The movement of the earth in Qur'an

[mojtaba]

When part of the verse is in brackets this is translator commentary, it is the author's addition to the verse rather than part of the verse itself. Other translations do not include all but rather each right after the parameters Sun and Moon. Also Quran dictionaries have it as each not all. You are taking commentary as the whole verse which is not correct.

Your reply is not correct.

خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَ الْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ وَ سَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى
This is the verse.

In Arabic, كُلٌّ means All and is used when things are more than two things.(Google Translate)
But in Arabic, for tow things(e.g. Sun and Moon), کلاهما is used, not كُلٌّ.
کلاهما means both of. ( Google Translate )
So, in the verse, كُلٌّ refers to all things that are mentioned in the verse(i.e. heavens, Earth, Sun and Moon), not just Moon and Sun. Please note.

 

[Shad]

Your reply is not correct.

خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَ الْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ وَ سَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى
This is the verse.

In Arabic, كُلٌّ means All and is used when things are more than two things.(Google Translate)
But in Arabic, for tow things(e.g. Sun and Moon), کلاهما is used, not كُلٌّ.
کلاهما means both of. ( Google Translate )
So, in the verse, كُلٌّ refers to all things that are mentioned in the verse(i.e. heavens, Earth, Sun and Moon), not just Moon and Sun. Please note.

Lexicons disagree with you. I take those over Google translate any day of the week. Your own link shows my view as well. However I have authentic translations as evidence in support of my view, you do not. More so there is a break between Heaven and Earth with Sun and Moon due to anothe sentence between it. Sun and Moon is part of the night and day sentence thus "each" is refering to this nothing else. Each running it's course is part of the Sun and Moon sentence not the former Earth and Heaven. All of does not work with the former as Heaven does not orbit anything. The reference is clearly about the Sun and Moon nothing more.

And he (Allah) subjugated the sun and moon (objects), each (objects mention within the sentence) running it's course.More so the previous sentence provides context by talking about day and night which leads into the next sentence as a statement of what causes it. So again this is only a reference to the Sun and Moon which was thought to provide night and day as orbiting objects rather than the rotation of the Earth. This is further reinforced by providing a time restricts of the two objects courses as if the Sun's movement during this tie span creates day.
Thus is nothing more than geocentric ideas which were already present at the time while also being observable to anyone that looks at the sky a few times in their life time.

Go learn about basis sentence structuring, parameters and usage.

Surat Az-Zumar [39:5] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

 

[shawn001]

Thank you, union.

Isn't it amazing, what you can find on the Internet and what you can copy-and-paste?

But did you understand all that?

I am no astrophysist, but I do understand the theory to the big bang model, and the various stages of the evolution of the universe.

I am not arguing that Eric J Chaisson is wrong in his summary about the BB theory, but I also don't think you understand that 3 of the earliest epochs after the Big Bang - Planck's, hadron and lepton - are also still pretty much "theoretical".

Theoretical as in, it is still hypothetical, still abstract, and still a mathematical model. Nothing observable and nothing concrete. They think the theory of the earliest phases after the Big Bang, is logical and sound, they have not been able to verify if it is true. And verification of any scientific proposition, hypothesis or theory come from observation, testing and/or evidences.

I am not saying the BB theory is wrong or that the article you have quoted is wrong, Union.

What I am saying is that this part of the universe, cannot be verified...yet. They could be right, but they could be wrong.

They don't know yet about the Planck's epoch, or the Hadron epoch, or the Lepton epoch. They really don't know yet, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE 1st 10 SECONDS AFTER THE BIG BANG!

Until they can verify what happened in the 1st 10 seconds to be true, through verifiable observation or through evidences, you really shouldn't be viewing the 1st 3 epochs of the universe to be true.

You must understand that scientists only know for certain is what happened 10 second AFTER the Big Bang, not before this 10 seconds.The only thing accountable is what is verifiable.

After this 10 seconds is the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, when the first hydrogen nuclei and helium nuclei were first formed, with their respective numbers of protons and neutrons (there is actually no neutron inside the hydrogen nucleus, I hope that you understand this). This is the phase that they know what really happen.

And Chaisson wrote that it is possible that the universe is older than 13.8 billion years. That the universe could be old as 18 billion years.

The age - 13.8 billion years - is, what is currently science have been able to observe, hence the "observable universe". With our current technology, we can't observe beyond 13.8 billion years. At this stage we don't know.

And if the age is indeed 18 billion years old, then it would torpedo your claim of the universe-earth ratio being 3:1 like that of your quoted passages. A 18-billion-year universe would make the universe 3.84 to 1 ratio.

The information posted was from 1997 on that paper. We know now for sure the universe isn't 18 billion years old. Its 13.82

 

[shawn001]

This is more accurate


The Cosmic Timeline

Astrophysicists have deduced the age of the Universe
(dated from the Big Bang) to be
13.7 BILLION YEARS!

Cosmic Calendar

 

[shawn001]

You found nothing my friend . All are falling under these major six epochs , no contradiction , no new news , no old news
That is why the author of NASA commented :



"
.This history of the Universe is the prevailing view among most cosmologists. All theoreticians do not agree on specific events before about 1 sec. Depending on the intricacies of the model chosen, the density and temperature during the radiation era can change by several orders of magnitude. In virtually all models, however, the Universe is regarded to have been initially very hot and dense, after which it cooled and thinned..... "

Some of this came from Martin Rees a famous British cosmologist and astrophysicist in 1999 with a book called "Just six Number's"

7 trillion degree's F it seems

Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

 

[mojtaba]

Lexicons disagree with you. I take those over Google translate any day of the week. Your own link shows my view as well. However I have authentic translations as evidence in support of my view, you do not. More so there is a break between Heaven and Earth with Sun and Moon due to anothe sentence between it. Sun and Moon is part of the night and day sentence thus "each" is refering to this nothing else. Each running it's course is part of the Sun and Moon sentence not the former Earth and Heaven. All of does not work with the former as Heaven does not orbit anything. The reference is clearly about the Sun and Moon nothing more.

And he (Allah) subjugated the sun and moon (objects), each (objects mention within the sentence) running it's course.More so the previous sentence provides context by talking about day and night which leads into the next sentence as a statement of what causes it. So again this is only a reference to the Sun and Moon which was thought to provide night and day as orbiting objects rather than the rotation of the Earth. This is further reinforced by providing a time restricts of the two objects courses as if the Sun's movement during this tie span creates day.
Thus is nothing more than geocentric ideas which were already present at the time while also being observable to anyone that looks at the sky a few times in their life time.

Go learn about basis sentence structuring, parameters and usage.

Surat Az-Zumar [39:5] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

I used google translator because you are familiar with it. But I use reference books. Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran is a dictionary of Qur'anic terms by Islamic scholar Al-Raghibal-Isfahani. It is from this authentic book:
"كِلاَ في التّثنية ك‍ «كلّ» في الجمع" ( Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran, page 725)
" کلا " (both) in seconding form(a form of a word that is for two things) is similar in its root to " کل " (all) in plural form(which is more than two things).

کلا:
17:23 "إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا"
" If one or both of them(your parents) grow old in your presence, do not say fie to them, nor reprove them, but say gentle words to them "

کل:
40:62 "ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ فَأَنَّىٰ تُؤْفَكُونَ"
" Such is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of all things, there is no god but He: Then how you are deluded away from the Truth! "

So, in the verse 39:5, " کل یجری " means all of them(that are more than two things, i.e. heavens, Earth, Sun and Moon) are runing.

 

[FearGod]

Maybe I am not explaining the analogy to you clearly.

I am not trying to mislead you or anything. I just don't think you really comprehend the balloon analogy.

So here, FearGod, is a link to the "Centre of the Universe" and balloon analogy. Maybe you will understand when you read this webpage:

Where is the centre of the universe?​

No, it's well explained but the problem lies on thinking that space is only the surface of the balloon but it isn't.

The problem with the balloon analogy that it can't show you how other objects expand inside the balloon similar to the surface of the balloon and to do that we have to make a multi surfaces balloon, such as having one larger balloon and smaller ones in the larger one and inflating them all together, this view is even better explained by the raisin bread analogy in which you can see raisins at surface and inside and in all directions of the bread to explain how the space do expand.

 

[FearGod]

I used google translator because you are familiar with it. But I use reference books. Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran is a dictionary of Qur'anic terms by Islamic scholar Al-Raghibal-Isfahani. It is from this authentic book:
"كِلاَ في التّثنية ك‍ «كلّ» في الجمع" ( Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran, page 725)
" کلا " (both) in seconding form(a form of a word that is for two things) is similar in its root to " کل " (all) in plural form(which is more than two things).

کلا:
17:23 "إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا"
" If one or both of them(your parents) grow old in your presence, do not say fie to them, nor reprove them, but say gentle words to them "

کل:
40:62 "ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ فَأَنَّىٰ تُؤْفَكُونَ"
" Such is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of all things, there is no god but He: Then how you are deluded away from the Truth! "

So, in the verse 39:5, " کل یجری " means all of them(that are more than two things, i.e. heavens, Earth, Sun and Moon) are runing.

I wonder what their next bla..bla...bla will be.

 

[Shad]

I used google translator because you are familiar with it. But I use reference books. Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran is a dictionary of Qur'anic terms by Islamic scholar Al-Raghibal-Isfahani. It is from this authentic book:
"كِلاَ في التّثنية ك‍ «كلّ» في الجمع" ( Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran, page 725)
" کلا " (both) in seconding form(a form of a word that is for two things) is similar in its root to " کل " (all) in plural form(which is more than two things).

کلا:
17:23 "إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا"
" If one or both of them(your parents) grow old in your presence, do not say fie to them, nor reprove them, but say gentle words to them "

کل:
40:62 "ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ فَأَنَّىٰ تُؤْفَكُونَ"
" Such is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of all things, there is no god but He: Then how you are deluded away from the Truth! "

So, in the verse 39:5, " کل یجری " means all of them(that are more than two things, i.e. heavens, Earth, Sun and Moon) are runing.

Link me an English to Arabic lexicon not a source in Arabic only. I linked 6 translation in both Arabic and English along with a lexicon. Beside کل یجری according to your own Google translate says "Each being" So your one source contradicts your other source. Your examples are also irrelevant as the word carries different definitions in context. This is shown in dictionaries and lexicons. However words are context specific so in this case your examples have no merit as you remove the context in your argument.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

Again this shows the word has several definitions. Yet context provides which one is used.

40:62 The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

Google translation Google Translate

Look at all of the definitions not just the one you want.

Do you see the difference between the words? Why it is defined differently?

Link me something from Lane's lexicon or Lisan al Arab

You are still ignoring sentence structuring which clearly provides the context of Sun and Moon, not Heaven and Earth. It does so by providing day and night context followed by the normal geocentric model of these two objects causing this cycle.

 

[Shad]

I wonder what their next bla..bla...bla will be.

blah blah using lexicons and dictionaries instead of blah blah Google translate. You are using a layman's tool not an academic one. I prefer academic blah blah

 

[FearGod]

It needs a brain of a 10 years old child to understand the verse.

39:5 " He created the heavens and the earth with Truth, and He causes the night to flow into the day, and causes the day to flow into the night. He has subjugated the sun and the moon (for humans). All of them(heavens, the Earth, the sun and the moon) are running until an appointed time. Lo, He is the Most Mighty, the Most Forgiving. "

In Arabic similar to English we say both of them "كلا" or "كلاهما" when speaking about 2 things, but as the verse says "كل" then we're speaking about more than 2 things, in Arabic we don't say even "each of them" if speaking about 2 things (objects), we only use "كلا" or "كلاهما".

Bla..bla....bla....bla

 

[gnostic]

No, it's well explained but the problem lies on thinking that space is only the surface of the balloon but it isn't.

The problem with the balloon analogy that it can't show you how other objects expand inside the balloon similar to the surface of the balloon and to do that we have to make a multi surfaces balloon, such as having one larger balloon and smaller ones in the larger one and inflating them all together, this view is even better explained by the raisin bread analogy in which you can see raisins at surface and inside and in all directions of the bread to explain how the space do expand.

You do know what an analogy is, don't you?

An analogy is only a representation of what it is attempting to describe - the phenomena or some specific characteristics of that phenomena. It is comparison between the real thing and the representation that have some similarities.

Analogy is never meant to be exact. The balloon analogy is of course not 100% accurate. (Actually no analogy is 100% accurate; that's why it is analogy, a mere representation.)

The analogy have specific purpose and specific meaning, as do the balloon analogy.

The balloon analogy is only meant to be example of describing the expanding universe, and representation of what it mean by when they are referring to the "centre" of the universe. It is not an exact representation. If it was the exact representation then you wouldn't need the theory of the Big Bang.

So of course, the balloon analogy wouldn't describe everything about the Big Bang.

Instead of reading and knowing what the analogy mean, and what the analogy is supposed to represent, according to your previous replies to me, you have deliberately misrepresented the analogy, by changing what it mean or by what you wish it to mean.

You was the one who brought up the balloon analogy in the first place, not me. You were the who quiz me if I knew anything about the ballon analogy:

I assume you know the balloon analogy for explaining how the universe expanded, scientists think that the space existed before the inflation...

In short, I know what the analogy is saying, what it mean without changing its context.

But in the next part of your sentence, you have continued with this:

...similar to the space inside the balloon which existed before expanding, they called it the false vacuum and some scientists believe that we're still living in the false vacuum.

You are trying to focus the analogy away from what Arthur Eddington's analogy, to what you deem to be important, the air inside the balloon.

The air inside the balloon is never important part of the analogy, but you either don't understand the analogy or you know what it mean, but decided to change it.

The balloon analogy never really talk of the inside the balloon, or the air, which you have called it the "vacuum" or "false vacuum". Apart from the air inside causing the balloon to physically expand in size, the air is totally irrelevant.

The universe in its entirety is supposed to be represented by the balloon itself. All the stars and galaxies are represented by any dot or any object you have drawn on the balloon. The "space" is any parts of the balloon that haven't been marked by your pen; so that space on the balloon (unmarked).

The point of the analogy is too show that everything in the universe is expanding, but it has no "centre". There is no centre on the surface of the balloon because everything (space and matters) in the universe is expanding with the universe, by moving away from each other.

Try understanding the analogy, not change the analogy's context.

 

[Shad]

It needs a brain of a 10 years old child to understand the verse.

39:5 " He created the heavens and the earth with Truth, and He causes the night to flow into the day, and causes the day to flow into the night. He has subjugated the sun and the moon (for humans). All of them(heavens, the Earth, the sun and the moon) are running until an appointed time. Lo, He is the Most Mighty, the Most Forgiving. "

In Arabic similar to English we say both of them "كلا" or "كلاهما" when speaking about 2 things, but as the verse says "كل" then we're speaking about more than 2 things, in Arabic we don't say even "each of them" if speaking about 2 things (objects), we only use "كلا" or "كلاهما".

Bla..bla....bla....bla

All is plural so does not work in this context thus each is used as it is singular. For example, each of the players has 4 cards not all of the players have 4 cards. However when using such words the objects in the prior sentence are the identifiers in this case the Sun and the Moon. Both does not work nor am I saying it is both. Both is plural. I am saying each is the proper word to use as it is singular within a group. You do not understand the use of all, both or each thus construct a strawman argument. To say all run a time is to combine each into a sum total rather than as individuals. To use each the objects are broken into singular context. In your version all signifies all objects run until a point in time collectively. At X time all objects stop or end. The sentence is stating a collective outcome. To interpret this as the motion of objects in the context of all is about a collective not individual motion, the same shared path. Using each instead allow a group of objects to have individual paths, individual motion.

This is basic grammar...

 

[FearGod]

You do know what an analogy is, don't you?

An analogy is only a representation of what it is attempting to describe - the phenomena or some specific characteristics of that phenomena. It is comparison between the real thing and the representation that have some similarities.

Analogy is never meant to be exact. The balloon analogy is of course not 100% accurate. (Actually no analogy is 100% accurate; that's why it is analogy, a mere representation.)

The analogy have specific purpose and specific meaning, as do the balloon analogy.

The balloon analogy is only meant to be example of describing the expanding universe, and representation of what it mean by when they are referring to the "centre" of the universe. It is not an exact representation. If it was the exact representation then you wouldn't need the theory of the Big Bang.

So of course, the balloon analogy wouldn't describe everything about the Big Bang.

Instead of reading and knowing what the analogy mean, and what the analogy is supposed to represent, according to your previous replies to me, you have deliberately misrepresented the analogy, by changing what it mean or by what you wish it to mean.

You was the one who brought up the balloon analogy in the first place, not me. You were the who quiz me if I knew anything about the ballon analogy:



In short, I know what the analogy is saying, what it mean without changing its context.

But in the next part of your sentence, you have continued with this:



You are trying to focus the analogy away from what Arthur Eddington's analogy, to what you deem to be important, the air inside the balloon.

The air inside the balloon is never important part of the analogy, but you either don't understand the analogy or you know what it mean, but decided to change it.

The balloon analogy never really talk of the inside the balloon, or the air, which you have called it the "vacuum" or "false vacuum". Apart from the air inside causing the balloon to physically expand in size, the air is totally irrelevant.

The universe in its entirety is supposed to be represented by the balloon itself. All the stars and galaxies are represented by any dot or any object you have drawn on the balloon. The "space" is any parts of the balloon that haven't been marked by your pen; so that space on the balloon (unmarked).

The point of the analogy is too show that everything in the universe is expanding, but it has no "centre". There is no centre on the surface of the balloon because everything (space and matters) in the universe is expanding with the universe, by moving away from each other.

Try understanding the analogy, not change the analogy's context.

In the "balloon model" the flat sheet is replaced by a spherical balloon which is inflated from an initial size of zero (representing the big bang).
In the "raisin bread model" one imagines a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven. The loaf (space) expands as a whole.

All of these models have the conceptual problem of requiring an outside force acting on the "space" at all times to make it expand.
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The space expand within itself and that can't be the case with the balloon's rubber, IOW the rubber itself is a 2d and not a 3d, the raisins bread model explained it by showing the space itself expanding( the bread itself in this case), it only needs a common sense to understand it.

The question is, was there anything existed before the big bang, the answer should be that there was no space as space was created by the big bang, but where did the singularity started, in a vacuum or in nothingness, the false vacuum or the bubble isn't my invention or my theory.

So an inflationary phase before the Big Bang could explain how the Big Bang started with such extraordinary spatial flatness that it is still so close to being flat today, and hence i asked you to include the false vacuum (the bubble) which existed before the big bang.

Before the Big Bang?
False Vacuum Decay | VICE | United States

 

[FearGod]

All is plural so does not work in this context thus each is used as it is singular. For example, each of the players has 4 cards not all of the players have 4 cards. However when using such words the objects in the prior sentence are the identifiers in this case the Sun and the Moon. Both does not work nor am I saying it is both. Both is plural. I am saying each is the proper word to use as it is singular within a group. You do not understand the use of all, both or each thus construct a strawman argument. To say all run a time is to combine each into a sum total rather than as individuals. To use each the objects are broken into singular context. In your version all signifies all objects run until a point in time collectively. At X time all objects stop or end. The sentence is stating a collective outcome. To interpret this as the motion of objects in the context of all is about a collective not individual motion, the same shared path. Using each instead allow a group of objects to have individual paths, individual motion.

This is basic grammar...

The quran proves that you aren't telling the truth, all verses in the quran used the word "كُلُّ" to means all as plural and never singular as you claimed it to be


كُلُّ الطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّا لِّبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِالتَّوْرَاةِ فَاتْلُوهَا إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
ALL FOOD was lawful unto the children of Israel, save what Israel had made unlawful unto itself [by its sinning] before the Torah was bestowed from on high. Say: "Come forward, then, with the Torah and recite it, if what you say is true!"(3:93)

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ وَإِنَّمَا تُوَفَّوْنَ أُجُورَكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَمَن زُحْزِحَ عَنِ النَّارِ وَأُدْخِلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَقَدْ فَازَ وَمَا الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا إِلَّا مَتَاعُ الْغُرُورِ
Every soul will taste of death. And ye will be paid on the Day of Resurrection only that which ye have fairly earned. Whoso is removed from the Fire and is made to enter paradise, he indeed is triumphant. The life of this world is but comfort of illusion.

كُلُّ ذَٰلِكَ كَانَ سَيِّئُهُ عِندَ رَبِّكَ مَكْرُوهًا
All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord.(17:38)

كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ
All that is on earth will perish( 55:26)

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ
Every soul is a pledge for its own deeds;

قُلْ كُلٌّ يَعْمَلُ عَلَىٰ شَاكِلَتِهِ فَرَبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ هُوَ أَهْدَىٰ سَبِيلًا
Say: Every one acts according to his manner; but your Lord best knows who is best guided in the path.

قُلْ كُلٌّ مُّتَرَبِّصٌ فَتَرَبَّصُوا فَسَتَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ أَصْحَابُ الصِّرَاطِ السَّوِيِّ وَمَنِ اهْتَدَىٰ
Say: Every one (of us) is awaiting, therefore do await: So you will come to know who is the follower of the even path and who goes aright.

إِن كُلٌّ إِلَّا كَذَّبَ الرُّسُلَ فَحَقَّ عِقَابِ
All of them denied the Messengers so My repayment was realized.

Is that enough or you want more, as there are still many, your lies were exposed and as usual waiting for your bla..bla...bla

 

[Shad]

The quran proves that you aren't telling the truth, all verses in the quran used the word "كُلُّ" to means all as plural and never singular as you claimed it to be


كُلُّ الطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّا لِّبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِالتَّوْرَاةِ فَاتْلُوهَا إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
ALL FOOD was lawful unto the children of Israel, save what Israel had made unlawful unto itself [by its sinning] before the Torah was bestowed from on high. Say: "Come forward, then, with the Torah and recite it, if what you say is true!"(3:93)

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ وَإِنَّمَا تُوَفَّوْنَ أُجُورَكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَمَن زُحْزِحَ عَنِ النَّارِ وَأُدْخِلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَقَدْ فَازَ وَمَا الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا إِلَّا مَتَاعُ الْغُرُورِ
Every soul will taste of death. And ye will be paid on the Day of Resurrection only that which ye have fairly earned. Whoso is removed from the Fire and is made to enter paradise, he indeed is triumphant. The life of this world is but comfort of illusion.

كُلُّ ذَٰلِكَ كَانَ سَيِّئُهُ عِندَ رَبِّكَ مَكْرُوهًا
All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord.(17:38)

كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ
All that is on earth will perish( 55:26)

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ
Every soul is a pledge for its own deeds;

قُلْ كُلٌّ يَعْمَلُ عَلَىٰ شَاكِلَتِهِ فَرَبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ هُوَ أَهْدَىٰ سَبِيلًا
Say: Every one acts according to his manner; but your Lord best knows who is best guided in the path.

قُلْ كُلٌّ مُّتَرَبِّصٌ فَتَرَبَّصُوا فَسَتَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ أَصْحَابُ الصِّرَاطِ السَّوِيِّ وَمَنِ اهْتَدَىٰ
Say: Every one (of us) is awaiting, therefore do await: So you will come to know who is the follower of the even path and who goes aright.

إِن كُلٌّ إِلَّا كَذَّبَ الرُّسُلَ فَحَقَّ عِقَابِ
All of them denied the Messengers so My repayment was realized.

Is that enough or you want more, as there are still many, your lies were exposed and as usual waiting for your bla..bla...bla

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

Nope, this is enough. A Quran lexicon containing multiple definitions of the same word translated to English. If you take the time you will see the lexicon supports my views. Do a word search for each, 35 hits. Do a word search for every, over 100 hits. Do a search for all, 89 hits.

Unlike you the translators understand the difference between all, each, both, every, etc.

 

[Shad]

In the "balloon model" the flat sheet is replaced by a spherical balloon which is inflated from an initial size of zero (representing the big bang).
In the "raisin bread model" one imagines a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven. The loaf (space) expands as a whole.

All of these models have the conceptual problem of requiring an outside force acting on the "space" at all times to make it expand.
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The space expand within itself and that can't be the case with the balloon's rubber, IOW the rubber itself is a 2d and not a 3d, the raisins bread model explained it by showing the space itself expanding( the bread itself in this case), it only needs a common sense to understand it.

The question is, was there anything existed before the big bang, the answer should be that there was no space as space was created by the big bang, but where did the singularity started, in a vacuum or in nothingness, the false vacuum or the bubble isn't my invention or my theory.

So an inflationary phase before the Big Bang could explain how the Big Bang started with such extraordinary spatial flatness that it is still so close to being flat today, and hence i asked you to include the false vacuum (the bubble) which existed before the big bang.

Before the Big Bang?
False Vacuum Decay | VICE | United States

That force is called dark matter and dark energy. It says it in your wiki link, reading what you link helps... So no the only problem is you do not read what you link. The 2nd link is QM theory. The 3rd link is speculation based on a flawed idea. Guth has admitted this already as he could not prove his theory. Was Cosmic Inflation the 'Bang' of the Big Bang? - A. Guth

 

[FearGod]

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

Nope, this is enough. A Quran lexicon containing multiple definitions of the same word translated to English. If you take the time you will see the lexicon supports my views. Do a word search for each, 35 hits. Do a word search for every, over 100 hits. Do a search for all, 89 hits.

Unlike you the translators understand the difference between all, each, both, every, etc.

As usual just bla...bla...bla, you aren't able to bring any evidence from any verse from the quran that the word كُلًّا is used for singular whereas i brought to you multiple verses which clearly show that the word كُلُّ is used for plural, you have a misleading agenda.

The word كُلًّا is used when talking about 2 things, so if it was only for the sun and the moon then the right word should be كُلًّا and not كُلُّ, but the verse used the word كُلُّ which means that they're more than 2 .

Some verses which explain how the word كُلًّا is used when speaking about 2 things

فَلَمَّا اعْتَزَلَهُمْ وَمَا يَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا
And after he had withdrawn from them and from all that they were worshipping instead of God, We bestowed upon him Isaac and Jacob, and made each of them a prophet;(19:49)

فَأَكَلَا مِنْهَا فَبَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِن وَرَقِ الْجَنَّةِ وَعَصَىٰ آدَمُ رَبَّهُ فَغَوَىٰ
Then they both ate from it, so became apparent to them their shame and they began, (to) fasten on themselves from (the) leaves (of) Paradise. And Adam disobeyed his Lord, and erred.(20:121)

Is that enough to prove that you're wrong and misleading ?

 

[Shad]

As usual just bla...bla...bla, you aren't able to bring any evidence from any verse from the quran that the word كُلًّا is used for singular whereas i brought to you multiple verses which clearly show that the word كُلُّ is used for plural, you have a misleading agenda.

The word كُلًّا is used when talking about 2 things, so if it was only for the sun and the moon then the right word should be كُلًّا and not كُلُّ, but the verse used the word كُلُّ which means that they're more than 2 .

Some verses which explain how the word كُلًّا is used when speaking about 2 things

فَلَمَّا اعْتَزَلَهُمْ وَمَا يَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا
And after he had withdrawn from them and from all that they were worshipping instead of God, We bestowed upon him Isaac and Jacob, and made each of them a prophet;(19:49)

فَأَكَلَا مِنْهَا فَبَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِن وَرَقِ الْجَنَّةِ وَعَصَىٰ آدَمُ رَبَّهُ فَغَوَىٰ
Then they both ate from it, so became apparent to them their shame and they began, (to) fasten on themselves from (the) leaves (of) Paradise. And Adam disobeyed his Lord, and erred.(20:121)

Is that enough to prove that you're wrong and misleading ?

Hilarious. I link you a lexicon and you dismiss it. I brought you evidence, you dismissed it without reason. You are still missing the point. I am not talking about the word should mean both. I am taking about the difference between "all", "each" and "every" You do not understand this either willfully or by your ignorance of grammar. Again both is plural so such use has the same flaws as using "all". Hence why "each" is used.You miss the point because you do not understand grammar.

We "both" received a piece of cake. (Both people received 1 piece of cake as a collective, a shared piece of cake)
We "each" received a piece of cake (Each individual has a piece of cake, individual pieces of cake)

 

[FearGod]

That force is called dark matter and dark energy. It says it in your wiki link, reading what you link helps... So no the only problem is you do not read what you link. The 2nd link is QM theory. The 3rd link is speculation based on a flawed idea. Guth has admitted this already as he could not prove his theory. Was Cosmic Inflation the 'Bang' of the Big Bang? - A. Guth

What the dark matter and energy beside QM and the flawed idea of Guth has to do with our discussion about the balloon model and what your comment about the false vacuum or the bubble regardless of any link, with your own words.