know how your family member live with you

dude, this type of response will get you nowhere. just post your proof and don't insult others needlessly. everyone has a right to their opinions, yes? i don't see anyone insulting you...STILL. i swear i have said this to you before...as a fellow Muslim, please stop proving them right that we can't debate. geesh.

 

[Bowman]

Iam a student of comparative religions , Ive read Quran and Bible both have scientific knowledge mentioned , but if there are scientific errors can we attribute that to God....because God can never tell a lie

There are more than 1500 versus in Quran relating to science and Allhumdillah there is not a single contradiction with the established science

According to your book of faith, 1 day = 1,000 years (22.47 & 32.5).

According to your book of faith the universe was created in 6 days (7.54, 10.3, 11.7, 25.59, 32.4, 50.38, & 57.4).



32.4 states that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days.

32.5 (the very next ayah!) states that 1 day = 1,000 years!



6 x 1,000 = 6,000 years for the creation of the Universe, according to your Koran…and, according to your ‘scholars’ as well...

Renowned Koranic commentator Ibn Abbas steps up to the plate and claims a 6,000 year old creation, based upon his reading of the Koran, as thus…

(Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days) of the beginning of the life of this world, each day the equivalent of a thousand years, (then mounted He the Throne) then He proceeded to create the Throne; it is also said that this means: He seated Himself on the Throne. (He covereth the night with the day) and the day with the night, (which is in haste to follow it) i.e. the day is in haste to follow the night and the night is in haste to follow the day, (and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command) by His leave. (His verily is all creation) the creation of the heavens and the earth (and commandment) i.e. the judgement of people on the Day of Judgement (Blessed be Allah) the Possessor of grace; it is also said that this means: elevated is Allah; as it is said that this means: far exalted is Allah, (the Lord of the Worlds!) the Master and Disposer of the Worlds.

[Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas]

Ibn Abbas’ continues as he tells the reader that your god “allah” mounts the throne before the throne is even created!

We understand that “allah” must have been tired after those 6,000 years so that he needed to sit and rest upon a throne…but, how can he rest when his place of rest has not even been created yet?



To reinforce his position, Ibn Abbas’ continues on with his 6,000 year creation theory in this quote…

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلأَرْضَ وَمَابَيْنَهُمَا فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَمَا مَسَّنَا مِنلُّغُوبٍ​

“And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six Days and nothing of fatigue touched Us”
[Qaaf 50:38]

(And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them) of created beings and marvels, (in six Days) of the days of the beginning of the life of the world, each day the equivalent of 1,000 years of present days, the first day being Sunday and the last Friday, (and naught of weariness touched Us) We were not tired as claimed by the Jews who said: when Allah finished the creation of the heavens and earth, he put one leg on the other and rested on Saturday. The enemies of Allah have lied against Allah.

[Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas]

Here, we even have your “scholar” declaring the 6,000 year-days as Sunday through Friday….!

 

[A Thousand Suns]

A thousand suns, you should realize that the Qur'an uses metaphors, which can be interpret anyway you wish.

In science, a theory is clear description and best possible explanation to help us understand something. It explain the law of physics or nature, the process involved how it is used. And the evidences are require to test and validate the theory. The evidences require to testable and repeatable, free from preconception, like God; if it doesn't then the theory is discarded.

The Qur'an doesn't explain anything clearly, because it is wrapped around these metaphors, motifs and similes. Unless, the Qur'an explain something clearly and in more than one or two verses, the Qur'an verses which deemed to be scientific, cannot be considered "scientific".

Quote and explain the verse that related to the geology, if you want.

But if one of us prove your hypothesis (quotes and interpretation) to be wrong, will you (or can you) accept that your hypothesis to be "incorrect scientifically", or the Qur'an to be scientifically "unsound"?

I will explain the verses which cant be misinterpreted ,which are clear and very easy to understand

also will give you reliable sources while explaining them , if you want to prove me wrong you can quote a reliable source too

 

[A Thousand Suns]

My advise would be to stop relying so heavily on the Forer Effect...

My advice , keep your mouth shut

 

[DeitySlayer]

My advice , keep your mouth shut

My advice, use evidence rather than insults to prove your point.

Please continue in your explanation of despite mountains supposedly stabilizing the crust, earthquake frequency and severity is in direct proportion to the presence of mountains. I.e. if mountains stop earthquakes, why are there more earthquakes around mountains?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I will explain the verses which cant be misinterpreted ,which are clear and very easy to understand

also will give you reliable sources while explaining them , if you want to prove me wrong you can quote a reliable source too

A common fallacy is to take the stance of 'prove me wrong'. It is up to the claimant to provide verifiable and accurate information to back up their position.

My advice , keep your mouth shut

This is a debate and discussion forum, not a preschool.

 

[Starsoul]

Its useless explaining divine scripture to those who don't even know what divinity is. First define it to them, if they open themselves to understand, well and good, otherwise, they are not willing to listen, they are just there to argue and corner the reality into useless argument to establish their own thought process as superior. No one is willing to agree,and none WILL agree, no matter how true or agreeable the substance is. Its takes some base knowledge,courage and faith to dive into divinity, otherwise what ever normal day to day phenomenon was offered to these people, they will mock it over and over just for the sake of argument.

Allah says in the Quran as, ' I have kept the need to search for the truth inside all people, and only those shall find me who take heed and ask for guidance', And Allah does not guide vain and boastful people'.