Sun orbits the galaxy?
-
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.
-
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.
The fact is there is no logical or objective contradiction here. It doesn't matter what I choose.
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?
When there is no clear, objective discrepancy in the particular verse, and you claim there is one you inevitably need to bring reasons. You did, and it showed that you imposed your own interpretation. I, on the other hand, did not claim anything; only that your so-called discrepancy requires your interpretation.
-
Which verse?
2133 and 3640
The wordmeans galaxy or universe.
-
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..
I did not make an original claim. You did, and it was all based on twisting the verses to fit your preconceived interpretation
Because I think you're lying to yourself because it is such an emotional issue. That is a common human practice.
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.
The only that seems emotional is you. You know nothing about what I believed before, how long I've followed the quran, etc. Please don't make ridiculous claims about me, ignorantly.
I have many discussions regarding the quran's divinity with openminded, objective people, including Christians and Atheists. I have no problem. You, on the other hand, come here solely to disprove the quran with your mind already made up, including mocking, unnecessary statements such has "'allah' clearly had a 7th century view of the universe," and many other unnecessary, insulting statements.
Please, stop preaching to me about "what I've been trained" or me "lying to myself."
-
2133 and 3640
The wordmeans galaxy or universe.
I cannot find that word in 2133
nor in 3640
If I'm blind, then highlight that word in the Arabic above.
Now, I looked up the word you posted in the dictionary, and it says orb, orbit, tropic. So what exactly are you trying to pull here?
-
I cannot find that word in 2133
nor in 3640
If I'm blind, then highlight that word in the Arabic above.
Now, I looked up the word you posted in the dictionary, and it says orb, orbit, tropic. So what exactly are you trying to pull here?
It means the the sky/space/universe.
http//lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp?fileurl=/html/2055867.html
It's an Arabic dictionary
, , , . . . , , , , . . ,It means sky/space/universe.
-
That link goes to the same exact dictionary I've been using. The one you said isn't good enough. ;D
Now what am I supposed to do with that link when the entire thing is in Arabic? I forget whether this is common technique number 5 or 7 on the list. It's called "hiding behind the Arabic". Knowing the other person can't read Arabic, one posts all Arabic and then declares the matter settled. That's pretty shameful.
-
That link goes to the same exact dictionary I've been using. The one you said isn't good enough.
It goes to the same site, not the same dictionary.
Now what am I supposed to do with that link when the entire thing is in Arabic? I forget whether this is common technique number 5 or 7 on the list. It's called "hiding behind the Arabic". Knowing the other person can't read Arabic, one posts all Arabic and then declares the matter settled. That's pretty shameful.
I highlighted to you the word I am talking about. I am not hiding behind Arabic, the Quran is the epitome of Arabic language and so it's common sense that I get to large dictionaries to find what a certain word means. You can check the meaning of that word in Arabic/English dictionaries.
-
It goes to the same site, not the same dictionary.I highlighted to you the word I am talking about. I am not hiding behind Arabic, the Quran is the epitome of Arabic language and so it's common sense that I get to large dictionaries to find what a certain word means. You can check the meaning of that word in Arabic/English dictionaries.
How am I supposed to read the definition you provided? You know full well that this was not intended for me to read.
Now, I told you that I cannot find that word you are referencing in the verse. And I asked you to quote the verse in Arabic, as i have done, as bold the word you are talking about. It doesn't look like it's there. AND, the word YOU gave, which doesn't appear to be in the verse, is translated to orb and orbit. If you think it's otherwise, then you have to show me in some way that I can understand, rather than just handing me a page of Arabic. You could take the story of Mary Poppins in Arabic and represent it as the Quran saying what you want it to, and how would I know any better? Pardon me while I don't particularly trust you. You've already tried to swap words out.
-
I have to leave now. Will respond tomorrow.
-
Peace Arnold,
The certainty you display is congruent with the deficit in your knowledge. Don't you think that it's about time to fill the gap?
www.studyquran.co.uk is filled with information on steps to take. You should take a look.
Nadeem
-
Peace Arnold,
The certainty you display is congruent with the deficit in your knowledge.
Here...I'll make a claim to, just like you. Here goes. Your statement shows a deficiency of knowledge. There. Tah dah !!! See? I can do that to. So where are we at? Nowhere. So why did you bother to type? I can invent opinions too. See how meaningless that is? Where's the point? See what I mean? And the funniest part, is the you preclude this with "Peace Arnold". ;D
Don't you think that it's about time to fill the gap?
Don't you think it's about time to see the brainwashing that has been given to you?
Oh, OK
Of course not, because, naturally, you are right, and I am wrong. Huh huh huh (fake relaxed laughter). Cracks me up.
www.studyquran.co.uk is filled with information on steps to take. You should take a look.
Nadeem
Have you ever considered the possibility that these steps were created for you and others so that you may look upon these scriptures as others would like you to rather than as they really are? Oh no. No no no. Of course not
-
Peace Arnold,
Your apparent lack of knowledge in Arabic is not due to my opinion affirming such. You've admitted yourself that you don't know Arabic. I'm just wondering how you can be so sure of yourself even though you have nothing solid to lean on.
Don't you think it's about time to see the brainwashing that has been given to you?
There's little denial Arnold, I've long known that I'm brainwashed and impressionable. So are we all, to some degree.
Have you ever considered the possibility that these steps were created for you and others so that you may look upon these scriptures as others would like you to rather than as they really are? Oh no. No no no. Of course not
If "looking upon these scriptures as others" is carefully "considering all their implications and aspects, drawing on all available sources, keeping away desires and relying on facts, and learning as much as possible", which is what studyquran invites to, then what's wrong with that?
Quit the aggressive, bro, you're only burning yourself.
Nadeem
-
Peace Arnold,
Your apparent lack of knowledge in Arabic is not due to my opinion affirming such. You've admitted yourself that you don't know Arabic. I'm just wondering how you can be so sure of yourself even though you have nothing solid to lean on.
Because I believe that the translations ARE basically sufficient if you look at enough translators to give you a decent consensus. And I believe that this hiding behind the Arabic is a created hype and overly used back door escape hatch for when things get a little tough to explain. Look, if someone can say that we don't know the meaning of it unless we know Arabic, when it happens to be convenient for their argument at that particular time, then why don't they say that all of the time in all situations of the Quran? Right? Right? We simply can't know anything about the Quran unless we know Arabic, right? So then what are all of these non Arabic speaking Muslims believing in? This "Arabic only" BS is a scam.
There's little denial Arnold, I've long know that I'm brainwashed and impressionable. So are we all, to some degree.
If "looking upon these scriptures as others" is carefully "considering all their implications and aspects, drawing on all available sources, keeping away desires and relying on facts, and learning as much as possible", which is what studyquran invites to, then what's wrong with that?Because I've already done things like that. Why do you think I know my way around the Quran better than a lot of others here? Next question?
Quit the aggressive, bro, you're only burning yourself.
Nadeem
And I said before, this shows that people are more interested in their personal feelings rather than the truth. BTW, it's funny how the bulk of insults has actually flown on me, rather than me dishing them out, but you might be hypnotized to not see that. You seem to only read my responses, rather than the posts that cause them. That's OK. That's to be expected from the biased mind. It's like the hypnotist the can make you see things that AREN'T there, and make you not see things that ARE there.
-
Because I believe that the translations ARE basically sufficient if you look at enough translators to give you a decent consensus. And I believe that this hiding behind the Arabic is a created hype and overly used back door escape hatch for when things get a little tough to explain. Look, if someone can say that we don't know the meaning of it unless we know Arabic, when it happens to be convenient for their argument at that particular time, then why don't they say that all of the time in all situations of the Quran? Right? Right? We simply can't know anything about the Quran unless we know Arabic, right? So then what are all of these non Arabic speaking Muslims believing in? This "Arabic only" BS is a scam.
They aren't sufficient. Translators are limited to the depth of their own knowledge, most had mastery of Arabic but few had mastery of reality. Hiding behind the Arabic is sometimes used as a back door, but not always (still waiting for an Arabic reference on angels, by the way ;D).
Look, if someone can say that we don't know the meaning of it unless we know Arabic, when it happens to be convenient for their argument at that particular time, then why don't they say that all of the time in all situations of the Quran? Right? Right? We simply can't know anything about the Quran unless we know Arabic, right? So then what are all of these non Arabic speaking Muslims believing in? This "Arabic only" BS is a scam.
Nobody is saying that. The thing is, sometimes translators INTERPRET the Quran simultaneously translating it (pretty unavoidable, because of the broadness of Arabic words vs the narrow meanings of English and other languages). Yusuf Ali and others are notorious for this, and they stretch the verses a lot to justify their own understanding or the prevalent understanding whether or not it is right or wrong - hence, why I keep asking you to show me "angels" in the Quran's arabic and not hiding behind Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir.
Because I've already done things like that. Why do you think I know my way around the Quran better than a lot of others here?
Says the person unable to bring a reference to "angels" from the Quran itself. rotfl
Now, onto your previous post from page 4.
-
They aren't sufficient. Translators are limited to the depth of their own knowledge, most had mastery of Arabic but few had mastery of reality. Hiding behind the Arabic is sometimes used as a back door, but not always (still waiting for an Arabic reference on angels, by the way ;D).
Alrightee then. So any Muslim who does not speak Arabic, does not truly understand the scriptures that they believe. And yet, other scriptures were supposed to be the obscure ones, and the Quran was the one that was supposed to make everything all clear. Hmmmmm......
Nobody is saying that. The thing is, sometimes translators INTERPRET the Quran simultaneously translating it (pretty unavoidable, because of the broadness of Arabic words vs the narrow meanings of English and other languages). Yusuf Ali and others are notorious for this, and they stretch the verses a lot to justify their own understanding or the prevalent understanding whether or not it is right or wrong - hence, why I keep asking you to show me "angels" in the Quran's arabic and not hiding behind Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir.
If you go back and read it, you'll realize that I never actually said that Angels throwing things at the jinn was in the Quran. It's from Ibn Kathir, and I forget which info he used in order to make that interpretation, but I'll find it if you insist or don't already know it. I suppose you don't.
Says the person unable to bring a reference to "angels" from the Quran itself. rotfl
No, it turns out to be YOUR misunderstanding, so you can get up off the floor now, anus. ;D
-
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.
I see. So when it is your understanding looking correct, it is 100%. The probability of an understanding being correct is proportional to the probability of that understanding belonging to yours, very nice.
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.
No, because according to you, it is 90%, not 100% that moon is associated with night, sun with day (a connection the Quran never makes). Just proximity is not enough. I want to see a logical A=B connection between the two, from the Quran. Otherwise, they are treated separately. The Quran is interpreted according to reality, not according to our mental imagery or our own agendas. Most translators, and people like you with preconcieved agendas, and people like me, fall into that trap.
Where? Be specific.
The verses were posted further down.
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?
No, your idea (good to see you have finally acknowledged this ) only works with active, or in any way, shape or form that avoids tautology, i.e. a full truth table. The Quran rules out the sheer possibility of them being able to catch up with one another in that verse, this is 100% passive denial, this is tautology, this is a full truth table.
I didn't say the same path, I said they orbit the same thing. That didn't work.
It doesn't matter. Because from the reference point of the Earth, the only effect it will have, given that speed and other factors are accounted for, will be the percieved sizes of the two bodies in the sky. Them taking the same path around the Earth, or orbiting the same thing, there will be few differences. This doesn't change the point I was making, in any case. The point was, that your understanding of "psuedo-passive denial" is incorrect. You stated something along the lines of "if we interpret this verse as X with this extra information I pulled out of nowhere, then the verse has meaning", and I stated that the verse is tautological and does not need "new meaning", because it is already clear in its meaning, just like "man consists of water" is also clear in its meaning and also tautological.
See above. Anyway, to be specific, the moon was specifically thought to be used for measurement of months and the sun for days.
The moon for months, definitely, sun for days, not too sure.
Which one is keeping the time of year, the sun or the moon?
Both, they form a very specific system in islam. The moon determines the months, but the sun also plays a part. I think there were a few articles on this by members of this forum, look in the ramadan section. Specifically, there are two different words used in the verse, and the word for sun describes a source of light, the word for moon simply describes light. I'll get to the point, soon.
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.
The tafseer/exegesis is incorrect, or rather, your usage of that tafseer. Allah doesn't put information in brackets ;D. If you look at that aya, it is tautological. It says the sun will not overtake the moon. In reality, the sun and moon follow completely different paths, and hence, they cannot overtake each other. The only obstacle in your brain is your refusal to compare the Quran with reality and hence denying its challenge in 106 and other verses. And of course, the sun is related to the day, I don't deny that, and if I did, consider that null.
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
Not at all. The Sun emits a ridiculous amount of light regardless of how much of it is obstructed. If you have been out deep into the forest/open wilderness at night during a thunderstorm, you will notice that each time lightning flashes, it looks like daylight for a few seconds - yet, very little energy is expended in comparison to the Sun, even at sunset. In the event of a flat surface, it will burst on and off, in the event of a horizon (curvature), it will be graduated - you can move towards the source of light and get towards daylight, and you can move away, and get into night time. This isn't possible for a flat Earth, because you would fall off the Earth before you got to the daytime, when the sun finishes setting. I don't think the Arabs had supersonic jets in the 7th century to verify this, in reality, you can reach day very fast even if the Sun has gone completely down.
What the heck are you going off about? Can't you stick to the subject?
That is part of the subject. The Quran tells us God is reality, then we should look towards reality for God. It does not get any simpler than that. I already demonstrated that BOTH the perception of Muhammad in the 7th century and our indirect observations are correct by that Quranic verse.
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?
Remember, I said I would get to the point. Well, here is the point, and it is the last pointy nail in the coffin of your ridiculous attempt at finding a "discrepancy" in the Quran - though you have admitted that the Quranic verse itself is not wrong in any way, shape or form, but you simply attempted to ascribe a 7th century understanding which coincidentally happens to be correct today
006.096
YUSUFALI He it is that cleaveth the day-break (from the dark) He makes the night for rest and tranquillity, and the sun and moon for the reckoning (of time) Such is the judgment and ordering of (Him), the Exalted in Power, the Omniscient.
PICKTHAL He is the Cleaver of the Daybreak, and He hath appointed the night for stillness, and the sun and the moon for reckoning. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.
SHAKIR He causes the dawn to break; and He has made the night for rest, and the sun and the moon for reckoning; this is an arrangement of the Mighty, the Knowing.What the...?
Actually, it was late at night and I misunderstood. But, the Quran describes phases of the moon in other verses.
Have fun
-
Alrightee then. So any Muslim who does not speak Arabic, does not truly understand the scriptures that they believe. And yet, other scriptures were supposed to be the obscure ones, and the Quran was the one that was supposed to make everything all clear. Hmmmmm......
If you go back and read it, you'll realize that I never actually said that Angels throwing things at the jinn was in the Quran. It's from Ibn Kathir, and I forget which info he used in order to make that interpretation, but I'll find it if you insist or don't already know it. I suppose you don't.
No, it turns out to be YOUR misunderstanding, so you can get up off the floor now, anus. ;D
A) Could it be any other way? To base your life on a text in a foreign language, which also states that you should verify everything, and then not understanding that foreign language, is that not truly not understanding the scripture they believe?
The Quran is clear not just linguistically but conceptually, through the use of tautologies.
If you go back and read it, you'll realize that I never actually said that Angels throwing things at the jinn was in the Quran. It's from Ibn Kathir, and I forget which info he used in order to make that interpretation, but I'll find it if you insist or don't already know it. I suppose you don't.
B) Then kindly keep Ibn Kathir and any other commentators out of this. We are not talking about Tafsir Ibn Kathir, we are talking about the quran.
No, it turns out to be YOUR misunderstanding, so you can get up off the floor now, anus.
C) Never did I mention angels or anything of the like throwing bolts at "jinn". I simply asked you were you got that reference from. If Ibn Kathir is such a great authority as you claim, then he should surely have a solid Quranic foundation for his concept of angels, and you can surely bring this solid Quranic foundation.