To Fatihah: Ambiguity in the Qur'an or not

[gnostic]

In order for to be the Qur'an to be free from errors, each verse must be clear and concise, and free from ambiguity. Otherwise, a verse invites interpretations from the readers.

The following quotes relates to another thread Qur'an is free of errors.

If the Qur'an is perfect and free from errors, then why is people can interpret the texts in any way they like?

The only ambiguity the qur'an has are in a few verses but they can be cleared up when reading and studying all the qur'anic verses within its context.

Those who have different interpretations are either not gifted in the knowledge of islam or they are purposely seeking discourse to follow their own agenda.

And Eselam wrote:

it isn't there for people such as you and me to discuss that from our own mind, but we need to use examples about it. thats why you and zhakir cannot come to a conclussion, both of you need to actually read the interpretation of that verse from a scholar who ctually has studied all similar verses and has given his oppinion on it.

If you required another person who has greater knowledge of the Qur'an, and in this case, that would mean a Islamic scholar, to explain to you the verse, then clearly it is not written clear enough. And if the verse may have more than one meaning, then ambiguity is found in the passage.

This is ambiguity is compounded because the Qur'an were written in verse.

From what I have been told (since I can only read the English translation), the written verse of the Qur'an when read in the original Arabic, in rhymed form.

Verse is a form of poetic vehicle in literature. And the nature of poetry is that it invite ambiguity through symbolism and metaphors to convey more than one meanings. So the verse can be cryptic, with hidden meaning or meanings.

I would like you, fatihah, to examine one example, and let me how you interpret this verse. To make easier for us to discuss it, I have given you different translations, for both comparison purpose, and hopefully we can find the context of that verse.

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

He it is who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each floating in a sky.

And He it is who hath created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each moving swiftly in its sphere.

You can by all mean, compare it with your Arabic copy, and let me know which of these translation best meets with the context of original Arabic text. And from there we can discuss if there is ambiguity in the text, and does it require interpretation.

 

[Fatihah]

In order for to be the Qur'an to be free from errors, each verse must be clear and concise, and free from ambiguity. Otherwise, a verse invites interpretations from the readers.

The following quotes relates to another thread Qur'an is free of errors.







And Eselam wrote:



If you required another person who has greater knowledge of the Qur'an, and in this case, that would mean a Islamic scholar, to explain to you the verse, then clearly it is not written clear enough. And if the verse may have more than one meaning, then ambiguity is found in the passage.

This is ambiguity is compounded because the Qur'an were written in verse.

From what I have been told (since I can only read the English translation), the written verse of the Qur'an when read in the original Arabic, in rhymed form.

Verse is a form of poetic vehicle in literature. And the nature of poetry is that it invite ambiguity through symbolism and metaphors to convey more than one meanings. So the verse can be cryptic, with hidden meaning or meanings.

I would like you, fatihah, to examine one example, and let me how you interpret this verse. To make easier for us to discuss it, I have given you different translations, for both comparison purpose, and hopefully we can find the context of that verse.






You can by all mean, compare it with your Arabic copy, and let me know which of these translation best meets with the context of original Arabic text. And from there we can discuss if there is ambiguity in the text, and does it require interpretation.

Response: I accept your request as to my understanding of the verse(s) and I sincerely hope that we both approach it with an open-mind and not to prove who is right and who is wrong.

As for my understanding, the verse(s) seems to be self-explanatory.It speaks of the sun and the moon and mentions that they both have an orbit. I don't think I can be any clearer but feel free to ask for better clarification if this is not clear to you.

 

[gnostic]

And which translation do you think best convey the meaning and context of that verse? Which verse come closer to the Arabic text?

I will write more tomorrow, because it's late. So goodnite. :snoopy:

 

[Fatihah]

And which translation do you think best convey the meaning and context of that verse? Which verse come closer to the Arabic text?

I will write more tomorrow, because it's late. So goodnite. :snoopy:

Response: It doesn't really matter. However, we can go with Pickthall or Ali's. I do own an Ali translation. (Goodnight).

 

[gnostic]

As for my understanding, the verse(s) seems to be self-explanatory.It speaks of the sun and the moon and mentions that they both have an orbit. I don't think I can be any clearer but feel free to ask for better clarification if this is not clear to you.

I think it is self-explanatory.

However, Zhakir and I had different interpretations of the verse, which I used in Qur'an is free of errors thread. Because of the absence of the certain word to identify, it is possible for one of us to misunderstand the verse, hence the ambiguity.

I had used the Pickthall translation in that thread, when Zhakir and I had our disagreement.

Even though "Earth" is never explicitly mentioned, I believed that explicit reference the "sun" and "moon", "day and night" to all translation, and one explicit mention of each "orbit" in one of the translations (Pickthall), all of this referred to its relationship to the Earth.

In our sky we can see the sun and moon. And we experience day and night. If our earth didn't spin in its axis, then one side will experience permanent day and the other side permanent night.

The trouble Zhakir and I had, was the interpretation of the word "orbit".

I believed that the Qur'an referred to the orbits as being the sun's and moon's orbits around the "Earth". I don't know if you believe the same.

They float, each in an orbit.

"...each in an orbit." Clearly referred to the sun's orbit and moon's orbit.

When I pointed out that Qur'an has an error, with this last part of the verse, because the sun don't orbit around the earth, Zhakir tried to point out it is not the sun's around the earth, but the sun's orbit around the "galaxy".

I believed that the Qur'an is in error, because the earth actually orbit around the sun. But on the ground, from our view, the sun seemed to be orbiting around the earth, because it travel the same path as the moon (as well as 5 known planets at that time). This part is called either "zodiac equator" or "celestial equator".

If Allah was the real author, and a real god, then he would know that the sun don't orbit around the earth, so the verse is clearly wrong. It was common knowledge among the past civilisations to believe that the earth is stationary, while the sun moved through the sky (like the moon and planets), and this was called "geocentric system". Another name for this geometric system, is the Ptolemaic System, named after one of the most famous astronomer in ancient time, Claudius Ptolemy.

Clearly, Muhammad (and Allah) believed in this geocentric system of planetary movements, because Ptolemaic System was very influential.

Only a few ancient scientists believe that the sun is centre of the system, while the earth orbiting around the sun, known as the "heliocentric system". The ancient Hindu scientists were one of the first to believe in the heliocentric system, and I could name a couple of ancient Greek scientists in 5th century BCE, who supported this heliocentric system over the geocentric system. It was not until Copernicus who had seriously challenged the geocentric system, and Galileo proved it.

Anyway, Zhakir say that it referred to the sun's orbit around a galaxy and not around the earth, even though there are absolutely no explicit or implied reference of the verse to a galaxy. Not even a group of stars were ever mention.

They float each in an orbit. this is what the Quran says,and this is right.
The moon orbits earth.
and the sun orbits the The galaxy's center.
Period of the Sun's Orbit around the Galaxy (Cosmic Year)
Quran didn't say the the sun orbits the earth,it's pointing to the fact that Sun and moon have different orbits.and This right.

I know that the sun circle around the galaxy, but the verse has nothing to do with the galaxy.

• Do the day and night have anything to do with the galaxy?
• And do the sun and moon have to do with the galaxy in the Qur'an?

What Zhakir has done, is to completely taken the verse out of context with his assertion that the verse means galaxy. However, the other translation proved my point in the Palmer's translation:

He it is who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each floating in a sky.

A galaxy doesn't have a "sky", so the last part has to do with earth's "sky", so the Qur'an has to mean the sun's orbit around the Earth. This translation seriously weaken Zkakir's position or view.

To me, I think zhakir tried to divert attention away that the Qur'an has an error, because that would undermine Zhakir's own thread that the Qur'an has no errors.

I just don't think most Muslims would question the Qur'an being wrong or having errors, simply because they don't like people to think their religion is not perfect.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

I think it is self-explanatory.

However, Zhakir and I had different interpretations of the verse, which I used in Qur'an is free of errors thread. Because of the absence of the certain word to identify, it is possible for one of us to misunderstand the verse, hence the ambiguity.

I had used the Pickthall translation in that thread, when Zhakir and I had our disagreement.

Even though "Earth" is never explicitly mentioned, I believed that explicit reference the "sun" and "moon", "day and night" to all translation, and one explicit mention of each "orbit" in one of the translations (Pickthall), all of this referred to its relationship to the Earth.

In our sky we can see the sun and moon. And we experience day and night. If our earth didn't spin in its axis, then one side will experience permanent day and the other side permanent night.

The trouble Zhakir and I had, was the interpretation of the word "orbit".

I believed that the Qur'an referred to the orbits as being the sun's and moon's orbits around the "Earth". I don't know if you believe the same.



"...each in an orbit." Clearly referred to the sun's orbit and moon's orbit.

When I pointed out that Qur'an has an error, with this last part of the verse, because the sun don't orbit around the earth, Zhakir tried to point out it is not the sun's around the earth, but the sun's orbit around the "galaxy".

I believed that the Qur'an is in error, because the earth actually orbit around the sun. But on the ground, from our view, the sun seemed to be orbiting around the earth, because it travel the same path as the moon (as well as 5 known planets at that time). This part is called either "zodiac equator" or "celestial equator".

If Allah was the real author, and a real god, then he would know that the sun don't orbit around the earth, so the verse is clearly wrong. It was common knowledge among the past civilisations to believe that the earth is stationary, while the sun moved through the sky (like the moon and planets), and this was called "geocentric system". Another name for this geometric system, is the Ptolemaic System, named after one of the most famous astronomer in ancient time, Claudius Ptolemy.

Clearly, Muhammad (and Allah) believed in this geocentric system of planetary movements, because Ptolemaic System was very influential.

Only a few ancient scientists believe that the sun is centre of the system, while the earth orbiting around the sun, known as the "heliocentric system". The ancient Hindu scientists were one of the first to believe in the heliocentric system, and I could name a couple of ancient Greek scientists in 5th century BCE, who supported this heliocentric system over the geocentric system. It was not until Copernicus who had seriously challenged the geocentric system, and Galileo proved it.

Anyway, Zhakir say that it referred to the sun's orbit around a galaxy and not around the earth, even though there are absolutely no explicit or implied reference of the verse to a galaxy. Not even a group of stars were ever mention.



I know that the sun circle around the galaxy, but the verse has nothing to do with the galaxy.

• Do the day and night have anything to do with the galaxy?
• And do the sun and moon have to do with the galaxy in the Qur'an?

What Zhakir has done, is to completely taken the verse out of context with his assertion that the verse means galaxy. However, the other translation proved my point in the Palmer's translation:



A galaxy doesn't have a "sky", so the last part has to do with earth's "sky", so the Qur'an has to mean the sun's orbit around the Earth. This translation seriously weaken Zkakir's position or view.

To me, I think zhakir tried to divert attention away that the Qur'an has an error, because that would undermine Zhakir's own thread that the Qur'an has no errors.

I just don't think most Muslims would question the Qur'an being wrong or having errors, simply because they don't like people to think their religion is not perfect.

I dont see where there should be any confusion in understanding the verse. Besides it is not an error in the Quran but only in ones understanding of the verse. When put into context it is clear.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]21:30 (Y. Ali) Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial]21:31 (Y. Ali) And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial]21:32 (Y. 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)!

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial]21:33 (Y. Ali) It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. [/FONT]

 

[themadhair]

When put into context it is clear.

To me it seems clear that the above account was a creation story which reflected the 7th century thinking that was common at the time. Since then many great discoverers of knowledge have shown that this primitive creation story is in error.

Am I interpreting it wrong?

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

To me it seems clear that the above account was a creation story which reflected the 7th century thinking that was common at the time. Since then many great discoverers of knowledge have shown that this primitive creation story is in error.

Am I interpreting it wrong?

Well then please tell what these MANY great discoveries are which dispute what the above verse says?

 

[themadhair]

Well then please tell what these MANY great discoveries are which dispute what the above verse says?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ience-proves-authenticity-glorious-quran.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/79650-islam-tanakh-bible.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...80094-why-quran-has-no-scientific-values.html

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ience-proves-authenticity-glorious-quran.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/79650-islam-tanakh-bible.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...80094-why-quran-has-no-scientific-values.html

I don't understand what these links are supposed to be showing me. What are the discoveries that disprove or are different than what verse 21:33 says?

 

[themadhair]

I don't understand what these links are supposed to be showing me. What are the discoveries that disprove or are different than what verse 21:33 says?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ce-proves-authenticity-glorious-quran-21.html
^ That is the starting point for the discussion where attempts are made to spoon-feed knowledge into some of your Muslim comrades in an attempt to explain to them why "[FONT=Verdana,Arial]And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them[/FONT]" is wrong. Feel free to reply in that thread.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ce-proves-authenticity-glorious-quran-21.html
^ That is the starting point for the discussion where attempts are made to spoon-feed knowledge into some of your Muslim comrades in an attempt to explain to them why "[FONT=Verdana,Arial]And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them[/FONT]" is wrong. Feel free to reply in that thread.

I have no problem discussing that but this particular thread was not about that verse it pertained to verse 21:33 so do you find any error in that?

 

[themadhair]

I have no problem discussing that but this particular thread was not about that verse it pertained to verse 21:33 so do you find any error in that?

To quote myself:

To me it seems clear that the above account was a creation story which reflected the 7th century thinking that was common at the time. Since then many great discoverers of knowledge have shown that this primitive creation story is in error.

Am I interpreting it wrong?

The knowledge we have of how the solar system formed disagrees strongly with this account which was part of a larger primitive creation story.
The heliocentric model disagrees with this verse since it is clear form the context that this verse was referring to a geocentric model.

Do you want me to continue?

 

[gnostic]

I dont see where there should be any confusion in understanding the verse. Besides it is not an error in the Quran but only in ones understanding of the verse. When put into context it is clear.

I clearly believe that Muslims do a nice job of misunderstanding the quotes they give us.

When you read the verse you have just quoted to me:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]21:30 (Y. Ali) Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? [/FONT]

What do you think this mean?

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Do you think this refer to the Big Bang?[/FONT]

If you, then it quite clear to me that you have taken this verse completely out of context. And clearly you have no understanding of the Big Bang, let alone your own Qur'an.

As I stated in 1st reply (post #5), verse 21:33, the Qur'an (whether the true authorship be muhammad or allah) got the real science of the Solar System wrong. The sun don't revolve in an orbit around the earth (which is the geocentric system), which the Qur'an is claiming in this verse. That's the context of the Qur'an, and hence there's an error.

The earth actually circle around the sun in an elliptic orbit, hence it is the sun that is the centre of our Solar System.

 

[Fatihah]

I think it is self-explanatory.

However, Zhakir and I had different interpretations of the verse, which I used in Qur'an is free of errors thread. Because of the absence of the certain word to identify, it is possible for one of us to misunderstand the verse, hence the ambiguity.

I had used the Pickthall translation in that thread, when Zhakir and I had our disagreement.

Even though "Earth" is never explicitly mentioned, I believed that explicit reference the "sun" and "moon", "day and night" to all translation, and one explicit mention of each "orbit" in one of the translations (Pickthall), all of this referred to its relationship to the Earth.

In our sky we can see the sun and moon. And we experience day and night. If our earth didn't spin in its axis, then one side will experience permanent day and the other side permanent night.

The trouble Zhakir and I had, was the interpretation of the word "orbit".

I believed that the Qur'an referred to the orbits as being the sun's and moon's orbits around the "Earth". I don't know if you believe the same.



"...each in an orbit." Clearly referred to the sun's orbit and moon's orbit.

When I pointed out that Qur'an has an error, with this last part of the verse, because the sun don't orbit around the earth, Zhakir tried to point out it is not the sun's around the earth, but the sun's orbit around the "galaxy".

I believed that the Qur'an is in error, because the earth actually orbit around the sun. But on the ground, from our view, the sun seemed to be orbiting around the earth, because it travel the same path as the moon (as well as 5 known planets at that time). This part is called either "zodiac equator" or "celestial equator".

If Allah was the real author, and a real god, then he would know that the sun don't orbit around the earth, so the verse is clearly wrong. It was common knowledge among the past civilisations to believe that the earth is stationary, while the sun moved through the sky (like the moon and planets), and this was called "geocentric system". Another name for this geometric system, is the Ptolemaic System, named after one of the most famous astronomer in ancient time, Claudius Ptolemy.

Clearly, Muhammad (and Allah) believed in this geocentric system of planetary movements, because Ptolemaic System was very influential.

Only a few ancient scientists believe that the sun is centre of the system, while the earth orbiting around the sun, known as the "heliocentric system". The ancient Hindu scientists were one of the first to believe in the heliocentric system, and I could name a couple of ancient Greek scientists in 5th century BCE, who supported this heliocentric system over the geocentric system. It was not until Copernicus who had seriously challenged the geocentric system, and Galileo proved it.

Anyway, Zhakir say that it referred to the sun's orbit around a galaxy and not around the earth, even though there are absolutely no explicit or implied reference of the verse to a galaxy. Not even a group of stars were ever mention.



I know that the sun circle around the galaxy, but the verse has nothing to do with the galaxy.

• Do the day and night have anything to do with the galaxy?
• And do the sun and moon have to do with the galaxy in the Qur'an?

What Zhakir has done, is to completely taken the verse out of context with his assertion that the verse means galaxy. However, the other translation proved my point in the Palmer's translation:



A galaxy doesn't have a "sky", so the last part has to do with earth's "sky", so the Qur'an has to mean the sun's orbit around the Earth. This translation seriously weaken Zkakir's position or view.

To me, I think zhakir tried to divert attention away that the Qur'an has an error, because that would undermine Zhakir's own thread that the Qur'an has no errors.

I just don't think most Muslims would question the Qur'an being wrong or having errors, simply because they don't like people to think their religion is not perfect.

Response: The verse is simply mentioning that both the sun and the moon are not stationary. As you pointed out, there movement is referred to differently in many translations. Some say orbit, some say swimming, some say floating. Whatever the the case, it is simply saying that both the sun and the moon have their own movement, which is true according to science. So there is no error.

 

[gnostic]

But the scientific evidence is that the sun don't actually revolve around the earth.

The only reason why it would seem like that, for someone standing outside and looking at the movement of the sun, is because the earth itself spins on its axis, which give us night and day. The sun moving in our sky is only an illusion, brought about the rotation of the earth.

It is true about the moon, but not about our sun. Hence the error in the Qur'an.

Do you ever wonder why the sun and moon seemed so big when it set or rise?

The size of sun or moon don't really change. Because of our horizons, the atmosphere acts like a magnifying glass, making the sun or moon seemed bigger, but this is just an illusion.

Your god or prophet don't seem to understand astronomy any better than anyone else in the 7th century, and hence it believed in the geocentric planetary system.

And speaking of planetary system, why doesn't the Qur'an or any Muslim astronomer know of other planets (eg. Uranus and Neptune) outside of the known ones?

It would seem that the Qur'an think of the moon and sun as planets, when one is actually a satellite and the other is our star?

Because the Qur'an has no better understanding of our Solar System than anyone else.

 

[Fatihah]

I think it is self-explanatory.

However, Zhakir and I had different interpretations of the verse, which I used in Qur'an is free of errors thread. Because of the absence of the certain word to identify, it is possible for one of us to misunderstand the verse, hence the ambiguity.

I had used the Pickthall translation in that thread, when Zhakir and I had our disagreement.

Even though "Earth" is never explicitly mentioned, I believed that explicit reference the "sun" and "moon", "day and night" to all translation, and one explicit mention of each "orbit" in one of the translations (Pickthall), all of this referred to its relationship to the Earth.

In our sky we can see the sun and moon. And we experience day and night. If our earth didn't spin in its axis, then one side will experience permanent day and the other side permanent night.

The trouble Zhakir and I had, was the interpretation of the word "orbit".

I believed that the Qur'an referred to the orbits as being the sun's and moon's orbits around the "Earth". I don't know if you believe the same.



"...each in an orbit." Clearly referred to the sun's orbit and moon's orbit.

When I pointed out that Qur'an has an error, with this last part of the verse, because the sun don't orbit around the earth, Zhakir tried to point out it is not the sun's around the earth, but the sun's orbit around the "galaxy".

I believed that the Qur'an is in error, because the earth actually orbit around the sun. But on the ground, from our view, the sun seemed to be orbiting around the earth, because it travel the same path as the moon (as well as 5 known planets at that time). This part is called either "zodiac equator" or "celestial equator".

If Allah was the real author, and a real god, then he would know that the sun don't orbit around the earth, so the verse is clearly wrong. It was common knowledge among the past civilisations to believe that the earth is stationary, while the sun moved through the sky (like the moon and planets), and this was called "geocentric system". Another name for this geometric system, is the Ptolemaic System, named after one of the most famous astronomer in ancient time, Claudius Ptolemy.

Clearly, Muhammad (and Allah) believed in this geocentric system of planetary movements, because Ptolemaic System was very influential.

Only a few ancient scientists believe that the sun is centre of the system, while the earth orbiting around the sun, known as the "heliocentric system". The ancient Hindu scientists were one of the first to believe in the heliocentric system, and I could name a couple of ancient Greek scientists in 5th century BCE, who supported this heliocentric system over the geocentric system. It was not until Copernicus who had seriously challenged the geocentric system, and Galileo proved it.

Anyway, Zhakir say that it referred to the sun's orbit around a galaxy and not around the earth, even though there are absolutely no explicit or implied reference of the verse to a galaxy. Not even a group of stars were ever mention.



I know that the sun circle around the galaxy, but the verse has nothing to do with the galaxy.

• Do the day and night have anything to do with the galaxy?
• And do the sun and moon have to do with the galaxy in the Qur'an?

What Zhakir has done, is to completely taken the verse out of context with his assertion that the verse means galaxy. However, the other translation proved my point in the Palmer's translation:



A galaxy doesn't have a "sky", so the last part has to do with earth's "sky", so the Qur'an has to mean the sun's orbit around the Earth. This translation seriously weaken Zkakir's position or view.

To me, I think zhakir tried to divert attention away that the Qur'an has an error, because that would undermine Zhakir's own thread that the Qur'an has no errors.

I just don't think most Muslims would question the Qur'an being wrong or having errors, simply because they don't like people to think their religion is not perfect.

Response: The verse is simply saying that the sun and the moon are not stationary and have their own patterned movement. There are different translations that refer to this movement. One may say orbit while the other will say floating or swimming. Either way, the sun and the moon both have a particular movement which science of today confirms. So there is no error.

 

[Fatihah]

But the scientific evidence is that the sun don't actually revolve around the earth.

Response: True. But the qur'an never says that it does and none of the translations in which you've provided say so either. Yes the sun and the moon have their own cycle of movement but no where in the qur'an does it say that this movement of the sun actually means to revolve around the earh. So there is no error.

 

[gnostic]

Response: The verse is simply saying that the sun and the moon are not stationary and have their own patterned movement. There are different translations that refer to this movement. One may say orbit while the other will say floating or swimming. Either way, the sun and the moon both have a particular movement which science of today confirms.

The sun's movement in no way effect the solar system. The sun may circle around on its around the centre of the milky way, but because the all planets our Solar System move with the the sun, the sun is therefore not moving for our perspective on the solar system as a whole.

The Qur'an make it quite clear that the sun move across our sky, hence on its oribit.

The science actually prove that the Qur'an is wrong.

And beside, the whole "swimming" and "floating" in our sky are also wrong.

...all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

What do you think "rounded course" mean?

For me, it sounds like both sun and moon move about the sky, and you would think it is moving in orbits around the earth.

This is certainly not scientifically accurate.

They float, each in an orbit.

Each in its "orbit". But which orbit? Since it talk of day and night, and sun and moon, it certainly regarding to their relations with the earth. There are no other day and night that the verse could relate to. So the sun's orbit, like that of the moon's orbit is around the

By saying that the sun move, and ignoring the all parts of the verse, is ignoring the context of the Qur'an.

...each floating in a sky.

Clearly the text is referring to our sky.

As I said earlier, in the other post, the sun is not moving at all; it is the earth that spin and wobble on its axis: that what give us day and night. It has nothing to do with the sun moving. The sun's movement across our sky is only illusion, because in reality it is not moving.

So scientifically, the Qur'an is wrong.

...each moving swiftly in its sphere.

And here you would have to what "sphere"?

In all cases, each translation showed that the Qur'an does not know what its talking about - scientifically.

 

[themadhair]

The sun's movement across our sky is only illusion, because in reality it is not moving.

InB4GalacticArc