What evidence is there that the Koran is the word of God?

[Wombat]

If someone thinks that such a study would be meaningful, .

The “meaningful study” has already been conducted by Bucaille and others covering Quranic referances to subjects as diverse as- The Solar System, The Galaxies, Interstellar Material,The Earths Atmosphere, Electricity in the Atmosphere, The Origins of Life....
Despite the wide range of subjects covered- no glaring incompatibilities with contemporary science .....but no open minded rational human being would find such an outcome to be curious let alone “meaningfull”....would they ;-)

Here's an interesting idea. Provide a list of non-Muslims scientists, who are experts in their fields, who agree with Mr. Bucaille's inane ramblings..

“Bucaille's inane ramblings”?...LOL...What a devastating critique! Made all the more potent by the numerous examples you provide.
“Provide a list of non-Muslims scientists” who agree with Bucaille? To what end? To demonstrate Bucaille is engaged in “inane ramblings” one need only critique, refute and expose his errors. Here’s a free head start from the Christian-Dr. William Campbell
The Qur'an & the Bible in the Light of History & Science

Ok, first stop. Is that what this passage REALLY says? We are given the impression that that is simply fact. But is it true?

33 side by side English translations for Sura 21:30
The first thing that stands out is that the quote used here does not match any of the widely acclaimed English translations in use, though it does resemble the Yusaf Ali translation for the first half..

Well let’s actually take a look...shall we? ;-)...Rather than just take it on faith that the "quote used here does not match any of the widely acclaimed English translations in use"

Bucaille’s --sura 21, verse 30:

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"
First version from your link-
“ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe? Muhammad Asad

Second version from your link-
“Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?” Shakir

“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?” M. M. Pickthall

In fact >EVERY< translation bar one has the same central/core principle- “one mass and We split them asunder”, “one piece and We tore them apart”, “sewn together and then We unstitched them”

[21:30] Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe? The Authorized English Translation of the Quran, Sura - 21 The Prophets (Al-Anbya'), translated from the original by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.
So would you care to explain to me >how< the quotation presented by Bucaille “does not match any of the widely acclaimed English translations” when the vast majority of those translations express >EXACTLY THE SAME PRINCIPLE<= Heavens and earth- joined together- cleft asunder.
Because...it seems to me that you have gone to a great deal of trouble to set up the impression that they don’t match up when in fact they do.
I’d be happy to return to respond to the rest of your post....when that incongruity is resolved.

 

[Wombat]

So Lionheart... your answer to my question...-
“How many times do you intend to completely ignore my questions, your errors of science and the authoritative conclusions of Geological Scientists?”
...is >again< and >yet again<.

Ok....I will continue to answer and address each new point and issue you raise while you steadfastly ignore mine.

So your all powerful being who can say be and it will be in an instant is now sub contracting the work out to Tectonic plates...

Hell yea...and subcontracting the work of valley production to glaciers, rain production to oceans, oxygen production to forests and baby production to...oh never mind...Why on earth would an “all powerful being” micro manage all creation rather than just set a self sustaining system in operation?
I just don’t get your objection (or your evasion)


well at least you agree that they rise up out of the Earth and are not set.

Please don’t bother falsifying my pov to suit your purpose...what I said is there for all to see...you even duplicated it in quoting- “mountains driven up and down- “set” “deeply embedded in the ground” and the Mountains -“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”.

Why bother suggesting I have “agreed” that mountains are not “set” when this contradicts what I have clearly stated?


As for errors well,i'm not a geologist

I will take that as (blood from a stone) as near as we are ever going to get to your recognizing, conceding, responding to your errors regarding “Mountain pegs”, Mountains not “preventing” the earth shaking, Mountains not “set in the Earth”

but i know Mountainsare a result of either seizmic or Volcanic activity,i know there are still Earthquakes,perhaps your God needs some more sub contractors,

Nope...We just need to learn to predict, cope with and maybe even eventually prevent or curb the problem of earthquakes...just as we have done with other seemingly intractable problems that have made life an interesting challenge.

By the by...It was earthquakes that prompted the Japanese to build flexible wooden houses with paper walls...fewer deaths and injuries when the houses came down- easier to rebuild. As a consequence of paper walls there is far less privacy a unique culture of manners and protocol arose- the unique culture of Japan. God sub contracts cultural development and evolution to disasters as well.



does any of this fit in with:
(Quran- 21:31): And We have set on earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them.
(Quran-16:15): And he has cast the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…
(Quran-31:10): He created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…end quote.

All of the above quotes “fit” with the geological science already provided by me and ignored (or gotten wrong) by you. Each one of the quotes makes reference to the role of mountains in “maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates” - ie diminishing “shaking/earthquakes”.

How many more times do I need to put forward the same bolded and underlined statement of reputable geological science up against your “i'm not a geologist but i know Mountains/Mountains do not “prevent” the earth shaking” persistent error?

The Quranic quotes you provide clearly “fit” with the statements of geological science I have provided.

No sign of sub contractors there, he either cast or set the Mountains onto the Earth himself,

Let me get this straight...you’re no longer objecting to the notion of mountains “preventing” shaking/earthquakes...you have moved on to the new objection that God >cannot< have used the mechanism of volcanics or tectonic plates to create mountains but must have “cast or set the Mountains onto the Earth himself”? .....Personally?

Is >that<the new gambit? For the Quranic quotes to “fit” geological science there must evidence of God “himself”, personally, putting the mountains in place?

Um....what are we looking for here in the way of >evidence< to make the “fit” you seek? Giant hand print on the side of Everest? The discovery at the base of Fuji of a colossal beach bucket and spade?

Seriously...each gambit in turn you have found to be indefensible, then you abandon it, refuse to acknowledge it, and move on to new ground...now this...God “himself” must be evidenced as personally sticking mountains on the earth....!?

you can say i am not addressing the good Dr Baucille and thats ok because facts speak for themselves and require no movement of Goalposts.

Ok...I will indeed say you are “not addressing the good Dr Baucille”, nor are you addressing the central points/questions I have put, nor are you addressing or in any way acknowledging the geological science cited.

“facts speak for themselves” when the objection to your evasion of the issues is repeated and you have no response-
#73 ”The question of “how Mountains came to be” is an irrelevant distraction and non answer to the point/issue at hand- ie the role of Mountain ‘Pegs’ as stabilizers-“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates” . How many times will that key and authoritative point of Geological science have to be put to you before it is commented upon or conceded?”

The “fact” is you have not once responded to, refuted or in any way acknowledged the above central point.
No "movement of Goalposts" evidence unless you are referring to your new God must set the mountains in place “himself” gambit.

 

[YmirGF]

...it seems to me that you have gone to a great deal of trouble to set up the impression that they don&#8217;t match up when in fact they do.
I&#8217;d be happy to return to respond to the rest of your post....when that incongruity is resolved.

Thank you, master of the obvious. You are going to have to do better than that. I fully realize that they are similar. My point is that Bucaille is not using any of the most widely used translations of the Qur'an. I don't give a fig if his version is "pretty close". I want to know exactly which version he is using. Is that too much to ask?

when the vast majority of those translations express >EXACTLY THE SAME PRINCIPLE<= Heavens and earth- joined together- cleft asunder.

And if that is indeed the case, then they are not describing the big bang and therefore do not accurately reflect current thinking. For the slow, "cleft asunder, ripped or torn" implies an outside agency. Given that the "singularity", was everything, there is nothing outside it that caused the big bang. The only way this makes sense is if god clove itself asunder and that would be more than a little weird.

 

[A-ManESL]

Yes, well, that's an interesting belief, as I say, which you probably share with 1% of the world's Muslims.

There is no justification for your belief that only 1% of the worlds Muslims share my belief. I have quoted scholars and books at each stage of my posts with you and you have quoted almost none. I fail to see how you derive this percentage.

It cracks me up when someone purports to tell me the "real meaning" of a religion, as though they were privileged to some special knowledge denied to the rest of us. Is there some reason you're more qualified to know the "real meaning" of Islam than the rest of us?

Well you asked me to define religion according to me, and when I did so, you say it cracks you up. If I disagree with you, it doesnt mean that I claim that I am more qualified or you are less qualified. Just to clarify I say how I understand Islam but do not push and say that I only understand it truly.

And, as I say, if Islam is so variable that your understanding of its "real meaning" is different from the other 99% of Muslims, that pretty much proves it could not possibly have come from God, who I think would not find it difficult to make his "real meaning" a little more clear.

Why do you suppose that the "real meaning" is not clear to those who bother to inquire. And how come you have supposed that you have bothered to learnt all core concepts there is to learn about Islam? I do not say that what all you think is incorrect, only that you are confused with surface ideas of cultural Islam and are unaware of its core concepts. You look at the external traditions, the theology and think thats it. I disagree and say that this is but the peel, the kernel is underneath who bother to unpeel. If you disagree with me, fine, but dont derive logical conclusions with unproven statements.

(The thought that external traditions are what define Islam is precisely the incorrect thinking that the Taliban imbibed while understanding Islam. I can name many books in which the core concepts are described in detail, but I think you are not interested in really learning.)

 

[A-ManESL]

Autodidact, by the way, can you tell me the approximate number of Muslims you have interacted with from the Indian subcontinent?

 

[England my lionheart]

So Lionheart... your answer to my question...-
“How many times do you intend to completely ignore my questions, your errors of science and the authoritative conclusions of Geological Scientists?”
...is >again< and >yet again<.

Ok....I will continue to answer and address each new point and issue you raise while you steadfastly ignore mine.

You want to use a Thesis as proof,where is the actual evidence

Hell yea...and subcontracting the work of valley production to glaciers, rain production to oceans, oxygen production to forests and baby production to...oh never mind...Why on earth would an “all powerful being” micro manage all creation rather than just set a self sustaining system in operation?
I just don’t get your objection (or your evasion)

Now we've gone from the Qur'an stating that a God cast Mountains onto the Earth to make firm Pegs to setting a self sustaining system in operation.

well at least you agree that they rise up out of the Earth and are not set.

Please don’t bother falsifying my pov to suit your purpose...what I said is there for all to see...you even duplicated it in quoting- “mountains driven up and down- “set” “deeply embedded in the ground” and the Mountains -“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”.

Why bother suggesting I have “agreed” that mountains are not “set” when this contradicts what I have clearly stated?

So are they?

As for errors well,i'm not a geologist

I will take that as (blood from a stone) as near as we are ever going to get to your recognizing, conceding, responding to your errors regarding “Mountain pegs”, Mountains not “preventing” the earth shaking, Mountains not “set in the Earth”

but i know Mountainsare a result of either seizmic or Volcanic activity,i know there are still Earthquakes,perhaps your God needs some more sub contractors,

Nope...We just need to learn to predict, cope with and maybe even eventually prevent or curb the problem of earthquakes...just as we have done with other seemingly intractable problems that have made life an interesting challenge.

We wouldn't need to if the Earth didn't shake

By the by...It was earthquakes that prompted the Japanese to build flexible wooden houses with paper walls...fewer deaths and injuries when the houses came down- easier to rebuild. As a consequence of paper walls there is far less privacy a unique culture of manners and protocol arose- the unique culture of Japan. God sub contracts cultural development and evolution to disasters as well.


Obviously we need more Pegs

does any of this fit in with:
(Quran- 21:31): And We have set on earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them.
(Quran-16:15): And he has cast the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…
(Quran-31:10): He created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…end quote.

All of the above quotes “fit” with the geological science already provided by me and ignored (or gotten wrong) by you. Each one of the quotes makes reference to the role of mountains in “maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates” - ie diminishing “shaking/earthquakes”.

How many more times do I need to put forward the same bolded and underlined statement of reputable geological science up against your “i'm not a geologist but i know Mountains/Mountains do not “prevent” the earth shaking” persistent error?

The Quranic quotes you provide clearly “fit” with the statements of geological science I have provided.

No sign of sub contractors there, he either cast or set the Mountains onto the Earth himself,

Let me get this straight...you’re no longer objecting to the notion of mountains “preventing” shaking/earthquakes...you have moved on to the new objection that God >cannot< have used the mechanism of volcanics or tectonic plates to create mountains but must have “cast or set the Mountains onto the Earth himself”? .....Personally?

Isn't that what it says

Is >that<the new gambit? For the Quranic quotes to “fit” geological science there must evidence of God “himself”, personally, putting the mountains in place?

Um....what are we looking for here in the way of >evidence< to make the “fit” you seek? Giant hand print on the side of Everest? The discovery at the base of Fuji of a colossal beach bucket and spade?


Seriously...each gambit in turn you have found to be indefensible, then you abandon it, refuse to acknowledge it, and move on to new ground...now this...God “himself” must be evidenced as personally sticking mountains on the earth....!?

you can say i am not addressing the good Dr Baucille and thats ok because facts speak for themselves and require no movement of Goalposts.

Ok...I will indeed say you are “not addressing the good Dr Baucille”, nor are you addressing the central points/questions I have put, nor are you addressing or in any way acknowledging the geological science cited.

“facts speak for themselves” when the objection to your evasion of the issues is repeated and you have no response-
#73 ”The question of “how Mountains came to be” is an irrelevant distraction and non answer to the point/issue at hand- ie the role of Mountain ‘Pegs’ as stabilizers-“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates” . How many times will that key and authoritative point of Geological science have to be put to you before it is commented upon or conceded?”

The “fact” is you have not once responded to, refuted or in any way acknowledged the above central point.
No "movement of Goalposts" evidence unless you are referring to your new God must set the mountains in place “himself” gambit.

Well Adam managed to leave his footprint,seriously though doesn't it say that

 

[Autodidact]

What? You cannot see, recognise or concede the separation of the moon, stars, sun-all that is in and constitutes "the heavens" from the earth?

From God's point of view, the earth is part of the heavens. A tiny, miniscule, sub-atomic piece.

Nor recognise/concede that >all< these heavenly bodies were indeed once “joined together”?

Well, they were all one tiny dot.

God "would certainly be in a position to know that" what we percieve (from our earthly standpoint) of the "heavens"- moon, stars, sun etc...is seperate and distanced from us.

I don't need God to tell me what it looks like from earth.

The notion that it was all "joined together" is in astounding accord with contempory science.

I don't even know what you mean by heavens and earth joined together. It's either obvious, or wrong.
"Obvious"-

Everything that can be seen in the heavens- Sun, moon, stars, planets, shooting stars and the earth were once all “joined together”, not separate objects separated in space. It is indeed “obvious”...that which is “joined together” is not separate- heavens and earth “joined together” constitutes >all that materially exists< joined as one object-the Primordial Atom that was “cleft asunder” in the Big Bang (Only there was no “bang”;-)

Not joined together, just one substance. Not lots of objects joined together, no. Not cleft, no expanded.

Now had God mentioned that E = mc squared, and the speed of light = 186,000 mph, and the universe is more than 13 billion years old, I'd be impressed.

No, you wouldn’t. You would dismiss any mention of it as pertaining to “the Forer effect”[/quote] Well, it's hypothetical, isn't it, since for some reason, He failed to do so.

As evidenced by having put to you that “God mentioned” the expanding universe "The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

It does not matter how many Quranic verse lucky guesses are stacked up one after the other and demonstrated to be in accord with science- Heavens and earth joined together, every living thing from the water, expanding heavens, potential to penetrate heavens...no matter how many are put forward or how explicit, accurate and improbable for their period of origin...each and every one is going to be ignored, dismissed or obfuscated out of hand.

Let me put it this way. Had you been born in Salt Lake City to Mormon parents, it would look to you as it looks to Evandr. Because you were born to Muslim parents, and brainwashed into seeing amazing revelations from these vague allusions, it looks wonderful to you.

Nothing will “impress” and nothing will prompt investigation

The Quran beating Einstein to E=Mc2 would be no more or less “impressive” than the Quran beating Harvey to the circulation of blood-

"Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of what is inside their bodies, coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood, a milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it." (sura 16, verse 66)

It's gibberish! It's stupid! This is what God wants to talk to us about?

Have you ever read the Tao Te Ching? Now there's wisdom. The qur'an is like a comic book in comparison. How do you even see the circulatory system in that vague and rather disgusing allusion?

“From blah blah blah
I consider that the existence in the Qur'an of the verse referring to these concepts can have no human explanation on account of the period in which they were formulated.” M Bucaille

Wow, is Mr. Bucaille possibly insane? Talk about putting stuff in that's not there. That is so weird. If God wanted to describe the circulatory system, why not just describe the circulatory system? Why these vaguely worded non-descriptions that can mean whatever you want them to mean? They're like Islamic ink-blots.

But why should a “ten century” precedent on Harvey impress us...easier to dismiss it out of hand as “Forer effect” (Which pertains to personality tests and inclination towards Horoscopes)

Well, you've missed the point. People interpret specific and accurate statements into vague allusions. It's natural. It's what the brain does. You read that milk comes from the contents of the blood and intestines, which is just plain wrong, and turn it into an accurate description of the circulatory system.

Sounds like sheer gibberish to me.

You lack the literacy skills and/or conceptual ability to translate “penetrating” (entering into) the “regions of the heavens”?...
I would refer you to the work of an organization called NASSA that has been successfully penetrating the regions of the heavens for some time now...but it is increasingly obvious such referral would be fruitless.

It's interesting how we only see these amazing predictions in retrospect. I can predict things that happened in the past really well too. It's those future things that are bit more difficult.

If you have to tell me what the author is indicating, it's obviously not as clear as God could make it, had He wanted to.

You didn’t understand what “penetrating” the “regions of the heavens” would mean/entail.....and that’s Gods failure to communicate clearly?

It's very, very, vague.

So is God incapable of making His words more clear

Ummmmm....Autodidact.....are you seriously pointing out that it is difficult “to detect something as having made a correct prediction” >prior< to the event taking place?

And/Or are you suggesting that from our retrospective perspective in history it is “easy to detect” that the Quran “made a correct prediction” regarding the potential to penetrate the heavens?

If the latter is the case it is the first concession to reason we have seen thus far.

I'm saying that in retrospect, after something happens, you dig into the qur'an and find a passage that finds something sort of like it, though not really, and you're amazed. But if God wanted to make it clear to us, He could have said,

"In the twentieth century people will build machines that will travel to the moon." Surely God would have known this, right? That kind of prophecy is falsifiable. Saying something vague about penetrating heaven is not.

 

[Wombat]

Well, they were all one tiny dot..

Yes...the Primordial Atom...every ‘thing’ that we now see in the universe, us, stars, moons, earth was once “joined together” “they were all one tiny dot”.

There is no material thing that is that did not arise from that “one tiny dot”...any thing that now appears separate from another thing was once “joined together” in that "tiny dot".

(Do you realize Autodidact...that in all these dozens of posts and thousands of words your “they were all one tiny dot” is the first to acknowledge, concede recognise and respond to that basic contemporary scientific understanding?)

I don't need God to tell me what it looks like from earth.

If that was what God was doing it would be relevant but given that God was pointing out that what now appears to be separate was once “joined together” (something only God could see/know)...it is just irrelivent obfuscation of the (already conceded “they were all one tiny dot”) issue.
Quote:
The notion that it was all "joined together" is in astounding accord with contempory science.

I don't even know what you mean by heavens and earth joined together. It's either obvious, or wrong.
"Obvious"-

Everything that can be seen in the heavens- Sun, moon, stars, planets, shooting stars and the earth were once all “joined together”, not separate objects separated in space. It is indeed “obvious”...that which is “joined together” is not separate- heavens and earth “joined together” constitutes >all that materially exists< joined as one object-the Primordial Atom that was “cleft asunder” in the Big Bang (Only there was no “bang”;-)


Not joined together, just one substance.
They, the moon, stars, earth were “one substance” “ they were all one tiny dot”...but they were not thereby “joined together”?

Bye Autodidact.
That was almost interesting.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes...the Primordial Atom...every &#8216;thing&#8217; that we now see in the universe, us, stars, moons, earth was once &#8220;joined together&#8221; &#8220;they were all one tiny dot&#8221;.

Given that none of those things existed during that period, it is a trivial point to even suggest that they were once "joined together". The idea infers prior existence which is quite erroneous. It's sort of like saying a car was part of what was once joined together. I think this example and these last few pages clearly show the difficulty of reading far too much into ancient texts. Again, "How could Muhammad have known all this 1400 years ago?" It's plain for all to see - He didn't. His words speak for themselves and are quite delusional enough without any need for further layers delusional thinking to be added. This type of endeavor (seeing scientific miracles in the pages of the Qur'an) is without merit.

I would go as far as saying that anyone who sees scientific miracles in the pages of the Qur'an is simply pointing out their own inherent intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[Wombat]

Given that none of those things existed during that period, it is a trivial point to even suggest that they were once "joined together"..

Oh yea...and it would be trivial to suggest that the attoms that now constitute your body were once "joined together" in other forms and one day will be seperate "cleft assunder" again.

That any seperate objects are described as once joined together must, by your logic, imply that "during that period" of being joined they held the same form and "existed" as they now exist seperately.

The idea infers prior existence which is quite erroneous

Oh... yea...sure it does

The only way by this/any logic that they could be "joined together" is for all the stars, planets, moons to be stuck together, side by side, retaining their independent "existance" but "joined".......by Superglue?

I mean...it's completely unfeasible that the stars, moons, planets could have been once “joined together” in a form other than they currently hold....the very notion flies in the face of science....don’t it?

It's sort of like saying a car was part of what was once joined together.

Yea...like saying a car or all the cars you see were once "joined together" in the earth as metals and minerals, then "cleft asunder" from the earth and reformed into distinct objects. The very notion is absurd, isn't it...the "idea infers prior existence which is quite erroneous"

I think this example and these last few pages clearly show the difficulty of reading far too much into ancient texts.

Oh yea...me too...I think your example of the 'car' was the clincher...cars are made up of seperate and discreete parts...cars themselves are seperate and discreete..."none of those things existed during that period (of being in the ground), it is a trivial point to even suggest that they were once "joined together" or came from a common source- >the Earth<. "The idea infers prior existence which is quite erroneous"...lots of cars and car parts lined up together underground. It's the only logical, rational reading and "clearly shows the difficulty of reading far too much into" Automotive production texts.

:sarcastic

What was that about "intellectual bankruptcy."?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Surely "the Koran says so" is not any more convincing than "the Bible says so."

The Quran is not of God because it contradicts The Torah!

"In the Koran Abraham goes against his father leaving idols and such. But in the Torah it is Terah, Abraham’s father, who leaves Ur and goes toward Canaan. According to Jewish tradition, Terah was an idol maker. After Terah died, God called Abraham, then called Abram, away from his family, home, and all that was familiar. A significant theological difference is in which son of Abraham receives the promise. The Koran claims Ishmael rather than Isaac, as the Torah reports, receives God's blessing and is nearly sacrificed by Abraham." ---- The Torah and the Koran

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and … says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." ---- Deut. 13:1-3

"Someone might claim a revelation has come from God, but if that “revelation” contradicts what God has said before then the “revelation” is false, it is not from God. This is true of the Quran: it contradicts the Bible so it is not from God."
---- Does the Quran contradict the Bible? | Bible Q

Muslims said that the Quran was written to correct the errors in the Torah and the rest of the Bible. However....
"The Koran was written after the Torah, in the late 7th century, while much of the Torah was written at least 3,000 years ago. " ---- Does the Quran contradict the Bible? | Bible Q

If God wanted to correct an allegedly error in his written his Holy Words, he would not have waited over 2,000 years to reveal it in the hands of non-Torah keepers like Muslims. That would have been a dis-service to both the Torah keepers as well as the Arabs living 3,000 years ago, who could have benefited from such allegedly corrections. But the truth of the matter is that the Torah is correct and true ever since it was first penned by the holy writers with the guidance of YAHWEH, the one True God.

 

[Wombat]

The Quran is not of God because it contradicts The Torah!

Ah huh...and by the same reasoning anything you learn at University does not have any educational weight or authority because it contradicts what you learn in Kindergarten.

And as we all know...Human beings don't change, grow, evolve and mature to require differing instructions and teachings... and circumstances don't change to require differing responses to meet the needs of differing periods.

A human being is no different at thirty than he was at thirteen and humanity is no different in 2011 than it was in 600BC.

One size educational instruction fits all for ever.

:sarcastic

 

[YmirGF]

Oh yea...and it would be trivial to suggest that the attoms that now constitute your body were once "joined together" in other forms and one day will be seperate "cleft assunder" again.

Where does it say "joined together" in other forms? It doesn't. You are superimposing that into the scant phrase from the Qur'an. Keep in mind that some translators used the term "stitched together" as in a cloth.

That any seperate objects are described as once joined together must, by your logic, imply that "during that period" of being joined they held the same form and "existed" as they now exist seperately.

But the text does not say that. It says precious little. The text reads as a very primitive explanation, as would be expected from an illiterate desert dweller. The original text itself is not particularly enlightened or meaningful. There is no hint of the vast amount of time involved here. It reads more like, "We cast asunder.. and voila... creation." That is not how the Big Bang theory works. Massaging the meaning of the text by greatly expanding what a few short words say is more than a bit unreasonable.

The idea infers prior existence which is quite erroneous

Oh... yea...sure it does

The only way by this/any logic that they could be "joined together" is for all the stars, planets, moons to be stuck together, side by side, retaining their independent "existance" but "joined".......by Superglue?

To the perspective of a primitive desert dweller, that is exactly how I see them imagining this. It is inconceivable that Muhammad envisioned the Big Bang and then came up with this amusing way of describing it. Aside from this the idea of the universe starting from a single point was hardly a new idea even in Muhammad's time.

I mean...it's completely unfeasible that the stars, moons, planets could have been once &#8220;joined together&#8221; in a form other than they currently hold....the very notion flies in the face of science....don&#8217;t it?

Again, you are inserting ideas into these few words that are not there. It says nothing about "in another form" it simply says "joined together" or "stitched together". Are we really to assume that Muhammad meant a homogeneous subatomic plasma? Oh, come now.

What was that about "intellectual bankruptcy."?

See your response for a working definition.

Words fail me. Let me know when you are ready for a serious discussion. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Ah huh...and by the same reasoning anything you learn at University does not have any educational weight or authority because it contradicts what you learn in Kindergarten.

If a what man learn at a University contradicts what a man learn at a elementary school; then, YES: the university is contradicts elementary. If 1+1=2 but in 1+1=3 in university, if the earth is round but taught that it's a square at a university, if birds comes from birds but in a university teaches birds comes from cats. Yep, I would say that university contradicts elementary schools. But I doubt you would find such a university teaching such nonsense.

And as we all know...Human beings don't change, grow, evolve and mature to require differing instructions and teachings... and circumstances don't change to require differing responses to meet the needs of differing periods.

And as we all know: Mankind has and do change truth into lies, man degrades justice by distorting and hiding facts. Mankind devolves their integrity by using different weights, stealing, and cheating others.

A human being is no different at thirty than he was at thirteen and humanity is no different in 2011 than it was in 600BC.

You're right, some people are liars, cheaters, thieves at age 13 as well as 30. And men like these have existed since Aedam's son Qayin (Cain) over 6,000 years ago.

One size educational instruction fits all for ever. :sarcastic

There is one truth and it is found in the Holy Bible. There is one you. How would you feel if someone attacks you with Identify Theft? You would probably spend the next several months and hundreds of dollars trying to prove that you are that original person and not the fake thief who has 'evolved' into you.

 

[Wombat]

“Where does it say "joined together" in other forms? It doesn't.”.

Where does it say “joined together” in >the same forms<? IT DOESN’T!

And yet you have been insisting that’s what it means-
#109 “Given that none of those things [stars, moons, earth] existed during that period it is a trivial point to even suggest that they were once "joined together". The idea infers prior existence which is quite erroneous.”

Your argument is that the stars, moons, earth did not “exist during that [Big Bang] period (Well “Duh”!) and that it’s therefore “trivial” and “erroneous” to state that they were once “joined together”.

I mocked your proposition that the >only< way in which these celestial objects could be considered to have been “joined together” is if they “existed” at the point of the Big Bang or had some “prior existence” to the Big Bang. As any College student of Physics knows that is >not< the only way these bodies can be considered to have been “joined together”.

And at no point did I claim the verse “says” anything about what >form< that being “joined together” entailed...>you< did through the insistence that the verse “infers prior existence”= they could only have been “joined” in the form they now hold.

You are superimposing that into the scant phrase from the Qur'an.

Nope, not at all not one bit. I said >nothing< in regard >the verse< “saying” joined together" in other forms...nor have I “superimposed that” onto the verse.
>ALL< I did was mirror and mock >your< “superimposing into the scant phrase from the Qur'an” the notion of “prior existence” of the stars, moons, earth to the Big Bang.

I suggested other ways they could be considered “joined”...I did not claim that’s what the verse “says” nor “superimpose” upon the verse.
But in the pursuit of “serious discussion” you oblige me to devote two paragraphs to defending against a Staw Man proposition.

Keep in mind that some translators used the term "stitched together" as in a cloth.

LOL.....>>>ONE<<< “translator” >singular< out of a dozen who used “joined together”.

But even >your< language betrays your argument- “ "stitched together" as in a cloth.”
Not - “The prior existence Moon cloth stitched together with the prior existence Earth cloth stitched together with...”

Oh no- "stitched together" as in >>A<< cloth.”...>one form< , >one object<...hell..maybe even "a homogeneous subatomic plasma"...the text doesn't say...but even your responce conceeds the posibility of "a" singular object.

Methinks in the name of “serious discussion” you will now drop and ignore that gambit with all the haste you devoted to dropping the ‘Car’ gambit ;-)

But the text does not say that.

What?...Again?...(emphasis)- I DID NOT SAY THE TEXT SAID THAT! Take a look, the entire passage you are responding to relates to “your logic” and what >you< insist is “implied” by the text. You “superimpose” notions of “prior existence” on the text on the basis that it is “implied”...I challenge >your< logic and you waste both our time by suggesting I’m imposing something on the text.

It says precious little.

In regard what >form< the “joined together” took IT SAYS >NOTHING<. Yet you superimpose and insist “prior existence” of celestial bodies is “implied”...and if/when I challenge your superimposition you holler “the text does not say that”.

The text reads as a very primitive explanation, as would be expected from an illiterate desert dweller.

The text reads as a very concise and succinct of two fundamental contemporary scientific understandings-1/ That everything seen in the heavens was once “joined together” and then “cleft asunder” 2/ All living things came from the water.... explanations as would NOT be expected from an illiterate desert dweller.

There is no hint of the vast amount of time involved here. It reads more like, "We cast asunder.. and voila... creation." That is not how the Big Bang theory works.

Funny...Back in #103 you are superimposing upon the text a “slow” process-

“then they are not describing the big bang and therefore do not accurately reflect current thinking. For the slow, "cleft asunder, ripped or torn" implies an outside agency.”

Now you are complaining of the “voila... creation” haste.

Let me know when you have made up your mind.

Fact is... the verse in question says >nothing< about time or speed of the “cleft asunder”...but the Quran does speak to the period involved in the creation of the universe...as you would be aware...if you had even bothered to read “Bucaille's inane ramblings” before dismissing them out of hand.
Modern commentators have gone back to this interpretation. Yusuf Ali (1934), in his commentary on each of the verses that deals with the stages in the Creation, insists on the importance of taking the word (yaum), elsewhere interpreted as meaning 'days', to mean in reality 'very long Periods, or Ages, or Aeons'.
--sura 70, verse 4:
". . . in a period of time (yaum) whereof the measure is 50,000 years."

 

[Wombat]

Massaging the meaning of the text by greatly expanding what a few short words say is more than a bit unreasonable.

You are, in the name of &#8220;serious discussion&#8221;, invited, nay challenged, to produce the quote/example in which I have &#8220;Massaged the meaning of the text by greatly expanding what a few short words say .&#8221;
My money is on your being unable to find/present >anything< that is not an alternative reading or possibility to >your< &#8220;superimposition&#8221; of &#8220;implied&#8221; and &#8220;massaged meaning&#8221;.
If you cannot/will not find/present such examples your complaint is &#8220;more than a bit unreasonable&#8221;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
The idea infers prior existence which is quite erroneous

Oh... yea...sure it does

The only way by this/any logic that they could be "joined together" is for all the stars, planets, moons to be stuck together, side by side, retaining their independent "existance" but "joined".......by Superglue?end quote

To the perspective of a primitive desert dweller, that is exactly how I see them imagining this.

Baseless Projection and pointless speculation. You, imagining them imagining how the &#8220;heavens and earth&#8221; would look &#8220;joined together&#8221;.

It is inconceivable that Muhammad envisioned the Big Bang and then came up with this amusing way of describing it. .&#8221;.

Patently false. Millions find it quite &#8220;conceivable&#8221; that such a process was >Revealed< to Muhammad- among them Doctors, Academics, Scientists, Professors and &#8220;primitive desert dwellers&#8221;

Aside from this the idea of the universe starting from a single point was hardly a new idea even in Muhammad's time.

I&#8217;m open to the notion that there was such a preceding conception...go for it...cite and substantiate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
I mean...it's completely unfeasible that the stars, moons, planets could have been once &#8220;joined together&#8221; in a form other than they currently hold....the very notion flies in the face of science....don&#8217;t it?

Again, you are inserting ideas into these few words that are not there.

Oh...For the Luva ...
>NO<...>again<...I am responding to >you< &#8220;inserting ideas into these few words that are not there&#8221; with the insistence the verse says/implies >same form< &#8220;existence&#8221;

It says nothing about "in another form" it simply says "joined together"

AND- &#8220;It says nothing about "in the same form" it simply says "joined together"....&#8221;
So if you don&#8217;t project and superimpose your "joined together" in the &#8220;pre existing&#8221;/same form scenario upon the text then I will not be obliged to provide the screamingly obvious (and scientifically accurate) alternative to your reading.

Are we really to assume that Muhammad meant a homogeneous subatomic plasma?

You are quite willing to assume he meant &#8220;"joined together" ...all the stars, planets, moons to be stuck together, side by side, retaining their independent "existence" but "joined".......by Superglue&#8221;.

What we are really meant to do, in the name of the &#8220;serious discussion&#8221; you claim to seek, is avoid and abandon &#8220;assumptions&#8221; as to what is &#8220;inferred&#8221; and start dealing with what is actually said- in the text and by the respondent.

Then perhaps I will not be obliged to devote two entire posts to pointing out that I was responding with alternative readings to >your< superimpositions upon the text.

 

[Muffled]

The Quran is not of God because it contradicts The Torah!

Do you believe everything you read? You quoted from an internet website. I could form an internet website and claim that Moses got all his information from an Egyptian God. If I avowed that I were a Hebrew scholar would you simply believe it because it was written in an authoritative manner?

The Bible says nothing about Terah having or not having idols. The Qu'ran does say that Terah had idols.

There is no contradiction there. However Laban a descendant of Haran, son of Terah, did have household idols so it is not unlikely that Terah did also.

 

[Muffled]

I can see just fine that the ideas in Islam are all derived from previously existing Jewish, Christian and pagan ideas. Mostly Jewish.
They certainly appear to contradict each other. Either they do, or they Qur'an is too obscure and confusing to have come from God. You can't have it both ways.

I am not sure that You can say that God is always explicit. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion but at times He can be quite indirect and those who are easily confused would miss the meaning. So although it is not God's intention to obfuscate, the result for those who lack clarity and understanding the result is confusion.

 

[Jacksnyte]

I am not sure that You can say that God is always explicit. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion but at times He can be quite indirect and those who are easily confused would miss the meaning. So although it is not God's intention to obfuscate, the result for those who lack clarity and understanding the result is confusion.

Which would preclude his omnipotence, because if , indeed he is omnipotent, then he has the ability to communicate with precise clarity in a way tailored specifically to a particular person's ability to comprehend. What you are essentially saying is that "god sometimes accidentally will confuse people, but he didn't really mean to", I say this is patently ridiculous due to the fact that this entity is supposed to be omniopotent.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not sure that You can say that God is always explicit. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion but at times He can be quite indirect and those who are easily confused would miss the meaning. So although it is not God's intention to obfuscate, the result for those who lack clarity and understanding the result is confusion.

Is the story of Adam and Eve literally true, or did God use evolution?

Was the flood global or localized?

Did King Nebuchadnezzar actually eat grass with cows?

Does the New Testament forbid divorce except in cases of adultery?

What evidence do you have that God inspired some Bible writers to write about homosexuality?

It is interesting that we are discussing how to interpret the Bible correctly when millions of people have died without ever hearing about the Bible. Perhaps God does not want everyone to know about the Bible.