The movement of the earth in Qur'an

[FearGod]

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)

Show us one example from the quran that the word كُلُّ is used for speaking about 2 things, i showed you many verses to prove to you that it's used for plural (more than 2 things) and never for 2 things, the word for ((each of them)) in arabic is كُلا or كلاهما and if more than 2 then we should use the word كُلُّ

 

[Aquitaine]

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. "

As a side note, does anyone else think this verse appears to be suggesting geocentricity, rather than heliocentricity?

 

[Shad]

As a side note, does anyone else think this verse appears to be suggesting geocentricity, rather than heliocentricity?

Yes I believe it is the geocentric model. The fact the Muslim astronomy never developed a heliocentric model nor was such an idea found in Islamic traditions suggests that this interpretation was acceptable. To suggest otherwise is ad hoc rationalization.

 

[Shad]

Show us one example from the quran that the word كُلُّ is used for speaking about 2 things, i showed you many verses to prove to you that it's used for plural (more than 2 things) and never for 2 things, the word for ((each of them)) in arabic is كُلا or كلاهما and if more than 2 then we should use the word كُلُّ

No need as I am not saying it means both. I already told you the each reference is to night, day, sun and moon. Hence 4 parameters not 2.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran Issac and Jacob (2) followed by each.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran Parting of the sea. To part is to divide follow by the word each.

You can search the rest yourself. Each can mean as few as 2 people. "My brother and I each received a piece of cake" Both is plural for 2. Each modifies 2 people as individuals instead of a collective group. So to use the word "all" is to have all objects as a collective and treated as a collective. To use the word "each" is to allow individuality between members of the collective.

To say "all" objects run for a time is to collective say the objects run a shared path or time and end at a shared path or time. To use "each" allows the objects within a collective to become individuals which can have individual paths or time. The focus is on the individual objects not the collective result. The difference between the word used drastically changes the verses meaning. In the "all" context it is a collective end, the last day. To use the word each only the last day can be applied to Heaven, although I would argue this does not mean universe. The other objects can have different paths and different ends. So the Earth could be destroyed by the Sun in it's Red Giant phase or after but day and night can still happen outside of strict Earth local such as another planet which rotation. One could likewise replace Earth with the Moon having it "end" without the other objects sharing the same "end" point.

 

[FearGod]

No need as I am not saying it means both. I already told you the each reference is to night, day, sun and moon. Hence 4 parameters not 2.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran Issac and Jacob (2) followed by each.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran Parting of the sea. To part is to divide follow by the word each.

You can search the rest yourself. Each can mean as few as 2 people. "My brother and I each received a piece of cake" Both is plural for 2. Each modifies 2 people as individuals instead of a collective group.

Now you're saying it's 4 parameters (sun,moon,night and day) and hence it's more than 2, but you're absolutely wrong because in order to group them in 4 then all should have the same properties, for example if speaking about humans then we may say every human have intelligent but you can't group humans and apples then say all of them have intelligent.

 

[mojtaba]

As a side note, does anyone else think this verse appears to be suggesting geocentricity, rather than heliocentricity?

No. Because in geocentricity the earth is fixed and this verse says the earth is moving.
Also there is another verse that says heaven is expanding by power of God:
51‌:47 " Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander ".

 

[FearGod]

No need as I am not saying it means both. I already told you the each reference is to night, day, sun and moon. Hence 4 parameters not 2.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran Issac and Jacob (2) followed by each.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran Parting of the sea. To part is to divide follow by the word each.

You can search the rest yourself. Each can mean as few as 2 people. "My brother and I each received a piece of cake" Both is plural for 2. Each modifies 2 people as individuals instead of a collective group. So to use the word "all" is to have all objects as a collective and treated as a collective. To use the word "each" is to allow individuality between members of the collective.

To say "all" objects run for a time is to collective say the objects run a shared path or time and end at a shared path or time. To use "each" allows the objects within a collective to become individuals which can have individual paths or time. The focus is on the individual objects not the collective result. The difference between the word used drastically changes the verses meaning. In the "all" context it is a collective end, the last day. To use the word each only the last day can be applied to Heaven, although I would argue this does not mean universe. The other objects can have different paths and different ends. So the Earth could be destroyed by the Sun in it's Red Giant phase or after but day and night can still happen outside of strict Earth local such as another planet which rotation. One could likewise replace Earth with the Moon having it "end" without the other objects sharing the same "end" point.

Prove what you say by verses from the quran than just repeating what you had already said.

 

[Shad]

Now you're saying it's 4 parameters (sun,moon,night and day) and hence it's more than 2, but you're absolutely wrong because in order to group them in 4 then all should have the same properties, for example if speaking about humans then we may say every human have intelligent but you can't group humans and apples then say all of them have intelligent.

I stated 4 parameters in my posts. I said night and day followed by sun and moon. You merely isolated sun and moon from the rest of what I said...

Prove what you say by verses from the quran than just repeating what you had already said.

Look at the links it has verses of the quran. The fact is you never even looked at the links otherwise you would of never asked for verses. You would of known the verses are in the quran. The verse are in the links.... If that is not evidence than nothing will be since you ignore anything that proves you wrong.

Thanks for providing evidence of your dishonestly by not taking the time to look at anything others say to you.

 

[FearGod]

Yes I believe it is the geocentric model. The fact the Muslim astronomy never developed a heliocentric model nor was such an idea found in Islamic traditions suggests that this interpretation was acceptable. To suggest otherwise is ad hoc rationalization.

No it isn't, just in your imagination.

 

[Shad]

No. Because in geocentricity the earth is fixed and this verse says the earth is moving.
Also there is another verse that says heaven is expanding by power of God:
51‌:47 " Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander ".

Older translation do not use expander, only post 1930s after the expanding universe model was published. You equivocate Heaven with universe. Ad hoc rationalization

 

[Shad]

No it isn't, just in your imagination.

No history and tradition supports my views. Find me one example of the heliocentric model pre-Coperinicus from a Muslim astronomer or scholar. Merely changing the verse to support modern ideas is post hoc rationalization

 

[FearGod]

I stated 4 parameters in my posts. I said night and day followed by sun and moon. You merely isolated sun and moon from the rest of what I said...

Do you mean the night do run similar to the sun and hence each of them do run ? please explain your amazing ideas

Look at the links. If that is not prove enough than nothing will be since you ignore anything that proves you wrong.

We're discussing the quran, we showed you many examples from the quran which proved you wrong and i asked you for only one example to prove me wrong and i didn't ask you for links, prove your point with a real examples and evidences from the quran.

 

[FearGod]

Older translation do not use expander, only post 1930s after the expanding universe model was published. You equivocate Heaven with universe. Ad hoc rationalization

Heaven is the space and not the universe.

 

[Shad]

Heaven is the space and not the universe.

The same word is used for sky too. More so by saying Heaven is space but not the objects within space you have refuted your fellow Muslims comment. Earth is not separate from space.... It is within it.

 

[mojtaba]

Older translation do not use expander, only post 1930s after the expanding universe model was published. You equivocate Heaven with universe. Ad hoc rationalization

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

It is the link that you using it as an authoritative translation.

If you don't want to accept truth, I never can help you.

 

[Shad]

Do you mean the knight do run similar to the sun and hence each of them do run ? please explain your amazing ideas



We're discussing the quran, we showed you many examples from the quran which proved you wrong and i asked you for only one example to prove me wrong and i didn't ask you for links, prove your point with a real examples and evidences from the quran.

I provided two examples rather than 1. If you can not be bothered to click a link to the verses it is not my problem. You unwillingness to click something is not a counter-argument, in fact it is a sign of defeat and bias.

The sentence with night and day are parameters for the following sun and moon sentence. It is providing the grounds of day and night by pointing out the belief that the sun and moon were the source of this cycle rather than modern knowledge that it is the Earth's rotation.

 

[Shad]

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

It is the link that you using it as an authoritative translation.

If you don't want to accept truth, I never can help you.

Which is post 1930s. Surat Adh-Dhariyat [51:47] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

Look at the pre-1930s translation. Many do not use expander. Many do not use words which identify it as an on going process but rather "is able". Sahih International was made in 1989 which the expanding universe is common knowledge and in public education. Dr. Ghali's version likewise is post 1930. The rest are made before 1930 or the expanding theory become public knowledge. All these are authoritative as well. However when one source shows clearly ad hoc translations which are different than previous version it's authenticity becomes questionable.

I am able to cook a meal, this does not mean I am cooking a meal right now.

Accept what truth? That you come up with flawed arguments since you do not know about Islamic history, tradition along with Muslim astronomy? Like I said, provide one source pre-Copernicus from a Muslim astronomer or scholar putting forward the heliocentric model.

 

[FearGod]

No history and tradition supports my views. Find me one example of the heliocentric model pre-Coperinicus from a Muslim astronomer or scholar. Merely changing the verse to support modern ideas is post hoc rationalization

I said it before that the quran doesn't support the heliocentric or the geocentric model, every thing is running in the space including the sun.
But still some ancient Muslim scientists believed about the heliocentric model which was even wrong .
Cosmology in medieval Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shad]

I said it before that the quran doesn't support the heliocentric or the geocentric model, every thing is running in the space including the sun.
But still some ancient Muslim scientists believed about the heliocentric model which was even wrong .
Cosmology in medieval Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tradition shows it supported the geocentric model as the interpretation. Your link only has one source which is only believed to be heliocentric, not proven to be. Hence the word, "some" believe. The rest of the source are either neutral or against the heliocentric model.

Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0297
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 42
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 520

 

[FearGod]

I provided two examples rather than 1. If you can not be bothered to click a link to the verses it is not my problem. You unwillingness to click something is not a counter-argument, in fact it is a sign of defeat and bias.

Quote the verses which prove your view here, so we can discuss it.

The sentence with night and one are parameters for the following sun and moon sentence. It is providing the grounds of day and night by pointing out the belief that the sun and moon were the source of this cycle rather than modern knowledge that it is the Earth's rotation.

What are you saying ? day and night is just due to the earth rotation, so IOW no need for the sun and the moon's movement.