Saudi cleric says earth doesn't rotate

[FearGod]

Hey, you (and union) are the one who think you change the original context of the verse, so that it would suggest the passage as being - "scientific".

And in science and religion debate thread, if you are going to make claim it being "scientific", then you should try to back it up.

But all I see is sophistry, semantics and twisting of words (like your repeated attempts at saying rotational motion and orbital motion as being one-and-the-same) to make baseless claim.

I don't twist the meaning of the verse but i explained it according to my knowledge in the Arabic language,you can agree or disagree,it's up to you.

Regarding your discussion about rotation, yes i know what it means and i quoted many scientific articles which use rotation as i did, so there are some who still use it as i did,you're right regarding rotation and hence you're right in understanding the quran better than me, but i don't agree with you.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me, so accept my apology that i can't agree with you and i see no problem that you also don't agree with me.

 

[gnostic]

I don't twist the meaning of the verse but i explained it according to my knowledge in the Arabic language,you can agree or disagree,it's up to you.

Regarding your discussion about rotation, yes i know what it means and i quoted many scientific articles which use rotation as i did, so there are some who still use it as i did,you're right regarding rotation and hence you're right in understanding the quran better than me, but i don't agree with you.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me, so accept my apology that i can't agree with you and i see no problem that you also don't agree with me.

Of course, you are twisting words. You are attempting to add new meaning to the passage, so that it will meet with the "scientific" requirements, for your own agenda. You are adding words that are not there. No where do the earth is mention, nor do it mention the earth rotating, let alone orbiting.

The whole verse is so vague, that you can interpret the text any way you like. The verse doesn't explain anything, so you are free to twist any way you see fit. It doesn't explain how night and day occurred, just god created them, and then go on to say a couple of orbs follow some path, but the only orbs mentioned are the sun and moon.

There are omissions of the Earth, other planets, stars or galaxy, and yet you and union are implying it is all there, and yet you are denying that you are not twisting anything about the verse.

I am afraid that you are in self-denial when you are saying that you aren't twisting the passage.

I really don't think that the word in Arabic for "course" or "path" in VERSE 21:33 is actually "orbit". I think the translation(s) to "orbit" is the translator(s) using more MODERN astronomical term.

The ancient and medieval people didn't know about the galaxy or the universe, and assume that what they see in the sky was like a dome or roof, and every objects in the sky, all exist only in their observable SKY. Everything were contained within this sky - clouds, rain, sun, moon and stars. Until the development of the telescope, they all believe this sky was all of heaven.

That the sun and moon move along the line, from the eastern horizon, peaking at noon, before setting on the western horizon, alternating between night and day.

Like I have said, many ancient people view "heaven" - not as space, galaxy or universe - but as a "roof", "dome" or "expanse", which are all just other names for - the SKY.

This can be seen in the previous verse (21:32):

32 And We have made the heaven a roof, safe and well guarded. Yet they turn away from its signs (i.e. sun, moon, winds, clouds, etc.).

33 And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating.

This "heaven" is equals to "sky", which are all equal to "dome" or "roof".

To the ancient and medieval people, including that of Muhammad, would view the sky as a dome, which the sun and moon seemed to follow the same course or path in the sky, which they have called the celestial line.

The 5 visible planets back then (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) also seemed to travel alone this celestial line, across their sky. To the ancient people these planets were view as stars, not planets, and because it followed the same line in the sky, they were called "wandering stars".

Before the telescopes, they all thought that the planets, stars, sun and moon were all trapped in dome of heaven, just as apparent the author(s) of the Qur'an did.

The verse 21:32 just showed another incorrect thinking of the author(s) to the Qur'an.

And if you noticed, I have included verse 33 too, and this passage don't include the words "all". Instead it use the word "each":

and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating​

Meaning the moon and sun travel in their orbits. Apparently, "all" don't need to apply to everything, and you can use "all" to apply to just two objects, hence sun and moon, because they are the only objects that are actually mentioned in 21:33.

So it stand to reason, this "all" in Arabic, just mean the sun and moon, because the earth, planets and stars are never mentioned.

 

[dgirl1986]

People need to science more. And apply logic. Hello seasons of weather.

 

[FearGod]

Of course, you are twisting words. You are attempting to add new meaning to the passage, so that it will meet with the "scientific" requirements, for your own agenda. You are adding words that are not there. No where do the earth is mention, nor do it mention the earth rotating, let alone orbiting.

The whole verse is so vague, that you can interpret the text any way you like. The verse doesn't explain anything, so you are free to twist any way you see fit. It doesn't explain how night and day occurred, just god created them, and then go on to say a couple of orbs follow some path, but the only orbs mentioned are the sun and moon.

There are omissions of the Earth, other planets, stars or galaxy, and yet you and union are implying it is all there, and yet you are denying that you are not twisting anything about the verse.

I am afraid that you are in self-denial when you are saying that you aren't twisting the passage.

I really don't think that the word in Arabic for "course" or "path" in VERSE 21:33 is actually "orbit". I think the translation(s) to "orbit" is the translator(s) using more MODERN astronomical term.

The ancient and medieval people didn't know about the galaxy or the universe, and assume that what they see in the sky was like a dome or roof, and every objects in the sky, all exist only in their observable SKY. Everything were contained within this sky - clouds, rain, sun, moon and stars. Until the development of the telescope, they all believe this sky was all of heaven.

That the sun and moon move along the line, from the eastern horizon, peaking at noon, before setting on the western horizon, alternating between night and day.

Like I have said, many ancient people view "heaven" - not as space, galaxy or universe - but as a "roof", "dome" or "expanse", which are all just other names for - the SKY.

This can be seen in the previous verse (21:32):



This "heaven" is equals to "sky", which are all equal to "dome" or "roof".

To the ancient and medieval people, including that of Muhammad, would view the sky as a dome, which the sun and moon seemed to follow the same course or path in the sky, which they have called the celestial line.

The 5 visible planets back then (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) also seemed to travel alone this celestial line, across their sky. To the ancient people these planets were view as stars, not planets, and because it followed the same line in the sky, they were called "wandering stars".

Before the telescopes, they all thought that the planets, stars, sun and moon were all trapped in dome of heaven, just as apparent the author(s) of the Qur'an did.

The verse 21:32 just showed another incorrect thinking of the author(s) to the Qur'an.

And if you noticed, I have included verse 33 too, and this passage don't include the words "all". Instead it use the word "each":

and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating​

Meaning the moon and sun travel in their orbits. Apparently, "all" don't need to apply to everything, and you can use "all" to apply to just two objects, hence sun and moon, because they are the only objects that are actually mentioned in 21:33.

So it stand to reason, this "all" in Arabic, just mean the sun and moon, because the earth, planets and stars are never mentioned.

You are absolutely wrong.

The quran never mention the sky as a roof the way you think of it or as people in ancient time think of it to be, but we realize recently that our sky protect earth in different ways,just one verse from the quran proves you wrong,verse (51:47)

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

How can we expand a solid roof or a ceiling ?

 

[Sees]

You are absolutely wrong.

The quran never mention the sky as a roof the way you think of it or as people in ancient time think of it to be, but we realize recently that our sky protect earth in different ways,just one verse from the quran proves you wrong,verse (51:47)

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

How can we expand a solid roof or a ceiling ?

 

[Yerda]

I'm pretty sure the ancient greeks used similar arguments to demonstrate that the Earth is stationary.

 

[gnostic]

You are absolutely wrong.

The quran never mention the sky as a roof the way you think of it or as people in ancient time think of it to be, but we realize recently that our sky protect earth in different ways,just one verse from the quran proves you wrong,verse (51:47)

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

How can we expand a solid roof or a ceiling ?

And you don't know much about ancient and medieval astronomy and ancient creation myths.

Like I said before the "heaven" or "heavens" is the sky, in which usually described as dome, or more precisely a firmament. Other archaic descriptions for the sky/heaven is "roof" or "vault" or "canopy" or "tent" or "expanse".

These are descriptions, all given before the telescopes were invented and manufactured. They thought everything was observable in sky during day or night, was within that dome.

They didn't know anything about deep space or galaxies or the whole universe.

They thought everything that they could see in their sky was the universe.

1. The Pickthall, Muhsin Khan and Dr Ghali translations had all described heaven as a "roof". I had used the Muhsin Khan translation was the one that I had quoted in my previous reply.
   
2. While the Sahih International say it is like a "ceiling".
   
3. And the Yusif Ali and Shakir translations described it as "canopy", which is essentially some cloth suspended and draped over a bed (for privacy or to keep the mosquitoes out).

Apparently the author(s) of the Qur'an knew know better than others before them.

وَجَعَلْنَا السَّمَاءَ سَقْفًا مَحْفُوظًا ۖ وَهُمْ عَنْ آيَاتِهَا مُعْرِضُونَ

Doesn't سَقْفًا translate to as "roof" or "ceiling"?

So your argument is not very convincing, FearGod.

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

How can we expand a solid roof or a ceiling ?

Apparently you have ignored, didn't read or understand my previous reply. I wrote:

Like I have said, many ancient people view "heaven" - not as space, galaxy or universe - but as a "roof", "dome" or "expanse", which are all just other names for - the SKY.

I wrote that some ancient people called the sky, the "expanse", like the ancient Egyptians or the ancient Hebrews. The Egyptian called it the "Great Expanse" in the Pyrmaid Text from the 6th dynasty (Old Kingdom period, about 22nd century BCE).

So really, the Qur'an introduce nothing new or revolutionary with verse 51:47.

Again, your rebuttal is terribly weak.

 

[suncowiam]

It's funny how everyone can claim they are clerics!

...but no one in this thread has done that [as of yet, of course].

I've been a cleric many times. Always make sure to heal the fighter and not the rogue.

 

[Shad]

You're then entitled to your own opinion and i don't ask you or the others to believe what i believe in but you're the one insisting that i am wrong and i don't agree with you.

You believe that the quran is wrong and false, no problem, that is your choice, whereas i believe the quran is correct and i understand it very well,that is my choice.

No you didnt ask, you just went out of your way to put forward your opinion as fact. When faced with opposition of your views you retreat behind opinion again. However fact or opinion both are unjustified given tradition and history behind these views. Hence both are post hoc rationalization.

 

[Shad]

You are absolutely wrong.

The quran never mention the sky as a roof the way you think of it or as people in ancient time think of it to be, but we realize recently that our sky protect earth in different ways,just one verse from the quran proves you wrong,verse (51:47)

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

How can we expand a solid roof or a ceiling ?

Qur'an, 2:22. Qur'an, 21:32. Read your own holy book more.

 

[viole]

Apparently because planes can reach their destination, the earth must be stationary Take that science! Pwned yet again...

Video: Watch: Saudi cleric tells students 'Earth does not rotate' - Telegraph

I think that the evidential distance between rotating earths and not rotating ones is slightly smaller than the evidential distance between a 13.8 billions years old universe and 6,000 years old one.

So, why this surprise? Are we so accustomed to fundamentalist Christian nonsense that we start picking up other religions' nonsense as it if were worth discussing it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

No you didnt ask, you just went out of your way to put forward your opinion as fact. When faced with opposition of your views you retreat behind opinion again. However fact or opinion both are unjustified given tradition and history behind these views. Hence both are post hoc rationalization.

I think one of the problems is that modern Muslims are trying to put modern contexts or modern interpretations on to ancient texts that have ancient contexts to certain passages that were only really relevant to that time (time of Muhammad). The modern Muslims are trying to justify to modern readers - be they Muslims or non-Muslims - that the Qur'an have scientific relevancy in the modern age.

They would choose vague passages of the sky, mountains, oceans, animals, humans, and try to put modern spins and connect those passages with modern astronomy and cosmology, Earth science, oceanography, biology.

Ancient and medieval Muslim scientists don't have to resort to use Qur'an, because they were intelligent seekers of knowledge, pioneer of some fields, and they rediscovered some scientific treatises that were written by Greeks who lived the Near East during Hellenistic (3rd century to 1st century BCE) and Roman-Byzantine time (1st century BCE to 7th century BCE) or written by ancient Persians. The Golden Age of Islamic science (9th century to 14th century), they were ahead of their time, and influenced the Italian Renaissance to certain extent. But by the height of Renaissance, the Muslim science were surpassed by the Italian thinkers.

I think modern Muslims are jealous of the European advances and the modern science, in which Muslims have not made any major contribution in science for 5 centuries now.

So out of desperation, they have resorted to quoting certain passages in the Qur'an, and try to take credits for modern science, by tooting their horns, and saying the Qur'an knew all this before we did in the last 3 or 4 centuries.

 

[Augustus]

I think that the evidential distance between rotating earths and not rotating ones is slightly smaller than the evidential distance between a 13.8 billions years old universe and 6,000 years old one.

So, why this surprise? Are we so accustomed to fundamentalist Christian nonsense that we start picking up other religions' nonsense as it if were worth discussing it?

Would say it is slightly larger actually. We can observe it in real time after all...

You do realise though that you are discussing something you claim is not worth discussing, don't you?

You use forums for entertainment or education, I found it amusing, apparently some others did too. You also felt the need to 'educate' me on this subject. Win-win

The main use of the internet is discussing trivial things (and I think I read somewhere that pornography is pretty popular too *apparently* )

 

[Shad]

I think one of the problems is that modern Muslims are trying to put modern contexts or modern interpretations on to ancient texts that have ancient contexts to certain passages that were only really relevant to that time (time of Muhammad). The modern Muslims are trying to justify to modern readers - be they Muslims or non-Muslims - that the Qur'an have scientific relevancy in the modern age.

They would choose vague passages of the sky, mountains, oceans, animals, humans, and try to put modern spins and connect those passages with modern astronomy and cosmology, Earth science, oceanography, biology.

Ancient and medieval Muslim scientists don't have to resort to use Qur'an, because they were intelligent seekers of knowledge, pioneer of some fields, and they rediscovered some scientific treatises that were written by Greeks who lived the Near East during Hellenistic (3rd century to 1st century BCE) and Roman-Byzantine time (1st century BCE to 7th century BCE) or written by ancient Persians. The Golden Age of Islamic science (9th century to 14th century), they were ahead of their time, and influenced the Italian Renaissance to certain extent. But by the height of Renaissance, the Muslim science were surpassed by the Italian thinkers.

I think modern Muslims are jealous of the European advances and the modern science, in which Muslims have not made any major contribution in science for 5 centuries now.

So out of desperation, they have resorted to quoting certain passages in the Qur'an, and try to take credits for modern science, by tooting their horns, and saying the Qur'an knew all this before we did in the last 3 or 4 centuries.

I have seen Christians do this. I have seen Vedics do this. I can do the same for the ancient Egyptian religion. Religions are always adapting to standards and ideas of the current society. Religions that do not die out. Hence Genesis is metaphorical now, theistic evolution, etc. It is nothing unique to Muslims or Islam but religion itself.

 

[FearGod]

No you didnt ask, you just went out of your way to put forward your opinion as fact. When faced with opposition of your views you retreat behind opinion again. However fact or opinion both are unjustified given tradition and history behind these views. Hence both are post hoc rationalization.

Where did i put my opinions as facts ?

 

[FearGod]

Qur'an, 2:22. Qur'an, 21:32. Read your own holy book more.

I read it very well and i realize that the quran doesn't describe the sky as a solid matter.

If the sky is a ceiling then how come that there are 7 heavens, so which ceiling that you're talking about ?

 

[FearGod]

And you don't know much about ancient and medieval astronomy and ancient creation myths.

Like I said before the "heaven" or "heavens" is the sky, in which usually described as dome, or more precisely a firmament. Other archaic descriptions for the sky/heaven is "roof" or "vault" or "canopy" or "tent" or "expanse".

These are descriptions, all given before the telescopes were invented and manufactured. They thought everything was observable in sky during day or night, was within that dome.

They didn't know anything about deep space or galaxies or the whole universe.

They thought everything that they could see in their sky was the universe.

1. The Pickthall, Muhsin Khan and Dr Ghali translations had all described heaven as a "roof". I had used the Muhsin Khan translation was the one that I had quoted in my previous reply.
   
2. While the Sahih International say it is like a "ceiling".
   
3. And the Yusif Ali and Shakir translations described it as "canopy", which is essentially some cloth suspended and draped over a bed (for privacy or to keep the mosquitoes out).

Apparently the author(s) of the Qur'an knew know better than others before them.

​

Doesn't سَقْفًا translate to as "roof" or "ceiling"?

So your argument is not very convincing, FearGod.



Apparently you have ignored, didn't read or understand my previous reply. I wrote:


I wrote that some ancient people called the sky, the "expanse", like the ancient Egyptians or the ancient Hebrews. The Egyptian called it the "Great Expanse" in the Pyrmaid Text from the 6th dynasty (Old Kingdom period, about 22nd century BCE).

So really, the Qur'an introduce nothing new or revolutionary with verse 51:47.

Again, your rebuttal is terribly weak.

The expanding heaven is different than the expanse,
The word expanse doesn't mean that the heaven is expanding.

You can't think of the sky as a ceiling and then describe it as "expanding",very simple logic that you don't and won't understand till the day you die.

The sky We have built firmly and We are extending it.(51:47)

 

[FearGod]

I think one of the problems is that modern Muslims are trying to put modern contexts or modern interpretations on to ancient texts that have ancient contexts to certain passages that were only really relevant to that time (time of Muhammad). The modern Muslims are trying to justify to modern readers - be they Muslims or non-Muslims - that the Qur'an have scientific relevancy in the modern age.

They would choose vague passages of the sky, mountains, oceans, animals, humans, and try to put modern spins and connect those passages with modern astronomy and cosmology, Earth science, oceanography, biology.

Ancient and medieval Muslim scientists don't have to resort to use Qur'an, because they were intelligent seekers of knowledge, pioneer of some fields, and they rediscovered some scientific treatises that were written by Greeks who lived the Near East during Hellenistic (3rd century to 1st century BCE) and Roman-Byzantine time (1st century BCE to 7th century BCE) or written by ancient Persians. The Golden Age of Islamic science (9th century to 14th century), they were ahead of their time, and influenced the Italian Renaissance to certain extent. But by the height of Renaissance, the Muslim science were surpassed by the Italian thinkers.

I think modern Muslims are jealous of the European advances and the modern science, in which Muslims have not made any major contribution in science for 5 centuries now.

So out of desperation, they have resorted to quoting certain passages in the Qur'an, and try to take credits for modern science, by tooting their horns, and saying the Qur'an knew all this before we did in the last 3 or 4 centuries.

The quran itself mentions as well as the prophet's prophecy that Muslims will be weak approaching the end of times and that Jews will be stronger and will conquer Jerusalem, so it was known before it happened or you may say that we use the recent condition to try to prove the quran as to be correct, no..no..i think we use the coincidences to prove that the quran is correct.

 

[gnostic]

The expanding heaven is different than the expanse,
The word expanse doesn't mean that the heaven is expanding.

You can't think of the sky as a ceiling and then describe it as "expanding",very simple logic that you don't and won't understand till the day you die.

The sky We have built firmly and We are extending it.(51:47)

Gee, there you go again, making excuses, trying to use word game, what is, and what isn't.

People in ancient time, used "heaven" = "sky". The word "expanding" has a root word - "expanse".

For you, to state that Muhammad and Muslims in his time as written in the 51:33, didn't believe in the same thing as other people (Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrews) did that the sky-heaven was the expanse, then you are really kidding yourself.

Like I said before, people didn't know about galaxies nebulae, or more distant stars that the naked eyes couldn't see, without the telescope. Nothing in 21:32-33 or 51:47, state the author knew better.

The author (of the Qur'an) not only know nothing about astronomy, but all the passages are sketchy in details. The author certainly doesn't demonstrate any real knowledge of astronomy.

 

[FearGod]

Gee, there you go again, making excuses, trying to use word game, what is, and what isn't.

People in ancient time, used "heaven" = "sky". The word "expanding" has a root word - "expanse".

For you, to state that Muhammad and Muslims in his time as written in the 51:33, didn't believe in the same thing as other people (Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrews) did that the sky-heaven was the expanse, then you are really kidding yourself.

Like I said before, people didn't know about galaxies nebulae, or more distant stars that the naked eyes couldn't see, without the telescope. Nothing in 21:32-33 or 51:47, state the author knew better.

The author (of the Qur'an) not only know nothing about astronomy, but all the passages are sketchy in details. The author certainly doesn't demonstrate any real knowledge of astronomy.

The expanse is a noun which means a large space of area, how that is the same as to say we are expanding the heaven,why you need to twist words to distort the actual meaning of the verse?