Sun orbits the galaxy?
-
DON'T REPLY YET...
Then the Sun and Moon are not necessarily related to the day and night mentioned directly next to it, in the same verse ). Double standards are very convenient, nice try.
Yes, not necessarily, which says nothing about probability or how likely something is. Just because it mentions both in the same breath, that doesn't mean we are 100% sure that they are being related. I suppose 90% sure isn't nearly good enough and needs to be completely discarded and the matter closed up. ;D
There is no way out for you because this verse simply cannot be disproved, and the only thing you can do is attribute a supposed 7th century understanding of the universe - even though the verse is perfectly in line with the modern understanding.
I don't think any modern writer, poet or plain average Jo would ever associate night and day with the movement of the sun and moon with night and day and therefore would never mention them in the same breath. Now, if it instead mentioned the movement of the earth in the same verse as night and day, then we might have something good going on. But nope. Nothing like that. It's moon sun, night day. The movements are associated with the states. Having them in the same exact verse, right next to each other, and then having them bundled as all makes this even more likely. Hey, at some point, we decide what a verse most likely says, right? Nothing will ever be proven as 100% wrong as long as the human mind decides to get creative. Creativity is almost endless. But at some point, one has to step back and decide what is most likely.
So what? If I quoted a devout atheist who said a sensible quote, does that mean I follow atheism?
Actually, I did not bring it up. All I did was point out that the Quran pointing out the obvious (to us) is a very common theme, and you spun it into an argument over the meaning of "tautology".
The broadest, most generic definition applies.
Yes. The difference is, that "it is not allowed that" or "it is not decreed that" is different from "Allah decreed that", because the first is in the passive/negative sense, and the latter is in the active/positive sense.
Alright. The verse and other cross-references make it very clear that heliocentricity is correct, because the Quran describes phenomena arising from heliocentricity,
Where? Be specific.
and assigns them to the celestial bodies they came from. What you said was something along the lines of "the verse has meaning only with this understanding". But, the rest of the Quran simply refutes that understanding wholesale, meaning the Quran supports an absolutely passive stance, a tautology, i.e. truth table full of truths.
And for the hundredth time, I don't care about passive or active because my idea works in either case. I don't care about passive or active. I don't care about passive or active. I don't care about passive or active. Why do you continually stick to this when it doesn't matter either way to my point?
According to God's law, yes. I hope you realise the sheer absurdity of what you are saying. The Quran simply does not point to the Sun and Moon being on the same path.
I didn't say the same path, I said they orbit the same thing. That didn't work.
For instance, in 2189, God defines the new moon as a measuring system or time of benefit for mankind. This is impossible with both Sun and Moon on the same path and with fixed velocities, for two obvious reasons. The phases would not exist, meaning no new moon would exist, in such a system and because there would be no advantage to using the moon instead of the sun in such a system.
See above. Anyway, to be specific, the moon was specifically thought to be used for measurement of months and the sun for days.
The most damning evidence is 105 where the Sun is linked to the years, and the moon to be linked to the months (the count of which is 12 per solar year, by God's decree in 936). 105 amd 106 challenge the reader to look for signs, and simply put, 105 conforms to reality like no other - it is heliocentric no matter what spin you wish to put on it.
105 It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.
106 Verily, in the alternation of the night and the day, and in all that Allah hath created, in the heavens and the earth, are signs for those who fear Him.
Which one is keeping the time of year, the sun or the moon?
http//www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=10&tid=22395
(5. It is He Who made the sun a shining thing and the moon as a light and measured out for it stages that you might know the number of years and the reckoning. Allah did not create this but in truth. He explains the Ayat in detail for people who have knowledge.) (6. Verily, in the alternation of the night and the day and in all that Allah has created in the heavens and the earth are Ayat for those who have Taqwa.)
Allah tells us about the signs He created that are indicative of His complete power and great might. He made the rays that come forth from the bright sun as the source of light, and made the beams that come forth from the moon as light. He made them of two different natures so they would not be confused with one another. Allah made the dominion of the sun in the daytime and the moon in the night. He ordained phases for the moon, where it starts small then its light increases until it completes a full moon. Then it begins to decrease until it returns to its first phase at the conclusion of the month. Allah said
(And the moon, We have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old dried curved date stalk. It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.) (3639-40) And He said
(And the sun and the moon for counting) And in this Ayah He said
(and measured) that is the moon, Allah said
(And measured out for it stages that you might know the number of years and the reckoning. '' The days are revealed by the action of the sun, and the months and the years by the moon. Allah then stated
[
Looks like it's the moon, not the sun. Instead, the action of the sun reveal and count the days. Hmmmm.....That's what I thought too.
Now, in 3129, it makes the case for the curvature of Earth, and again, geocentricity, by stating that night merges into day and vice versa - something that can only happen with curvature.
Well, that's not really true. What exactly is the difference between our observation of a horizon and an observation from a flat surface? In both cases, the light gradually appears and disappears. So he's still only talking about something obvious to any naked eye
Of course, anyone could have observed that. But when this is linked to the movement of the bodies, this goes against a concept of flat Earth. In 3130, it shows a very important principle - Allah or God or Zeus or Ra is "Al-Haq", truth, or reality. If you are aware, these two concepts are intertwined - there can be no falsehood in reality, and describing reality is equal to telling the truth. When God states he is reality, and truth, then challenges us to look to reality to verify the Quran, my belief is sealed. This is also another verse where anthropomorphism is rejected, and God is shown to be conceptual (I'm taking liberties with that word)
What the heck are you going off about? Can't you stick to the subject?
In 3513, we have the direct link between day and night merging, and sun and moon running their appointed terms, as mentioned in 3129.
3639 - same theme. Interesting reference to a palm branch - see http//www.answering-christianity.com/moon_orbit_miracle.htm. Same theme echoed in 395, the overlapping of day and night linked to the sun and moon's course. 4137 describes the two bodies as signs of God - another challenge to the reader to ensure their understanding is in line with reality.Yes, seems like they are almost ALWAYS mentioned together, night. day, movement of the moon, movement of the sun. So what's that trying to tell us?
756-7510 describes an eclipse occurring. There is, only one way for that to occur. In reality, eclipses DID NOT ALWAYS OCCUR - we coincidentally ()) happened to spawn on Earth at the very time the sun and moon lined up as needed and the phenomenon began.
Peace...
What the...?
-
Why would that be logical? I know it's logical to assume that science is correct when they say that the sun is orbiting the galaxy, but why, exactly, does it make it logical for the Quran to mean this as well? You know precisely what this question is pointing to.
It can mean that both revolve around thier own axis.
-
It can mean that both revolve around thier own axis.
That is not a related answer to the question, so here it is again
I know it's logical to assume that science is correct when they say that the sun is orbiting the galaxy, but why, exactly, does it make it logical for the Quran to mean this as well?Why is it logical to always assume that the Quran is saying the same thing as science? Why is it logical to change the meaning of the Quran as we discover new things in science?
-
Peace,
Arnold, because the quran asks us to pick the best meaning. (391
There is no reason to exclude science when evaluating the Quran.
Nadeem
What was the best meaning that we should have picked in the 14th century?
And, why should science be used to interpret the Quran? It should be irrelevant, right? But you are suggesting that maybe it should be relevant. Here comes the self fulfilling prophecy again. Same thing that Nostradamous people do. If something occurs, then surely Nostradamous meant THAT in his cryptic writings rather than what it appeared that he meant, but they never thought it meant that before the event occurred. So let's take a look at something, and don't respoond until you hear the whole thing out..
When people believed the sun orbited the earth, there would be no contention about what the Quran was talking about when it mentioned the sun's orbit. Clearly, it was referring to the common sense that everyone observed of the sun orbiting the earth. There was not even any need to mention what the sun was orbiting because it was a given that need not even be said.
Then, post Copernicus came, where suddenly, we found out that the earth spins and orbits and the sun does not orbit. Between this time, and very recent modern science, science was telling us that the earth does all of the moving and the sun does not move or orbit. So this put the Quran in a very difficult situation, as clearly it speaks of the sun's orbit or movement in general and does not speak of the earth's. So somehow, Muslims had to reinvent the Quran to prevent it from being in error by claiming that it is not speaking of an orbiting sun. Now I don't know how they did that, and it must have been a whopper of an invention, and I DO know that they HAD to do something as the Quran simply cannot be seen in error in any way. So, somehow, they negated the fact that the Quran mentions movement of the sun at all. Probably through the old classic diversions such as mistranslation, context, wrong root word or whatever. So the Quran never spoke of or really meant anything about the movement of the sun and therefore it is not in error.
Then, recent science comes along and discovers the sun orbits the galaxy. And viola, the old interpretation that they worked to throw away gets pulled back out of the trashcan and gets a new twist, even though earlier, they would have had to have convinced people that the sun's movement isn't in the Quran. So now, the Quran went from the sun orbiting the earth, to the sun not moving at all, to the sun orbiting the galaxy, even though the concept of a galaxy was never even mentioned in the Quran. So science dictates the meaning of the Quran?
Do you see any lack of integrity going on in this?
-
Why is it logical to always assume that the Quran is saying the same thing as science?
Because we believe the Quran does not contradict with science. It's a matter of faith.
Why is it logical to change the meaning of the Quran as we discover new things in science?
We do not change or invent new meanings. Words do have more than one meaning.
-
"No, I didn't say it meant anything, because it neither said around the galaxy or around the earth. It is open to interpretation. You, however, attach one interpretation to it as if it is objectively true, and then call it a discrepancy. That is all. I assure you, all your so-called discrepancies will (and have) have the above attribute. Next.."
-
"No, I didn't say it meant anything, because it neither said around the galaxy or around the earth. It is open to interpretation. You, however, attach one interpretation to it as if it is objectively true, and then call it a discrepancy. That is all. I assure you, all your so-called discrepancies will (and have) have the above attribute. Next.."
OK, so why do you pick the interpretation of it orbiting the galaxy when the following is true
-
Galaxies are never mentioned in the Quran, but the earth is obviously mentioned all over the place
-
Every time the sun and moon's orbit is mentioned, it's mentioned right next to the alternation of night and day. Not just once, but a pattern of this. So what does the sun's and moon's orbit have to do with night and day? Hmmmmm....
-
It says that neither the night catches up with the day, nor the moon catches up with th sun. What the heck does catchiong up with or outstripping have to do with the sun and moon's orbit? Nothing, unless they were seen as both orbiting the same thing
-
The belief at the time of the writing of the Quran was that the sun orbited the earth, so it is not absurd in the least to assume that the Quran was talking about what everyone saw with familiarity. The sun orbiting the earth.
-
There are absolutely damning hadiths, that even if not true, they still display the clear understanding that people back then had of the Quran. They knew what it was talking about because they had no reason to change the meaning or bend or twist it to make it fit modern knowledge
There's 5 reasons to think the Quran is talking about the sun orbiting the earth, and there are more.
Can you tell me one good reason to think the Quran was referring to an orbit around the sun?
-
-
Because we believe the Quran does not contradict with science. It's a matter of faith.We do not change or invent new meanings. Words do have more than one meaning.
Faith? The Quran's meaning changes when science discovers new things. That's science dictating the meaning of the Quran. Is that faith?
-
Peace Arnold,
The Quran itself points towards the nature containing signs as a way of learning the truth. Science is merely a study of these signs. Why should we disregard this study? Why should we not let it mold our understanding of the Quran, when the Quran itself approves of these signs?
I agree that we shouldn't force the Quran to work with the science, but we should at least let it play the part that is god-given.
I myself do not judge the Quran using science. Why should I? The Quran is not a book for scientists, but for citizens and individuals. Thus, it should be judged after how well it structures society, and how well it guides the individual.
Nadeem
-
- Galaxies are never mentioned in the Quran, but the earth is obviously mentioned all over the place
Galaxies are mentioned in the same verse we are talking about.
- Every time the sun and moon's orbit is mentioned, it's mentioned right next to the alternation of night and day. Not just once, but a pattern of this. So what does the sun's and moon's orbit have to do with night and day? Hmmmmm....
That's not true. Check 124, 2218, 2661 etc...
- It says that neither the night catches up with the day, nor the moon catches up with th sun. What the heck does catchiong up with or outstripping have to do with the sun and moon's orbit? Nothing, unless they were seen as both orbiting the same thing
It's a knowledge that the sun cannot catch the moon.
- The belief at the time of the writing of the Quran was that the sun orbited the earth, so it is not absurd in the least to assume that the Quran was talking about what everyone saw with familiarity. The sun orbiting the earth.
It contradicted what they probably thought to be true.
- There are absolutely damning hadiths, that even if not true, they still display the clear understanding that people back then had of the Quran. They knew what it was talking about because they had no reason to change the meaning or bend or twist it to make it fit modern knowledge
See above.
Can you tell me one good reason to think the Quran was referring to an orbit around the sun?
They orbit around the galaxy.
-
Peace Arnold,
The Quran itself points towards the nature containing signs as a way of learning the truth. Science is merely a study of these signs. Why should we disregard this study? Why should we not let it mold our understanding of the Quran, when the Quran itself approves of these signs?
Because there is no integrity. That is merely twisting the Quran to make it fit science.
I agree that we shouldn't force the Quran to work with the science, but we should at least let it play the part that is god-given.
I don't believe that one should entertain science when interpreting the Quran. The words are the words are the words, regardless of and completely independent of science. Did you see the fiasco i wrote about with the Quran continually being reinterpreted based on what we found out about the sun?
I myself do not judge the Quran using science. Why should I? The Quran is not a book for scientists, but for citizens and individuals. Thus, it should be judged after how well it structures society, and how well it guides the individual.
Nadeem
That's fine, but a letter for letter book from Allah should not conflict with known fact. Allah does not misinterpret meteorites. If you want to use the rules of the Quran as a guidance for behavior, that's fine. Seems OK to me for that, but then again, there are many other regular books that are great guidances for good happy healthy and caring behavior. A book doesn't need to be from God to contain good common sense wisdom about how to behave.
-
"No, I didn't say it meant anything, because it neither said around the galaxy or around the earth. It is open to interpretation. You, however, attach one interpretation to it as if it is objectively true, and then call it a discrepancy. That is all. I assure you, all your so-called discrepancies will (and have) have the above attribute. Next.."
-
And..?
-
Again, you're taking your own interpretation of what the verse is saying and forcing it upon the actual text, then calling it a discrepancy. The verses say "Each float in an orbit." This does not even closely imply anything about going around the earth. Night and day being mentioned by it means nothing; again your own interpretation. I could just as easily say because the sun and the moon are associated with night and day, they are mentioned together. There is no logical/objective contradiction here. Only if you impose your interpretation.
-
Again, the last line, your own interpretation. Nowhere does the quran openly say the sun and moon orbit the earth. There is no logical/objective contradiction here.
-
Your conclusion is that it is not from God, but one of your premises have to be that it is not from God. It is an empty statement.
-
I don't follow ahadith, the prophet's revelations are in the quran. The history of hadith is another story.
Unlike you, I don't impose my own beliefs and interpretations on the verse. It is what it is. There is NO logical/objective contradiction or discrepancy. Absolutely NONE. This is fact that you will have to accept. You are welcome to believe as you want, but this is something that must be accepted. Again, all your so-called discrepancies will be of this nature. Can we move on now? ....Next "discrepancy" please...
-
-
Not one single one of those told us why we should think it means the sun orbiting the galaxy, and that was the question I had for you. But you're not even going to attempt it because you know there really isn't any good reason at all to think the Quran was talking about an orbit around the galaxy. At least I can give you reasons for my interpretation. You can't give me reasons for yours. Heh, at some point, the reader has to decide what is most likely. So I give my reasons, and you give yours. But we both know why you refuse to do this. Obviously, I have put you into stonewall mode, which is usually near when the conversation ends.
-
Not one single one of those told us why we should think it means the sun orbiting the galaxy, and that was the question I had for you. But you're not even going to attempt it because you know there really isn't any good reason at all to think the Quran was talking about an orbit around the sun. At least I can give you reasons for my interpretation. You can't give me reasons for yours. Heh, at some point, the reader has to decide what is most likely. So I give my reasons, and you give yours. But we both know why you refuse to do this. Obviously, I have put you into stonewall mode, which is usually near when the conversation ends.
Is it me in "stonewall mode," or you? I have told you many times over, I did not claim it is talking about the galaxy. When you claim there is a discrepancy, the burden of proof is on you, which includes showing objective reasons why. Not interpretations. You are welcome to your own interpretation, but please, for future reference, note that your interpretation does not = objective contradiction.
Indeed one of us is in stonewall mode, and indeed it is near the end of the conversation.
Peace.
-
This is fact that you will have to accept.
Why? You can't tell me why. I just simply MUST accept it. This is the bullheadedness of a lot of Muslims that I've discussed things with. When things get tough, they get really angry, stubborn and start making absolute proclamations and try and stamp out the conversation as quickly as possible. Do you call that being a truthseeker? I don't. Part of seeking the truth is testing and analyzing. But when I go far enough, out comes the anger and the window gets slammed shut.
-
Why? You can't tell me why. I just simply MUST accept it. This is the bullheadedness of a lot of Muslims that I've discussed things with. When things get tough, they get really angry, stubborn and start making absolute proclamations and try and stamp out the conversation as quickly as possible. Do you call that being a truthseeker? I don't. Part of seeking the truth is testing and analyzing.
Do you have any sense of logic? I said it is fact that you are imposing your own interpretation on it and calling it a discrepancy.
Brother, why are you talking to me about truthseeking? You have come here, with 159 posts, all trying to disprove the quran, showing pure hate in the meanwhile. Your mind is already made up. Do not lecture me on your Muslim friends or if I am truthseeking or not, please. Thank you.
-
Is it me in "stonewall mode," or you? I have told you many times over, I did not claim it is talking about the galaxy.
There are only one of two options, either it is circling the earth or it's circling the galaxy or some place in outer space. It's not circling another dimension, so you have to pick one. Is it the earth, or an outer space galaxy? Which one and why? And I KNOW you're going to side step this.
When you claim there is a discrepancy, the burden of proof is on you, which includes showing objective reasons why. Not interpretations. You are welcome to your own interpretation, but please, for future reference, note that your interpretation does not = objective contradiction.
Actually, you have that wrong, and i thank you because you have just displayed the common logical fallacy and fault that most Muslims use. You see, you would be right that I would have to prove the discrepancy, IF the Quran is first by priori assumed to be true. However, that priori is faulty and goes against reasonable logic. The truth of the matter is that nothing is proved. Therefore, there is no burden of proof on either side, and each side must make it's case to make it's side the likely choice. See? See the backwards system of priori logic used?
-
Not one single one of those told us why we should think it means the sun orbiting the galaxy, and that was the question I had for you. But you're not even going to attempt it because you know there really isn't any good reason at all to think the Quran was talking about an orbit around the galaxy. At least I can give you reasons for my interpretation. You can't give me reasons for yours. Heh, at some point, the reader has to decide what is most likely. So I give my reasons, and you give yours. But we both know why you refuse to do this. Obviously, I have put you into stonewall mode, which is usually near when the conversation ends.
The word
in the verse we are discussing means galaxy.
-
Do you have any sense of logic? I said it is fact that you are imposing your own interpretation on it and calling it a discrepancy.
And I make the case to make the interpretation likely. i don't just arbitrarily claim it, I show you why I claim it. But so far, you have done nothing of the sort, and it's because you have little reason for your interpretation..
Brother, why are you talking to me about truthseeking?
Because I think you're lying to yourself because it is such an emotional issue. That is a common human practice.
You have come here, with 159 posts, all trying to disprove the quran, showing pure hate in the meanwhile.
Ummmm, no. That's just part of the training. Anybody who disagrees with the Quran, thinks it's not the letter for letter dictation of God, and tries to display that, is a hateful person. That's the way you've been trained.