To Fatihah: Ambiguity in the Qur'an or not

[themadhair]

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.

I respond to posts made and, to be fair, I quote the relevant portions I am responding to.

And your post on the other thread in no way addressed my comment. You claimed that context is important. You clearly do not believe this to be the case when you completely and utterly ignore the context of when the koran was written. What you really meant wasn’t that context was important, but that the context you are interpreting it in is important. At least be straight about it.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

I respond to posts made and, to be fair, I quote the relevant portions I am responding to.

And your post on the other thread in no way addressed my comment. You claimed that context is important. You clearly do not believe this to be the case when you completely and utterly ignore the context of when the koran was written. What you really meant wasn’t that context was important, but that the context you are interpreting it in is important. At least be straight about it.

I was referring to surrounding texts, now whatever you may understand from this.

 

[gnostic]

Perfection does not mean that the book cannot be misinterpreted. Perfection is basically highest degree of excellence.

The degree of excellence is actually subjective and relative.

To me (an example), where Muslim interpret the verse in Qur'an something to be "scientific miracles", is because they have interpret it as being miracluous, while taking the verse out of context, and trying to give undeserved credit for Modern Science to the Qur'an, instead of the scientists who actually made the discovery.

And in regards to the so-called scientific miracles, the Qur'anic verse don't explain any of the so-called "scientific" phenomena.

The scientific signs are nothing than Muslims desperate attempt to rewrite the fact on modern science, because they have not made any new discoveries in the last 400 to 500 years.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

The degree of excellence is actually subjective and relative.

To me (an example), where Muslim interpret the verse in Qur'an something to be "scientific miracles", is because they have interpret it as being miracluous, while taking the verse out of context, and trying to give undeserved credit for Modern Science to the Qur'an, instead of the scientists who actually made the discovery.

And in regards to the so-called scientific miracles, the Qur'anic verse don't explain any of the so-called "scientific" phenomena.

The scientific signs are nothing than Muslims desperate attempt to rewrite the fact on modern science, because they have not made any new discoveries in the last 400 to 500 years.

Whether the miracles are true or false is a separate issue altogether. What I am pointing out here is that it is wrong to assume that a perfect book cannot be misinterpreted. If a reader wants to misinterpret, the book cannot stop him for it is non-living.

 

[gnostic]

Whether the miracles are true or false is a separate issue altogether. What I am pointing out here is that it is wrong to assume that a perfect book cannot be misinterpreted. If a reader wants to misinterpret, the book cannot stop him for it is non-living.

Ok, then what do you think of OP:

I have listed several different translations of the verse 21:33 for comparison purpose.

The verse demonstrate the ambiguity of the text.

If there wasn't any ambiguity, then we would not have different interpretations.

What do you the verse mean?

Do you agree with fatihah's interpretation?

Fatihah seemed to think that the verse has nothing to do with the earth.

The verse talks about night and day, so that's related to the earth. It talks about the sun and moon, and their courses, hence it has to do with the earth and the earth sky. And one translation talk of their orbits. I think that this verse is referring to the moon's orbit and sun's orbit around the sun.

The verse is right about the moon's orbit (around the earth), but wrong about the sun's orbit around the sun. It is also wrong about the day and night. Day and night is not the result of sun moving, RATHER THAT the earth is moving - rotating on its polar axis. The sun traversing the sky, because we are looking up in the sky from the ground level. Astronomically, this is wrong.

I think the Qur'an is basing on the then known theory, explained by the astronomer Ptolemy, known as the Ptolemaic geocentric planetary systems.

If God was indeed the real author, then he should be looking at astronomy from not at the earth's perspective, as if he was standing on the ground (earth), looking at the sky. And this verse seem to be written as if he was standing on earth, instead of looking from the celestial level or true astronomical perspective.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Ok, then what do you think of OP:

I have listed several different translations of the verse 21:33 for comparison purpose.

The verse demonstrate the ambiguity of the text.

If there wasn't any ambiguity, then we would not have different interpretations.

What do you the verse mean?

Do you agree with fatihah's interpretation?

Fatihah seemed to think that the verse has nothing to do with the earth.

The verse talks about night and day, so that's related to the earth. It talks about the sun and moon, and their courses, hence it has to do with the earth and the earth sky. And one translation talk of their orbits. I think that this verse is referring to the moon's orbit and sun's orbit around the sun.

The verse is right about the moon's orbit (around the earth), but wrong about the sun's orbit around the sun. It is also wrong about the day and night. Day and night is not the result of sun moving, RATHER THAT the earth is moving - rotating on its polar axis. The sun traversing the sky, because we are looking up in the sky from the ground level. Astronomically, this is wrong.

I think the Qur'an is basing on the then known theory, explained by the astronomer Ptolemy, known as the Ptolemaic geocentric planetary systems.

If God was indeed the real author, then he should be looking at astronomy from not at the earth's perspective, as if he was standing on the ground (earth), looking at the sky. And this verse seem to be written as if he was standing on earth, instead of looking from the celestial level or true astronomical perspective.

To me, each of the translation is clearly saying that God has created day and night and sun and moon. And sun and moon have distinct separate orbits.
Btw, latest scientific research has shown that sun has it's own orbit ( i think it rotates about center of galaxy, not sure). Plus, this verse uses the arabic word Yasabahoon. This indicates added motion, telling that sun is revolving about its own axis as its moving (a recenly discovered fact).
Points:
1. No where does the verse say talk about that which celestial body is responsible for day and night (point it out).
2. You may say that the Quran does not mention galaxy and its a huge assumption that the Quran is talking about sun revolving about Galaxy's center. But the important point is, that as you assumed, there is no mention of geo-centrism.
3. I am not claiming any miracles. I just want to show that Quran is free from errors, including scientific ones. And if for example someone says that sun moves in it's own orbit, the statement is not wrong rather scientifically correct. Though, it is not clear (from nutral viewpoint) whether the statement is based on sun revolving Galaxy's centre or geocentrism.

 

[gnostic]

Btw, latest scientific research has shown that sun has it's own orbit ( i think it rotates about center of galaxy, not sure).

Yes, I am well away that the sun has its own orbit around the centre of the galaxy, but the verse is not talking about the galaxy, is it?????

If you are including the galaxy into the interpretation of this single verse, then you are taking the verse's context OUT OF CONTEXT.

Do you see anyway that this verse (21:33) mention group of stars or galaxy?

No?

So please keep your interpretation within context of the parameters of the verse.

But the whole verse is related to the earth, not simply the sun and moon.

Plus, this verse uses the arabic word Yasabahoon. This indicates added motion, telling that sun is revolving about its own axis as its moving (a recenly discovered fact).

Which is not relevant to the Qur'anic verse. It say the sun and moon course (move) through the sky.

What is relevant, is day and night.....and scientifically that occur because the earth itself revolve on its axis. For us, the sun is stationary, while the movement of earth on its rotational axis give us day and night.

2. You may say that the Quran does not mention galaxy and its a huge assumption that the Quran is talking about sun revolving about Galaxy's center. But the important point is, that as you assumed, there is no mention of geo-centrism.

Are you blind? Can you actually tell me or show me where verse 21:33 speaks of stars or galaxy anywhere? Where do the galaxy or group of stars mentioned.

As I said before, keep the verse in context. The only celestial bodies mentioned, is the sun and moon.

Actually the verse talk about both the day and night and the moon's orbit and sun's orbit, hence it is referring to geocentric system, not a heliocentric system.

You have proven to me, that you (like other Muslims) like twisting words around.

 

[gnostic]

3. I am not claiming any miracles. I just want to show that Quran is free from errors, including scientific ones.

It's not simply about errors, but ambiguity of the texts.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Yes, I am well away that the sun has its own orbit around the centre of the galaxy, but the verse is not talking about the galaxy, is it?????

If you are including the galaxy into the interpretation of this single verse, then you are taking the verse's context OUT OF CONTEXT.

Do you see anyway that this verse (21:33) mention group of stars or galaxy?

No?

So please keep your interpretation within context of the parameters of the verse.

But the whole verse is related to the earth, not simply the sun and moon.

Which is not relevant to the Qur'anic verse. It say the sun and moon course (move) through the sky.

What is relevant, is day and night.....and scientifically that occur because the earth itself revolve on its axis. For us, the sun is stationary, while the movement of earth on its rotational axis give us day and night.



Are you blind? Can you actually tell me or show me where verse 21:33 speaks of stars or galaxy anywhere? Where do the galaxy or group of stars mentioned.

As I said before, keep the verse in context. The only celestial bodies mentioned, is the sun and moon.

Actually the verse talk about both the day and night and the moon's orbit and sun's orbit, hence it is referring to geocentric system, not a heliocentric system.

You have proven to me, that you (like other Muslims) like twisting words around.

You ignored the part where I said that we cannot assume that this is geo-centrism, as there is no evidence in the verse ( just as you were saying that there is no mention of galaxy). What I am saying is that the statement is scientifically correct (not an error) because if anyone says that sun has an individual orbit, he is correct. Whether its geo-centrism or rotation about galaxy's center is a separate issue altogether. Yet, the verse is free from error as I said.
The verse is simply saying that God created Night and Day cycle, and Moon and Sun which have separate orbits. It doesnot say that it is sun or the moon which are causing day and light. On one hand you accuse some muslims of reading more into the verse than written, and on other hand you do the same yourself. Hypocricy? Show me a single mention in the verse that day and night are because of Sun's movement.
Further, I challenge you. Ask anyone who has learned arabic. When he will read the verse, he will confirm that the verse is talking about sun's separate orbit and it's rotation about it's axis. Since the word Yasabahoon in arabic indicates added motion. Ask anyone who knows arabic.

 

[themadhair]

You ignored the part where I said that we cannot assume that this is geo-centrism,

You ignored the part regarding context.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

You ignored the part regarding context.

Give the context. Point out where it says that day and night are because of sun and moon, respectively.

 

[themadhair]

Give the context.

7th century text describing the common idea of 6 day creation from the perspective of the limited scientific knowledge of the time.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

7th century text describing the common idea of 6 day creation from the perspective of the limited scientific knowledge of the time.

Assuming that Quran is not the word of God.
Even if someone in 7th century simply said that 'sun has it's own orbit', he won't be wrong technically. For the statement does not imply anything of geo-centrism whatsoever. And obviously, since you cannot read the mind of that person, you can never be 100% certain that even at that time, that person was referring to geo-centrism.

 

[themadhair]

Assuming that Quran is not the word of God.
Even if someone in 7th century simply said that 'sun has it's own orbit', he won't be wrong technically. For the statement does not imply anything of geo-centrism whatsoever. And obviously, since you cannot read the mind of that person, you can never be 100% certain that even at that time, that person was referring to geo-centrism.

And again we see why koranic science isn’t.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

And again we see why koranic science isn’t.

And yet we see that the verse previously cited to be in error and in conflict with science, is not wrong as was claimed.
Btw, you ignored the part regarding sun revolving about its own axis.

 

[themadhair]

And yet we see that the verse previously cited to be in error and in conflict with science, is not wrong as was claimed.

Did you miss the part where you reduced the verse to ‘allahdidit’? Or did you think that was actually a scientifically compatible claim to introduce magic?

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Did you miss the part where you reduced the verse to ‘allahdidit’? Or did you think that was actually a scientifically compatible claim to introduce magic?

Are you referring to the clay thing? Just check that thread again for the link I gave.

 

[themadhair]

Are you referring to the clay thing? Just check that thread again for the link I gave.

Your link is supportive of abiogenesis which, in turn, is supportive of evolutionary theory. In this scenario the first humans came from non-human ancestors – a notion that Fatihah ridiculed me for presenting.

But you didn’t know this implication of the link did you? And the reason you didn’t is because you are clued up on koranic science instead of actual science.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Your link is supportive of abiogenesis which, in turn, is supportive of evolutionary theory. In this scenario the first humans came from non-human ancestors – a notion that Fatihah ridiculed me for presenting.

But you didn’t know this implication of the link did you? And the reason you didn’t is because you are clued up on koranic science instead of actual science.

the link I quoted, told that clay could have played an important role. Yet scientists are still confused over how all the stuff got together to form life. So basically, it shows that while clay may have played an integral role in life formation, its not proven still that life can form on its own.
From the source:
Research has already shown that some of building blocks for RNA-like molecules and membranes are spontaneously created by chemical reactions in outer space and in conditions that may have existed on the primordial Earth. But how these subunits were then assembled is still debated.
Please read the source, properly.

 

[themadhair]

Please read the source, properly.

I have. It is very likely that I have that very issue somewhere up in the attic too.

Problem is that YOU don’t understand why that link supports abiogenesis, and thus evolutionary theory, in contradiction to your humans-from-clay claim. Ffs I had actually posted a summary of abiogenesis that even talked about the same type of clay and how it could have acted as a catalyst just as the article claims.

Seriously, who the **** are you trying to kid here? You haven’t got a clue about this stuff and why it completely shreds your koranic claim regarding humans and clay. I’m beginning to feel embarrassed for you.