Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[gnostic]

Well, I suppose it's better that Muslims try to twist the Quran to fit science rather than how Christians try to twist science to fit the Bible.

Ha. I don't see any difference between the two.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ha. I don't see any difference between the two.

It's the expectations. Muslims are trying to make their book fit with science, which without doubt is causing verses to be interpreted in ways never before thought of, whereas Christians are expecting science to conform to the Bible. One just adds on where nothing needs to be added, but it will at least act as a filter of sorts for crazy ideas, whereas the other is full of denial and filled with crazy ideas and junk science in order to make the science fit into a literalist interpretation of the Bible. One says "of course" when it comes to science, the other says "no, it must work this way because of what our beliefs state."

 

[OurCreed]

They...and you...are still bloody wrong, because 21:30 doesn't describe the Big Bang.

It actually doesn't even describe the universe.

I don't know if you have read my previous post - post 540 - in which I had quoted 3 different translations of verse 21:32.





It showed that the heaven or heavens in 21:32 (in the Sahih International and Pickthall translations) use the word or describe the SKY, not the universe.

If 21:32 doesn't describe heavens the "universe", then more than likely, 21:30 doesn't describe the "universe". I

It is all about the context of not one verse, but all other verses that speak of heavens in that chapter.

If the passage is talking about the Earth, there is no possible way that heaven could mean the universe, because our fricking planet is tiny. So heavens must mean the sky. If the verse is talking about sun or the moon, then of course, these celestial bodies are related to the Earth (21:33 for example), so heaven must mean the sky, and not the universe.

The problem is not the translations or the original. The REAL PROBLEM is you lot, modern Muslims (like yourself, Jabar, FearGod, and outsiders (Zakir Naik)), who make claim of the Big Bang in this verse or that (21:30).

The problem is you all who post webpages, blogs or YouTube videos, twisting the Qur'an out of context so that it fit with modern science. What you all posting are propaganda and pseudoscience. Each one of you, make the mistake of trying to put modern context (in this case, science) and reinterpreting verses for your own agenda. It is shameless and dishonest tactics. Modern Muslims (especially those who use the Qur'an to take credits for modern science) lacked integrity and modesty, boasting of how there is science in the Qur'an.

But why shouldn't I even be surprise. I found Muhammad to be a poor role of honesty and integrity.

1. He professed to be a lawgiver, like Moses, and yet he and his followers go on raids upon merchant caravans (623 and 624), stealing like robbers and pirates.
   
2. Muhammad and Muslims were homeless and went into exile, so Muhammad should know better, but what does he do in Medina in less than 2 years, he banished the Banu Qaynuqa and confiscated their lands and wealth (624).
   
3. When he was still living in Muhammad, he was persecuted and feared assassination, and yet in 624, Muhammad approve of Abdullah Ibn Unais and 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik murders of his critics.

All of these events happened, when he has only been in Medina. What a hypocrite.

Muhammad has perfected the art of hypocrisy and double standard, just as modern Muslims use modern science to promote the Qur'an, through dishonesty and double standard.

It actually doesn't even describe the universe.

It does. I already wrote a similar response to someone else. Everytime the Qur'an uses the phrase "Heavens and earth", it is referring to, essentially, everything that exists, or the entirety of all existence. That is basically the universe.

I don't know if you have read my previous post - post 540 - in which I had quoted 3 different translations of verse 21:32. It showed that the heaven or heavens in 21:32 (in the Sahih International and Pickthall translations) use the word or describe the SKY, not the universe. If 21:32 doesn't describe heavens the "universe", then more than likely, 21:30 doesn't describe the "universe".

I already read all of those translations, and I already explained this to you. 21;32 uses the word "sama", whereas 21;30 uses "samawat".

The word sama is regarding the immediate sky, whereas samawat refers to beyond just our immediate sky, hence, "heavens".

21;30 is not talking about what 21;32 is talking about. 21;30 mentions the phrase, "samawat wal ardh" which translates to "heavens and earth."

Every single time the Qur'an uses this phrase (which is a lot), it is referring to the entirety of all existence. Read my post #546.

It is all about the context of not one verse, but all other verses that speak of heavens in that chapter.

It's not only about context, but about the words that are used. 21;30 uses a different word compared with 21;32. Samawat is not used to mean the same thing as sama. The Qur'an uses both of these words for a reason. They are not interchangeable.

If the passage is talking about the Earth, there is no possible way that heaven could mean the universe, because our fricking planet is tiny. So heavens must mean the sky. If the verse is talking about sun or the moon, then of course, these celestial bodies are related to the Earth (21:33 for example), so heaven must mean the sky, and not the universe.

Read post #546. Heavens and earth are grouped together to refer to one thing.

The problem is not the translations or the original. The REAL PROBLEM is you lot, modern Muslims (like yourself, Jabar, FearGod, and outsiders (Zakir Naik)), who make claim of the Big Bang in this verse or that (21:30).

21;30
Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were but one entity (ratqan), and then we separated (fafataqnahum) them?

1) I showed how heavens and earth, this phrase, refers to the entirety of all existence from post #546.
2) If this verse is speaking of the entirety of existence, then the second thing it is telling is that it was a ratqan (single entity, one point).
3) So if the entirety of all existence was a single entity, the third thing this verse tells us is that they were separated, split apart, which is what fafataqnahum means.

This verse, if it is NOT referring to the big bang...then what in the world is it referring to?

Disprove either of those 3 points.

Lastly, this forum is regarding science and religion, so I'm not going to bother with your last remarks about Muhammad. If you want to, you can open up another post on the appropriate forum page and discuss those there.

 

[OurCreed]

I don't deny that Muslims were more knowledgable and inventive during the Golden Age, but some of these knowledge didn't come from nowhere.

The Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, didn't go through the Dark Ages, like that in the western counterpart. So science still existed in the eastern Mediterranean, before, during and after Muhammad.

And it was the same with Sassanid Persia; they didn't go through Dark Ages, so their science, philosophy and literature still exist before and during Muhammad's time.

So when Arab Muslims invaded Byzantine territories (Syria, Egypt and Anatolia), they had taken a lot of knowledge from these people, especially those Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians or Persians who converted to Islam.

So a lot of what we called Islamic science during the Golden Age, were actually rediscoveries or improvements of existing science, knowledge and technology, not new discoveries.

Yeah, that's why I said "advanced" and "improved upon."

 

[OurCreed]

Same type of argument of changing verses to align with science. Post hoc rationalization is exactly what you are doing. You are interpreting the Quran after the scientific discoveries as a justification, in part, for your beliefs. Also you employ an ad hoc rescue by changing Earth to mean matter.



It makes no such claim as you are changing the verse to mean matter, to align with science, when it doesn't.



If there is no matter there is no density. If there was no single point you just refuted your previous argument about being a single point. If we can not rationalize it you have no grounds for making any claims about it. Matter being is space means it is not separate from it nor will be. As I said you are using an outdated idea of space as if it were empty, it isn't, called space-time. Matter is within the universe only the scale has changed.

Actually the cola and ice will be interacting as either the ice melts or the cola becomes ice. Cola and ice both contain water thus interact as pointed out previously.




Actually it does since you claimed space is empty and a vacuum while only the former is true. Samawat can also mean sky but you pick the defination which aligns with science, the same as you have done for the Earth.



No I actually pointing out that you ignored the tradition meaning of the verse in order to for it to align with science. Again all you have done is fit the Quran with science as post hoc rationalization and ad hoc rescue. When you need to change the meaning of the verse, like Earth to matter, you are using fallacious reasoning to maintain your faith, nothing more.



Which are just using fallacious reasoning based on post hoc rationalization and ad hoc rescues. In the verse using the normal Earth definition makes the verse incorrect so you change it to match.



You seem to forget that I have rejected your argument long ago. I am pointing out how you have changed the verse since Earth is a obvious error. So you change it to matter, without cause, to align with science. 3:7 does not specificy which verses so all you have done is use this as a basis to change whatever verse you want to align with science. ore fallacious reasoning on your part.



I already pointed out there is an Arabic word for atom, particles or substance. So this argument fails. Also a garden invokes a mental image, we know what gardens are and we extrapolate upon this knowledge to the best garden imaginable or not. The Earth contains no such metaphorical basis.



You are not one of these people. It is nice making grand claims. Here is one. I am the only one able to interpret the Quran but found it flawed thus man-made. See how grand claims such as yours are meaningless.



Only because such miracles nonsense, which you deny, has been used around the Muslim world since the 70s. It is the standard apologists tripe made and used before I was born. However the verse has no such meaning prior to the BB discovery. As I said it is fallacious reasoning used to bolster naive Muslims and it works on you.

Same type of argument of changing verses to align with science.

Nobody is changing verses. The words are still there, nobody is changing the words. The only thing that is changing is the interpretation. And aligning an interpretation with science is exactly what the Qur'an wants you to do. And I already explained this before, so I'm not going to bother with it again.

Also you employ an ad hoc rescue by changing Earth to mean matter. You seem to forget that I have rejected your argument long ago. I am pointing out how you have changed the verse since Earth is a obvious error. So you change it to matter, without cause, to align with science. 3:7 does not specificy which verses so all you have done is use this as a basis to change whatever verse you want to align with science. ore fallacious reasoning on your part.

Because you can do that. The Qur'an itself allows it, and confirms that there are verses with multiple meanings. You are still under the impression that every verse and every word must be taken literally. And I already showed you why that's not the case, especially with the word "garden" which is used to describe paradise. Your refusal to look at the arguments presented to you is the cause for your own failure to understand.

And if you read post #546, you don't need the understanding of earth to be matter, to figure out the verse is talking about the big bang. Everytime the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth", it is referring to the entirety of all existence, e.g., the universe, and I proved it in #546. 21;30 refers to "heavens and earth" clearly, so it is referring that the entirety of existence (the universe), was a single entity (ratqan). And then they were separated, or split apart, (fafataqnahum).

I already pointed out there is an Arabic word for atom, particles or substance. So this argument fails. Also a garden invokes a mental image, we know what gardens are and we extrapolate upon this knowledge to the best garden imaginable or not. The Earth contains no such metaphorical basis.

Let's say earth doesn't mean matter, and heavens doesn't mean space. Disregard that interpretation entirely. Fact still remains, that the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth", to denote "the entirety of all existence." Read post #546.

However the verse has no such meaning prior to the BB discovery. As I said it is fallacious reasoning used to bolster naive Muslims and it works on you.

What part of "Some verses of the Qur'an will not be able to be understood until the general knowledge of mankind is increased" do you not understand?

If there was a God, and He wrote a book 1,400 years ago for some desert Arab Bedouins, but at the same time, He also wrote this book for people to come in the future as well. With His infinite knowledge and wisdom, won't He reveal more secrets of this book to the future generations? Once He knows the knowledge of the world for the people has increased, they will be able to uncover the secrets this God has put in His book which is going to last for the entire existence of mankind. And uncovering these secrets is going to increase their faith.

We have already figured out years ago that 21;30 is referring to the big bang, because it refers to the entirety of existence, the universe, being at a single point, and then they were split. The Big Bang described in as little words as possible. Really nothing more to it than this.

 

[OurCreed]

Yes it was. Read the verses.



No Heaven could mean everything without using the Earth. However by using the Earth it is being specific and about this planet, not every planet.




Not really since Earth is a specific label.

Yes it was. Read the verses.

This word is used 38 times in the Qur'an. 32 times it refers to offspring or descendants, and 6 times to mean atoms. No mention of matter!

No Heaven could mean everything without using the Earth. However by using the Earth it is being specific and about this planet, not every planet.

Post #546. Read it.

 

[OurCreed]

I was pointing out that his idea was not about evolution but about prophethood. That is actually what the chapter is about not biology. Read the whole chapter in which he starts to prattle on about souls for the rest of the chapter, 5 pages.

He provided only one mechanic which is God. He made mistakes about minerals becoming plants, veins becoming snails, etc. He states that previous stages are ready to become later stages but in no way does he say this actually happens.



Draper was wrong as Darwin's idea was not based on ideas from Muslims nor was the Muslim idea actually evolution. Darwin wrote about mechanics involved with Muslims didn't.



Dust is ambiguous. Some dust contain elements that are toxic to humans. Some dust contains far to much of one material and not enough of another. The same is true for clay. So all you are doing is defining dust based on science which is an ad hoc rescue. Also being made from dust and clay was a religious view that predates Islam by centuries. Repeating established ideas is nothing special. It is found in Chinese, Egyptian, Sumerian, etc mythology.

You are repeating the same scientific miracle claims without using the label. Same type of argument, same shifting of definition to align with science, etc. You think by not calling it science makes a difference, it doesn't. It is merely hedging your bets in case one of the ideas from science ends up being wrong you can backpedal without problems.

I was pointing out that his idea was not about evolution but about prophethood. That is actually what the chapter is about not biology. Read the whole chapter in which he starts to prattle on about souls for the rest of the chapter, 5 pages.

Yes, it's not just about evolution, it's more than just that. But he linked these biological aspects (even with mistakes), and connected it with the main subject matter. The fact still remains is that they recognized that creatures were developed through stages, and not everything is as is, things popping into existence, like a lot of creationists think.

He provided only one mechanic which is God.

And as all Muslims believe, God is the only mechanic. He is the organizer of evolution. One of the attributes of God in Islam for God is "Al-Bari" which translates to "The Evolver".

Draper was wrong as Darwin's idea was not based on ideas from Muslims nor was the Muslim idea actually evolution. Darwin wrote about mechanics involved with Muslims didn't.

Whether he was right or wrong, that's not the issue. The fact is that he (Draper) recognized Muslim's understanding of evolutionary concepts in species.

Dust is ambiguous. Some dust contain elements that are toxic to humans. Some dust contains far to much of one material and not enough of another. The same is true for clay. So all you are doing is defining dust based on science which is an ad hoc rescue.

The word "dust" is used to signify humbleness, because it refers to something that comes from earth. This is why the Qur'an commands Muslims to use water before praying, and if they cannot find water, then use the dust. The purpose of this practice is to humble the soul before prayer.

This is also why people bow and prostrate towards the ground to show humility. This word "dust" signifies humility, coming from the earth. So when the Qur'an uses "dust" to describe an element in the creation of humans, it's not wrong. We came from the earth, we were developed using the earth, and we will die back and become of the earth. That's why the Qur'an says we will become dust when we die, signifying that we (our physical bodies), will become one with the earth again.

Also being made from dust and clay was a religious view that predates Islam by centuries. Repeating established ideas is nothing special. It is found in Chinese, Egyptian, Sumerian, etc mythology.

And? We don't deny this. You must be implying, "Qur'an copied that text right there." Well as Muslims, we believe God has revealed the same, if not similar information, to other civilizations as well. So that's not an argument.

 

[gnostic]

This verse, if it is NOT referring to the big bang...then what in the world is it referring to?

And I have repeatedly shown to you that there are no Earth in the early stage of the universe. The Earth is only 4.6 billion years in age, while the universe, from the last estimate in 2015, to be to 13.799 billion years old (give or take 2 million years, error of margin).

The Earth, our Sun and our solar system didn't form until 9 billion years AFTER the Big Bang!

Do the maths, OurCreed. I don't need to do your homework for you.

So if the Earth did exist when the universe was still very young, then by that logic alone, Muslims' interpretations (as well as yours) about the Qur'an and the Big Bang are wrong, and this make verse 21:30 wrong too, whether you read it FIGURATIVELY or LITERALLY.

The verse is wrong, because it doesn't speak of the universe, and have no bearing on the expanding universe.

As I have already pointed out and quoted, from you silly scripture and in that same chapter, that it speak of Earth and heaven again, which clearly referred to heaven as being the SKY, not the universe. I am referring to 21:32:

Yusuf Ali
And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!

Sahih International
And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away.

Pickthall
And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents.

If 21:32 doesn't mean the universe, then why should passage 21:30 just only 2 verse back mean "universe", not "sky"?

It doesn't make sense that heaven would mean universe in one instance, then sky in another instance, when the two passages are only 2 verses apart from each other.

Now I may not be a believer or a Muslim, and I don't know the Qur'an way you do, for instance, I couldn't quote you and cite the exact surah and verse numbers to you, but I do know well how to bloody read literature, especially myths and scriptures. And one of the things I have learned is that when you read, you have to not just take into context of a single sentence, paragraph or verse, but you have to consider the context of the whole chapter.

You are not considering the context of the whole chapter. You are not even considering the selected verse with other related verses. And verse 21:30 is related to verse 21:32.

You can't choose that 21:32, heaven is equated to SKY, and in verse 21:30, heaven is equated to the universe.

That's not good scholarship, what you and other Muslims I have seen doing, in past topics. That's cherry-picking.

You are cherry-picking. You are showing lack of integrity in examining your own scripture, and I scripture that I don't even follow, AND YET I am understanding the verse better than you, and have shown more honesty doing so.

This is why I don't trust Muslims to accept their reading of this passage or that, because from past experience with other Muslims, I know when Muslims are dishonestly cherry-picking their quoted passages and try to force interpretations to fit in with modern science.

The problem with any scripture is that the passage Muslims used to twist, up open to various interpretations, and the other problem is use of the word - "heaven", which can have a number of different definitions, and of course different interpretations.

The universe is actually a modern word, and there are no real concept of the universe in the ancient and medieval world, east or west.

The idea of the earth and sky (A) being ONE at one instance, and (B) then DIVIDED in the next instance, is a ancient mythological concept, that predated the Qur'an, and can be found in Genesis 1.

This is the earth and sky being one:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

And this is the sky and earth being divided:

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

The verses in the Genesis actually the same myth that the Qur'an 21 trying to convey, but the Qur'an can be taken out of context quite easily because the language is not precise.

The verse in the Qur'an - 21:30 - is too short and vague, and heaven having different meanings, so it is very ambiguous and anyone can interpret the passage any way they like, but I think using universe is taking the verse out of context.

 

[gnostic]

The word "dust" is used to signify humbleness, because it refers to something that comes from earth. This is why the Qur'an commands Muslims to use water before praying, and if they cannot find water, then use the dust. The purpose of this practice is to humble the soul before prayer.

This is also why people bow and prostrate towards the ground to show humility. This word "dust" signifies humility, coming from the earth. So when the Qur'an uses "dust" to describe an element in the creation of humans, it's not wrong. We came from the earth, we were developed using the earth, and we will die back and become of the earth. That's why the Qur'an says we will become dust when we die, signifying that we (our physical bodies), will become one with the earth again.

But man is not made directly from dust, because that's scientifically impossible. The Qur'an and Judaeo-Christian scriptures clearly and explicitly state that the first man (Adam) is made directly from dust. It doesn't say "indirectly"made from dust.

The Qur'an also clearly stated that the first man is made from clay, and shaped into human form by God, like a craftsman. That's another impossibly...if read literally. If it is simply an allegory, or to be read metaphorically, then anything is possible, but that make the Qur'an's creation - a myth, not science.

It doesn't matter if you read the Qur'an creation literally or figuratively, because turning clay into a human man is a myth.

Other than water (H2O) that allow the clay to be mold or shaped into any shape, clay are made out of clay minerals or phyllosilicate minerals.

More precisely, the most basic molecule in clay composition is aluminum phyllosilicate - Al2Si2O5.

When clay mineral is hydrated or has water, then you would rewrite chemical composition of clay mineral as Al2Si2O5 (OH)4.

Silicate (SiO4) is one of many numbers of rock minerals that exist, but

Now, I am not expert in chemistry, but in my past job as a civil engineer, I had to learn geology, but not just because of stones and rocks, but my geology subject had also include soil, like clay.

And I am also no expert in biology too, but I have enough chemistry background to know that human body contained no molecule or compound of aluminum phyllosilicate minerals (Al2Si2O5).

Yes, our body contained trace elements of many different atoms, like aluminum and silicon, but none of them with this composition - Al2Si2O5.

If we were truly made out of clay, one would expect that we would have Al2Si2O5 in our body. We don't.

And this is why...

And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], 'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah . And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead - by permission of Allah . And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.

...Qur'an 3:59 is based on myth and superstition, not on science.

And the Qur'an is not first to play this clay --> man myth card.

Over 2000 years before Muhammad (2nd millennium BCE), the hero Enkidu, a companion of Gilgamesh, was made from clay by the gods (source: Old Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh).

Around mid-2nd millennium BCE, the goddesses created group of men out of clay mixed with blood sacrificed god, so that these mortal people can build cities, temples and irrigation for the gods. (Source: Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis.)

In the Middle Babylonian myth of Marduk (mid-2nd millennium BCE), men were created from the blood of Qingu mixed with the earth or soil. (Source: Enuma Elish or "Epic of Creation".)

Even older is the late 3rd millennium BCE Sumerian work - Enki and Ninmah, in which the goddess Nammu created a group of men from clay and from the water of Abzu (Babylonian Apsu). Enki and Ninmah later some more humans, also from clay. (Source: Enki and Ninmah.)

In Egypt, the god Ptah from Memphis, was known as the artisan, and the ram-headed god Khnum, were both said to have created man from clay. Khnum was known as a Potter, who created man from clay on a potter's wheel.

So there is really nothing special about the Qur'an, and the creation of Adam from clay is clearly myth, just like that of Adam in Genesis 2. There is no science in this.

 

[Shad]

Yes, it's not just about evolution, it's more than just that. But he linked these biological aspects (even with mistakes), and connected it with the main subject matter. The fact still remains is that they recognized that creatures were developed through stages, and not everything is as is, things popping into existence, like a lot of creationists think.

So what. A lot of philosophers talked about biology without talking about evolution. You are making an assumption that details about biology are about evolution but the chapter is about prophethood which has zero to do with evolution.

And as all Muslims believe, God is the only mechanic. He is the organizer of evolution. One of the attributes of God in Islam for God is "Al-Bari" which translates to "The Evolver".

Thus is creationism not evolution.

Whether he was right or wrong, that's not the issue. The fact is that he (Draper) recognized Muslim's understanding of evolutionary concepts in species.

Nope since Darwin's work is nothing like that of Muslim creationism. He made a false statement based on ignorance.

The word "dust" is used to signify humbleness, because it refers to something that comes from earth. This is why the Qur'an commands Muslims to use water before praying, and if they cannot find water, then use the dust. The purpose of this practice is to humble the soul before prayer.

No it is a vague description. A description found outside of Islam and that had existed for centuries. Changing dust to mean specifics of the human body is an ad hoc rescue

This is also why people bow and prostrate towards the ground to show humility. This word "dust" signifies humility, coming from the earth. So when the Qur'an uses "dust" to describe an element in the creation of humans, it's not wrong. We came from the earth, we were developed using the earth, and we will die back and become of the earth. That's why the Qur'an says we will become dust when we die, signifying that we (our physical bodies), will become one with the earth again.

It is still wrong as dust is vague. As pointed out already dust can, and does, contain elements that are toxic to humans. More ad hoc rescues

And? We don't deny this. You must be implying, "Qur'an copied that text right there." Well as Muslims, we believe God has revealed the same, if not similar information, to other civilizations as well. So that's not an argument.

Repeating ideas that existed for centuries is not a sign of the divine but of just repeating what was a common belief.

It is an argument that shows that 1. Divine knowledge is not required. 2. It was a common belief thus not unique to Islam.

 

[Shad]

Yes it was. Read the verses.

This word is used 38 times in the Qur'an. 32 times it refers to offspring or descendants, and 6 times to mean atoms. No mention of matter!

No Heaven could mean everything without using the Earth. However by using the Earth it is being specific and about this planet, not every planet.

Post #546. Read it.

An atom is a unit of matter. All you have shown was that Mo was ignorant in order to ignore the two words for substance/matter in order to change Earth to mean matter. As I said you are twisting and ignoring the text to keep it aligning with science.

 

[Shad]

Nobody is changing verses. The words are still there, nobody is changing the words. The only thing that is changing is the interpretation. And aligning an interpretation with science is exactly what the Qur'an wants you to do. And I already explained this before, so I'm not going to bother with it again.

You have by claiming the word Earth means matter rather than the Earth.

Because you can do that. The Qur'an itself allows it, and confirms that there are verses with multiple meanings. You are still under the impression that every verse and every word must be taken literally. And I already showed you why that's not the case, especially with the word "garden" which is used to describe paradise. Your refusal to look at the arguments presented to you is the cause for your own failure to understand.

Sure you can do that just I can point out that doing so is just fallacious reasoning. I looked at the arguments and found none convincing at all. You are attempting to use an obvious metaphor was one verse to claim a metaphor for another without showing any argument for why the verse in question should be seen as such. Al you have done is employ another ad hoc rescue along with an out of context reference.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

You seem to be under the impression that because you accept fallacious reasoning that everyone should accept it. Sorry, your flawed thinking is your problem

And if you read post #546, you don't need the understanding of earth to be matter, to figure out the verse is talking about the big bang. Everytime the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth", it is referring to the entirety of all existence, e.g., the universe, and I proved it in #546. 21;30 refers to "heavens and earth" clearly, so it is referring that the entirety of existence (the universe), was a single entity (ratqan). And then they were separated, or split apart, (fafataqnahum).

Yet in each case the Earth is used as a specific where as Heaven alone is sufficent. By include the Earth this shows the verse is not about existence but about specifics.

Let's say earth doesn't mean matter, and heavens doesn't mean space. Disregard that interpretation entirely. Fact still remains, that the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth", to denote "the entirety of all existence." Read post #546.

Earth is specific not a generalization or universial

What part of "Some verses of the Qur'an will not be able to be understood until the general knowledge of mankind is increased" do you not understand?

You seem to think your post hoc rationalizations and ad hoc rescues are convincing for those that do not already accept the presupposition of Islam.

If there was a God, and He wrote a book 1,400 years ago for some desert Arab Bedouins, but at the same time, He also wrote this book for people to come in the future as well. With His infinite knowledge and wisdom, won't He reveal more secrets of this book to the future generations? Once He knows the knowledge of the world for the people has increased, they will be able to uncover the secrets this God has put in His book which is going to last for the entire existence of mankind. And uncovering these secrets is going to increase their faith.

Moving the goalposts fallacy combine with ad hoc rescue. One interpretation becomes normal then is shown to be wrong by another method, such as science. That interpretation is discarded for a new one that aligns with science. If the theory from science changes or is shown to be wrong then a new interpretation is developed. And so on.

We have already figured out years ago that 21;30 is referring to the big bang, because it refers to the entirety of existence, the universe, being at a single point, and then they were split. The Big Bang described in as little words as possible. Really nothing more to it than this.

No Muslim "figured" this out after a Catholic Priest and Hubble developed the model.

 

[OurCreed]

And I have repeatedly shown to you that there are no Earth in the early stage of the universe. The Earth is only 4.6 billion years in age, while the universe, from the last estimate in 2015, to be to 13.799 billion years old (give or take 2 million years, error of margin).

The Earth, our Sun and our solar system didn't form until 9 billion years AFTER the Big Bang!

Do the maths, OurCreed. I don't need to do your homework for you.

So if the Earth did exist when the universe was still very young, then by that logic alone, Muslims' interpretations (as well as yours) about the Qur'an and the Big Bang are wrong, and this make verse 21:30 wrong too, whether you read it FIGURATIVELY or LITERALLY.

The verse is wrong, because it doesn't speak of the universe, and have no bearing on the expanding universe.

As I have already pointed out and quoted, from you silly scripture and in that same chapter, that it speak of Earth and heaven again, which clearly referred to heaven as being the SKY, not the universe. I am referring to 21:32:




If 21:32 doesn't mean the universe, then why should passage 21:30 just only 2 verse back mean "universe", not "sky"?

It doesn't make sense that heaven would mean universe in one instance, then sky in another instance, when the two passages are only 2 verses apart from each other.

Now I may not be a believer or a Muslim, and I don't know the Qur'an way you do, for instance, I couldn't quote you and cite the exact surah and verse numbers to you, but I do know well how to bloody read literature, especially myths and scriptures. And one of the things I have learned is that when you read, you have to not just take into context of a single sentence, paragraph or verse, but you have to consider the context of the whole chapter.

You are not considering the context of the whole chapter. You are not even considering the selected verse with other related verses. And verse 21:30 is related to verse 21:32.

You can't choose that 21:32, heaven is equated to SKY, and in verse 21:30, heaven is equated to the universe.

That's not good scholarship, what you and other Muslims I have seen doing, in past topics. That's cherry-picking.

You are cherry-picking. You are showing lack of integrity in examining your own scripture, and I scripture that I don't even follow, AND YET I am understanding the verse better than you, and have shown more honesty doing so.

This is why I don't trust Muslims to accept their reading of this passage or that, because from past experience with other Muslims, I know when Muslims are dishonestly cherry-picking their quoted passages and try to force interpretations to fit in with modern science.

The problem with any scripture is that the passage Muslims used to twist, up open to various interpretations, and the other problem is use of the word - "heaven", which can have a number of different definitions, and of course different interpretations.

The universe is actually a modern word, and there are no real concept of the universe in the ancient and medieval world, east or west.

The idea of the earth and sky (A) being ONE at one instance, and (B) then DIVIDED in the next instance, is a ancient mythological concept, that predated the Qur'an, and can be found in Genesis 1.

This is the earth and sky being one:


And this is the sky and earth being divided:



The verses in the Genesis actually the same myth that the Qur'an 21 trying to convey, but the Qur'an can be taken out of context quite easily because the language is not precise.

The verse in the Qur'an - 21:30 - is too short and vague, and heaven having different meanings, so it is very ambiguous and anyone can interpret the passage any way they like, but I think using universe is taking the verse out of context.

And I have repeatedly shown to you that there are no Earth in the early stage of the universe. The Earth is only 4.6 billion years in age, while the universe, from the last estimate in 2015, to be to 13.799 billion years old (give or take 2 million years, error of margin). The Earth, our Sun and our solar system didn't form until 9 billion years AFTER the Big Bang!

The earth itself was not in existence 13 billion years ago, but the material that makes the earth (e.g., the matter, was). So technically, everything that exists RIGHT NOW in the universe, existed in a different form at the initial beginning of the universe. No scientist denies that. The earth, the sun, our solar system, the galaxies, everything that exists today, it all existed in a different form in the beginning. The matter was there just as it is now. The Qur'an very simply states that "heavens and earth" which I already proved to mean "entirety of existence", was initially a ratqan, which is a singular entity or a single point.

And you didn't answer the question. If this verse is not speaking of the big bang, then what in the world is it speaking of?

Do the maths, OurCreed. I don't need to do your homework for you.

You're taking this too far when it's a really simple thing to understand. We humans define earth as the big ball of matter which orbits around the medium sized yellow star we call the sun. Big this big ball of matter was not always in this form! And it didn't pop into existence 4 billion years ago, it still existed, albeit in billions of pieces probably, in a different form, or in a state of energy. Regardless, everything that exists now, has existed since the beginning. Ever heard of the conservation of mass and energy?

So if the Earth did exist when the universe was still very young, then by that logic alone, Muslims' interpretations (as well as yours) about the Qur'an and the Big Bang are wrong, and this make verse 21:30 wrong too, whether you read it FIGURATIVELY or LITERALLY.

Nope, just proved you wrong by science. No Muslim (unless they really are dumb), believes the earth, the actual form of the earth that we see today, was in existence in the very beginning. What did exist in the beginning was matter, the same matter that makes up everything we see today, including our earth. That's the literal understanding.

The figurative understanding is when we take earth to mean matter, and samawat (heavens), to mean space. You can reject the figurative understanding for all I care, because the literal one does its job anyway.

The verse is wrong, because it doesn't speak of the universe, and have no bearing on the expanding universe.

I already proved from my post #546 that the term "heavens and earth" refers to the entirety of all existence, which is essentially our universe. So yes, it does. The Qur'an uses this phrase "samawat wal ardh" many many times throughout the Qur'an, and everytime it does, it refers to all the things that exist. Every Muslim around the world already understands this, you're the only one with the problem. And we didn't even get to the expanding part yet.

As I have already pointed out and quoted, from you silly scripture and in that same chapter, that it speak of Earth and heaven again, which clearly referred to heaven as being the SKY, not the universe. I am referring to 21:32

Liar. 21;32 does not refer to "earth and heaven". It says "Waja'alna U'Sama'a" which means "And we made the sky". The word used is "Sama" which means the immediate sky. It does NOT refer to heavens. The Qur'an always makes the distinction when it refers to the immediate sky of the earth, versus the heavens/cosmos, which the word for is "Samawat". Not to mention that there is NO MENTION of earth in 21;32.

If 21:32 doesn't mean the universe, then why should passage 21:30 just only 2 verse back mean "universe", not "sky"?

I already explained it to you and this is the last time I am explaining it. You are debating ENGLISH translations. You're not going to get anywhere. The Arabic the Qur'an uses is "samawat" and "sama". Samawat is plural of sama. The Qur'an uses the plural and singular forms in only certain contexts. The Arabs also used both of these words to mean TWO DIFFERENT things.

Everytime the Arabs referred to the immediate sky, where the clouds are, where the birds fly, etc, they use the word "sama".

Everytime the Arabs referred to beyond their immediate sky, and spoke of the sun, the stars, the meteors, the planets, etc, they used the word "samawat".

The Qur'an uses this same format of understanding among the Arabs who spoke the Arabic language. Sama is always about the sky, and samawat is always about what is beyond the sky. No Muslim around the world rejects this understanding, nor does any Arab. Go ask anyone. You're the only one with this problem here, and you're debating the English translations of these words, so you're in double trouble. It's not even about what translations you read, it's about what the Qur'an means when it uses certain words. And this thing is for certain, when the Qur'an uses "sama", it refers to the immediate sky. 21;32 gives us humans an example of the atmosphere God has created for the earth and how this atmosphere protects us from danger and harm, like a ceiling does in a house and protects the inhabitants from rain and wind. The same way, the earth's atmosphere protects us from the harmful ultraviolet radiations of the sun and it also burns up the meteors that come from space. Again, another fact that the Qur'an presents from 21;32, and proving that it refers to the sky.

Yet 21;30 uses a different form of the word "sama", which is "samawat", and ALL Arabs use this word to refer to what is beyond the sky of the earth, the heavens. All the Arabs back then used this word to describe the heavens, or outer space as we call it today. And given the context of 21;30, we know what the Qur'an is talking about. It's not referring to the sky, because there is no need to ever mention the sky, along with the earth. "The sky and the earth." That phrase makes no sense! The sky is a part of the earth, the atmosphere is part of the earth.

 

[OurCreed]

And I have repeatedly shown to you that there are no Earth in the early stage of the universe. The Earth is only 4.6 billion years in age, while the universe, from the last estimate in 2015, to be to 13.799 billion years old (give or take 2 million years, error of margin).

The Earth, our Sun and our solar system didn't form until 9 billion years AFTER the Big Bang!

Do the maths, OurCreed. I don't need to do your homework for you.

So if the Earth did exist when the universe was still very young, then by that logic alone, Muslims' interpretations (as well as yours) about the Qur'an and the Big Bang are wrong, and this make verse 21:30 wrong too, whether you read it FIGURATIVELY or LITERALLY.

The verse is wrong, because it doesn't speak of the universe, and have no bearing on the expanding universe.

As I have already pointed out and quoted, from you silly scripture and in that same chapter, that it speak of Earth and heaven again, which clearly referred to heaven as being the SKY, not the universe. I am referring to 21:32:




If 21:32 doesn't mean the universe, then why should passage 21:30 just only 2 verse back mean "universe", not "sky"?

It doesn't make sense that heaven would mean universe in one instance, then sky in another instance, when the two passages are only 2 verses apart from each other.

Now I may not be a believer or a Muslim, and I don't know the Qur'an way you do, for instance, I couldn't quote you and cite the exact surah and verse numbers to you, but I do know well how to bloody read literature, especially myths and scriptures. And one of the things I have learned is that when you read, you have to not just take into context of a single sentence, paragraph or verse, but you have to consider the context of the whole chapter.

You are not considering the context of the whole chapter. You are not even considering the selected verse with other related verses. And verse 21:30 is related to verse 21:32.

You can't choose that 21:32, heaven is equated to SKY, and in verse 21:30, heaven is equated to the universe.

That's not good scholarship, what you and other Muslims I have seen doing, in past topics. That's cherry-picking.

You are cherry-picking. You are showing lack of integrity in examining your own scripture, and I scripture that I don't even follow, AND YET I am understanding the verse better than you, and have shown more honesty doing so.

This is why I don't trust Muslims to accept their reading of this passage or that, because from past experience with other Muslims, I know when Muslims are dishonestly cherry-picking their quoted passages and try to force interpretations to fit in with modern science.

The problem with any scripture is that the passage Muslims used to twist, up open to various interpretations, and the other problem is use of the word - "heaven", which can have a number of different definitions, and of course different interpretations.

The universe is actually a modern word, and there are no real concept of the universe in the ancient and medieval world, east or west.

The idea of the earth and sky (A) being ONE at one instance, and (B) then DIVIDED in the next instance, is a ancient mythological concept, that predated the Qur'an, and can be found in Genesis 1.

This is the earth and sky being one:


And this is the sky and earth being divided:



The verses in the Genesis actually the same myth that the Qur'an 21 trying to convey, but the Qur'an can be taken out of context quite easily because the language is not precise.

The verse in the Qur'an - 21:30 - is too short and vague, and heaven having different meanings, so it is very ambiguous and anyone can interpret the passage any way they like, but I think using universe is taking the verse out of context.

Everytime the Qur'an uses "samawat", the verses' context already tells us that it refers to outer space, or the heavens.

51;47 uses the same word, "samawat". It says.
"And the heavens (samawat) We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it."

This verse is referring to the expansion of the universe that we know about today. But if we replace the word heavens with "sky", it would make no sense! Firstly, why would God be referring to the sky and saying, "Look how awesome I made the sky with my great powers."

No, it is referring to the universe where there are stars, galaxies, etc. And it also wouldn't make sense for God to be saying, "I am expanding the sky."

No, the verse is clearly referring to outer space.

Another verse which proves that "samawat" cannot mean sky!

41;12
"And we have decorated the lowest heaven with lanterns (stars)."

The Qur'an says that the lowest samawat is decorated with lanterns, which we attribute to be stars. If we translate samawat to sky, it would make no sense! And even the Arabs knew that the stars did not exist in their own sky, but even beyond the earth. This verse is clearly referring to outer space itself, and how it is filled with stars.

Another verse, 13;15
"To God prostrates all who are in the heavens (samawat) and the earth, willingly or unwillingly and so do their shadows, in the mornings and the evenings."

Prostrate in this verse is symbolic. And the verse is referring to everything that exists in the heavens (outer space), or the earth, every creation is in submission to God, willingly or unwillingly. Shadows is also symbolic of something.

21;19
"To Him belongs everyone in the heavens and the earth and those in His Presence are not too arrogant to worship Him, nor do they get tired of it."

Once again, the Qur'an confirms that everyone and everything, whether it is in the samawat or it is in the ardh, belong to Him. It would be ridiculous to assume this is referring to the sky of the earth.

The Qur'an itself gives us the best understanding of its words, so we know exactly what it is talking about. This should be enough to put your nonsensical ideas to rest.