To Fatihah: Ambiguity in the Qur'an or not

[gnostic]

InB4GalacticArc

Huh?

Can you translate that into English, please?

Since you have quoted me.

It's not the sun's movement that giving us our day and night. And it is not the sun's movement that give us our seasons and our year. All of the movement, between the earth and sun, is the earth's rotation on its axis, and the earth's orbit around the sun.

I can't make it simpler or clearer than that. The sun only looks like it is moving across our sky, but in reality it's not the sun moving at all.

That's what the Qur'an is making a mistake with.

Read this:

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.

Fatihah is only half right. And that's the moon's cycle.

The sun has no cycle. It is the earth's cycle, not the sun's.

Our seasons have to do with the earth's "tilt", and with our (earth's) position in the "elliptical orbit" around the sun. It is both our "tilt" and position in the elliptical orbit that affects our seasons (cycle) and when we have our solstices and equinoxes.

So for all intent and purpose, the sun is not moving. All the movements have to do with our Earth.

Our day and night, and our seasons are not affected by the galaxy (ie. Milky Way).

 

[themadhair]

Can you translate that into English, please?

The phrase 'InB4' is used when a certain response is inevitable. In this case it is almost guaranteed that a Muslim will bring up the claim that the koran was aware of the sun orbiting the milky way.

 

[gnostic]

The phrase 'InB4' is used when a certain response is inevitable. In this case it is almost guaranteed that a Muslim will bring up the claim that the koran was aware of the sun orbiting the milky way.

But the galaxy has nothing to do with the moon, or night and day, which are both mention with the sun.

Anyway, I'd call their such claim as B.S. because it has nothing to do with the verse.

Muslims like to twist words to shield it from the Qur'an having errors. If they want to prove that the Qur'an have scientific values, then it would explain what its mean, instead of quoting snippets and twisting the words and context to suit their propaganda.

 

[themadhair]

Anyway, I'd call their such claim as B.S. because it has nothing to do with the verse.

I know that and I fully agree. But come on now - do you really expect this argument not to be brought up?

 

[Fatihah]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Response: This post is confusing. Are you saying that the sun does not move?

 

[themadhair]

I warned you this was coming gnostic....

 

[gnostic]

Response: This post is confusing. Are you saying that the sun does not move?

From the galactic perspective (ie the Milky Way), the sun is moving. But the Qur'an is not talking in term of galaxy isn't it?

Do you see the verse 21:33 speaking of any group of stars, let alone the Milky Way galaxy?

If you would stop twisting the words in that verse for a moment, you will see that it write of sun and moon, day and night, and orbits and the sky (hence the earth's sky).

No where does your Qur'an speaks of galaxy or group of stars.

Are you so blind that you don't see it that it never speak of galaxy?

Keep the verse in perspective and stop twisting words.

You (Muslims in general) blamed Christians for corrupting the bible, and yet you are doing the same thing with Qur'an, with your wildly exaggerated interpretations and claims. If the Christians had corrupted their scriptures, then you (Muslims) are no better.

And the whole solar system (planets, asteroid belt) move with the sun in solar system's orbit around the Milky Way.

1. This galactic movement of the solar system does not cause the earth's day and night.
2. The galactic movement of the solar system does not cause the earth circles around the sun in an elliptic orbit.

Is that not clear enough to you?

And because the whole solar system move with the sun in the galactic movement, the sun don't appear to move within our solar system.

At the same time, the solar system, particularly the planets and asteroid belt have orbits around the sun, but this does not have any affect on the galaxy, as the galaxy have no involvement with our day and night. We are more affected by our sun's gravity, not the galaxy's gravity.

That's what I talking about. Do you understand now?

And to bring this post back to my original, the verse 21:33 seemed more focus on the geocentric system - the earth is stationary, while the sun and moon (and planets) are moving in our day and night sky - hence the Qur'an has an error.

Why else would it speak of day and night, and the sun's orbit?

Are Muslims such blind fools that they can't read what there?

 

[Fatihah]

From the galactic perspective (ie the Milky Way), the sun is moving. But the Qur'an is not talking in term of galaxy isn't it?

Do you see the verse 21:33 speaking of any group of stars, let alone the Milky Way galaxy?

If you would stop twisting the words in that verse for a moment, you will see that it write of sun and moon, day and night, and orbits and the sky (hence the earth's sky).

No where does your Qur'an speaks of galaxy or group of stars.

Are you so blind that you don't see it that it never speak of galaxy?

Keep the verse in perspective and stop twisting words.

Response: What are you talking about? When have I ever said that that the verse says "galaxy" or "Milky Way"? Quote the text if you are truthful. All I asked was a simple yes or no question which is "does the sun move"? Yes or no?

 

[gnostic]

All I asked was a simple yes or no question which is "does the sun move"? Yes or no?

If you are not making sense of my post, then the answer is both yes and no.

Within the solar system?

My answer here would be No. That's my answer. The sun is not moving.

Your Qur'an say "yes", which is wrong. The sun has no orbit around the earth.

If you are referring to sun moving within our galaxy, then Yes.

Now is that clear enough for you?

 

[Fatihah]

If you are not making sense of my post, then the answer is both yes and no.

Within the solar system?

My answer here would be No. That's my answer. The sun is not moving.

Your Qur'an say "yes", which is wrong. The sun has no orbit around the earth.

If you are referring to sun moving within our galaxy, then Yes.

Now is that clear enough for you?

Response: Why is it so hard for you to simply say "yes" or "no"? This is the second time I asked for a simple yes or no and you do everything but simply answer yes or no. Then you answer the question by saying both yes and no. Then you wonder why their's confusion.

Anyway, you just stated: "Your Qur'an say "yes", which is wrong. The sun has no orbit around the earth." Now since you claim that the qur'an says that the sun orbits around the earth, then show me in any of the translations in which you stated in your first post the word "earth", if you are truthful.

 

[gnostic]

"Your Qur'an say "yes", which is wrong. The sun has no orbit around the earth." Now since you claim that the qur'an says that the sun orbits around the earth, then show me in any of the translations in which you stated in your first post the word "earth", if you are truthful.

I have already given different translations of the Qur'an of that particular verse, twice. I am not copy any of this again.

What other "orbit" or "sky" do think that verse is talking about?

It talk of night and day. It talk of the sun and moon. And lastly, it talk of the "rounded course", or "float in each orbit", or "floating in a sky".

Your imbecile of prophet or god think of the sun moving in our sky, which is plainly wrong. The sun doesn't move at all that would give the earth's day and night. For us on earth, the sun is not actually moving at all. The earth's rotation on its axis that give the our day and night.

Isn't that clear enough for you?

I have said again, and again, and again.

You haven't answer my questions at all.

• What damn orbit do you think it is speaking of, in regards to the sun?
• What give us day and night?
• Do you think the sun moving in our sky, as said in this stupid, naive verse, do or don't refer to geocentric system? Then what do you think it refer to?

 

[Fatihah]

I have already given different translations of the Qur'an of that particular verse, twice. I am not copy any of this again.

Response: In other words, you can't show me the word "earth" in the verse thus proving the fasle claim that the verse is speaking of the sun's orbit around the earth. The word "earth" is not there, showing that you are deliberately adding words to the text to validate your argument. So there is no error. The end.

 

[gnostic]

Once again, you haven't answer my questions.

I am speaking to a slippery snake who is evading my questions.

• What damn orbit do you think it is speaking of, in regards to the sun?
• What give us day and night?
• Do you think the sun moving in our sky, as said in this stupid, naive verse, do or don't refer to geocentric system? Then what do you think it refer to?

I refused to answer any more of your questions when you have completely avoided answering mine.

The only possible reasons for not answering my questions, because you have no explanations or because (more than likely) you don't have no understanding of the entire verse (21:33).

I have addressed this topic to you.

 

[Alla Prima]

Response: Why is it so hard for you to simply say "yes" or "no"? This is the second time I asked for a simple yes or no and you do everything but simply answer yes or no. Then you answer the question by saying both yes and no. Then you wonder why their's confusion.

Gnostic answered your question. It is YOU who are confusing the dialogue.

My answer here would be No. That's my answer. The sun is not moving.

Your Qur'an say "yes", which is wrong. The sun has no orbit around the earth.

Please address this response.

 

[Fatihah]

Gnostic answered your question. It is YOU who are confusing the dialogue.



Please address this response.

Response: Refer to post 32

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

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

I do not agree with this statement. For example if I write the best book on kindness, in this world (though its not possible). In this book I write, in a particular sentence, that this certain person said stealing is good. In the next sentence I write that this is not true. Now someone buys my book and starts saying that I wrote that stealing is good. The problem here is that even if my book is perfect and free from errors, and if someone selects particular words out of context or if he does not understand the meaning properly, different interpretations will exist. This is not due to a the fault in the book.
Btw, I normally use YusufAli and Pickthail.

 

[gnostic]

MFaraz_Hayat, I don't know the extent of your knowledge in the Qur'an and in Islam.

If the Qur'an is perfect, then everything written in the scripture should be clear, without ambiguity. If I read it, and if I have different interpretation than yours, then clearly the scripture is clearly not clear enough.

And if you require scholars or clerics to interpret the texts for you, then clearly the Qur'an is not without ambiguity. And sure enough, some scholars may not interpret the text in the same manner as other scholars.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

MFaraz_Hayat, I don't know the extent of your knowledge in the Qur'an and in Islam.

If the Qur'an is perfect, then everything written in the scripture should be clear, without ambiguity. If I read it, and if I have different interpretation than yours, then clearly the scripture is clearly not clear enough.

And if you require scholars or clerics to interpret the texts for you, then clearly the Qur'an is not without ambiguity. And sure enough, some scholars may not interpret the text in the same manner as other scholars.

Perfection does not mean that the book cannot be misinterpreted. Perfection is basically highest degree of excellence. It does not mean that the book by itself, can stop people from misinterpreting it. If someone is intent on misinterpreting and spreading lies, the book won't stand up and yell " Hey you're lying". But if we analyze the book, keeping the context in mind the lie would become evident.

 

[themadhair]

But if we analyze the book, keeping the context in mind the lie would become evident.

The context is that the book was written in the 7th century and is representative of many common ideas of the time in which it was written. This is why it contains ideas like the seventh heavens and humans being made from clay. This is also why the 7th century ideas it contains, from a purely scientific standpoint, are more suited to historical footnotes rather than have any place in contemporary knowledge.

Not what you meant was it?

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

The context is that the book was written in the 7th century and is representative of many common ideas of the time in which it was written. This is why it contains ideas like the seventh heavens and humans being made from clay. This is also why the 7th century ideas it contains, from a purely scientific standpoint, are more suited to historical footnotes rather than have any place in contemporary knowledge.

Not what you meant was it?

See my post in the other thread, in general discussion. BTW, can we please restrict this discussion to one thread only. We are discussing the same issue in 3 places. You may select.