The Qur?aan Cosmological Model - Delineation Of The Current universe.

StopS

I'm completely comfortable with you failing to grasp what I am trying to explain.
When you actually want to understand in full sincerity, let me know.

I understand. You have not tried to explain anything and are unable to explain what you are saying because it simply does not makes sense - so it is my fault. Of course.

kylixguru

I understand. You have not tried to explain anything and are unable to explain what you are saying because it simply does not makes sense - so it is my fault. Of course.

You are welcome to that point of view.
I've learned over the years how to tell when I am dealing with someone who is willing to listen and to learn. It is clear to me that you have no sincere interest in actually getting what I am talking about. What I am sharing with you is just a tiny sliver of what I could share, but when you are willfully blind there is no use in belaboring anything further.

I'll give you an example of why I consider it a waste of my time to belabor things with you

I clearly said that Genesis chapter 1 is a symbolic text that requires deciphering in order to know precisely what it is talking about. However, you completely dismiss that in an entirely unsubstantiated manner and persist in trying to take the symbols in a literal manner, which is obviously absurd as you pointed out.

Your reaction to this could have been
"Ok, perhaps there is more to this than I realized. I would really like to know how to decipher those symbols and the basis upon which you are doing so such that I can see it for myself."

However, your reaction was
"Genesis chapter 1 is full of nonsense, not symbols."

So, put yourself in my shoes. Taking away my ability to decipher symbols is like taking a microscope away from a biologist and still expecting them to prove things about sub-cellular components and their activities.

You present yourself like you are some kind of an expert and that your capacity for logic and reason are par-excellence. So far I find your conversation here to be quite dull and ordinary.

StopS

You are welcome to that point of view. \

Thank you for your kind permission.

I've learned over the years how to tell when I am dealing with someone who is willing to listen and to learn. It is clear to me that you have no sincere interest in actually getting what I am talking about. What I am sharing with you is just a tiny sliver of what I could share, but when you are willfully blind there is no use in belaboring anything further.

Correct. If I hear nonsense I call it nonsense. You sound just like the person who started this thread the same pseudo-scientific words and that given time and more time and everything will be revealed later, much later.

I'll give you an example of why I consider it a waste of my time to belabor things with you

I clearly said that Genesis chapter 1 is a symbolic text that requires deciphering in order to know precisely what it is talking about. However, you completely dismiss that in an entirely unsubstantiated manner and persist in trying to take the symbols in a literal manner, which is obviously absurd as you pointed out.

If it says X and you tell me it says Y, why should I believe you? Why do I need X anyway if you change it to what you want it to be? Genesis 1 is a WRONG, faulty, erroneous, stone age belief and superstitious fear based on Sumerian and Hindu stories, folklore, fables and myths.

You are also starting to test the limits of what is considered honest. I did NOT dismiss it unsubstantiated but provided very clear and to the point reasons and examples

Your reaction to this could have been
"Ok, perhaps there is more to this than I realized. I would really like to know how to decipher those symbols and the basis upon which you are doing so such that I can see it for myself."

However, your reaction was
"Genesis chapter 1 is full of nonsense, not symbols."

So, put yourself in my shoes. Taking away my ability to decipher symbols is like taking a microscope away from a biologist and still expecting them to prove things about sub-cellular components and their activities.

You present yourself like you are some kind of an expert and that your capacity for logic and reason are par-excellence. So far I find your conversation here to be quite dull and ordinary.

No, my reaction is perfectly in order. There is no reason whatsoever to pander to ancient nonsense or to listen to snake-oil salesmen. There are no signs or symbols but wrong descriptions which were valid at the time they were written. Take them as such or leave it, but don't bend them what you want them to be. It does not work. You are also subjecting yourself to mockery and ridicule.

Now that you have run out of ideas and have no facts you can stop insulting me and go and sell your nonsense elsewhere.

Man_of_Faith

Salaam kalixguru,

I recommend you not to waste your time on stops, he is just after annoying people on this forum. He does not add anything to the discussions, just start heated discussions with people where he never gets anywhere, thinking everyone else is wrong.

He wastes his time when he could do something better instead. I think I have not seen a useful conversation including him.

Ignore him so that you may remain in a good mood.

God bless you

hawk99

Salaam kalixguru,

I recommend you not to waste your time on stops, he is just after annoying people on this forum. He does not add anything to the discussions, just start heated discussions with people where he never gets anywhere, thinking everyone else is wrong.

He wastes his time when he could do something better instead. I think I have not seen a useful conversation including him.

Ignore him so that you may remain in a good mood.

God bless you

Agreed

StopS

Salaam kalixguru,

I recommend you not to waste your time on stops, he is just after annoying people on this forum.

The first part of the sentence contains valuable information.
The second part is false. I don't annoy but I ask people to tell the truth. If you can't handle the truth that is entirely your problem.

He does not add anything to the discussions, just start heated discussions with people where he never gets anywhere, thinking everyone else is wrong.

This is not a discussion but someone trying to tell me that what Galileo said centuries ago is wrong "the Bible tells people how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go."

He wastes his time when he could do something better instead. I think I have not seen a useful conversation including him.

Ignore him so that you may remain in a good mood.

God bless you

I waste time on the truth. So please ignore me if you can't handle it and want superstition and voodoo jibber jabber instead.
And yes, I get irritated if people wander off into science and make claims such as these guys here, making it look as though these old books contain facts on modern cosmology. They do not.
I politely asked some questions and was insulted. That's ok with you. But if it comes to the truth you criticise. Shame on you.

kylixguru

Correct. If I hear nonsense I call it nonsense. You sound just like the person who started this thread the same pseudo-scientific words and that given time and more time and everything will be revealed later, much later.

If it says X and you tell me it says Y, why should I believe you? Why do I need X anyway if you change it to what you want it to be? Genesis 1 is a WRONG, faulty, erroneous, stone age belief and superstitious fear based on Sumerian and Hindu stories, folklore, fables and myths.

You are also starting to test the limits of what is considered honest. I did NOT dismiss it unsubstantiated but provided very clear and to the point reasons and examples

No, my reaction is perfectly in order. There is no reason whatsoever to pander to ancient nonsense or to listen to snake-oil salesmen. There are no signs or symbols but wrong descriptions which were valid at the time they were written. Take them as such or leave it, but don't bend them what you want them to be. It does not work. You are also subjecting yourself to mockery and ridicule.

Now that you have run out of ideas and have no facts you can stop insulting me and go and sell your nonsense elsewhere.

It isn't that I have run out of ideas. I'm like a scientist who made a discovery with a microscope and you utterly refuse to allow me to present my ideas by having you go ahead and look into the microscope to see for yourself.

You refuse to see and then talk as if I am the one spouting ignorance and nonsense. I already said this before but you are utterly impervious to sound logic and reason. I've graced you by saying this yet another time. Maybe you will finally "get it", maybe you won't. Fortunately, it appears others here can see past your pompous charade.

StopS

It isn't that I have run out of ideas. I'm like a scientist who made a discovery with a microscope and you utterly refuse to allow me to present my ideas by having you go ahead and look into the microscope to see for yourself.

You refuse to see and then talk as if I am the one spouting ignorance and nonsense. I already said this before but you are utterly impervious to sound logic and reason. I've graced you by saying this yet another time. Maybe you will finally "get it", maybe you won't. Fortunately, it appears others here can see past your pompous charade.

I will probably regret this in a few minutes, but here's the deal
You claim "God has shared His knowledge plainly."
And "When there is a "new heavens and a new earth" the whole pattern shall repeat all over again. This cycle is on the order of every 6 to 7 thousand years."

Because this means nothing I asked
Do you believe this planet is 6000 years old?
Do you believe the Universe is 6000 years old?

You replied "You are missing what I am saying. I am saying that there is a cycle that is 6 to 7 thousand years, but that it does NOT pertain to cosmic things."

Because this means nothing I ask
What are "cosmic things"?

"Cosmic things are space, asteroids, comets, moons, planets, stars, black holes, galaxies, local groups, universes, etc."

So you are saying that there is some magical cycle which re-occurs every 6 or 7k years affecting Earth. When I ask about this you say it does not affect Earth.
You say that a new Earth every few years and when I ask you whether Earth today is in this 6000 year cycle you blast me and accuse me of failing to grasp something.

Yet you have not once really explained something. Every time I ask you a question you come up with more mumbo-jumbo.

So I have a straight question for you how old is Earth? The answer must be a number and the unit is in years. Let's see if you can answer this.

kylixguru

I will probably regret this in a few minutes, but here's the deal
You claim "God has shared His knowledge plainly."
And "When there is a "new heavens and a new earth" the whole pattern shall repeat all over again. This cycle is on the order of every 6 to 7 thousand years."

Because this means nothing I asked
Do you believe this planet is 6000 years old?
Do you believe the Universe is 6000 years old?

You replied "You are missing what I am saying. I am saying that there is a cycle that is 6 to 7 thousand years, but that it does NOT pertain to cosmic things."

Because this means nothing I ask
What are "cosmic things"?

"Cosmic things are space, asteroids, comets, moons, planets, stars, black holes, galaxies, local groups, universes, etc."

So you are saying that there is some magical cycle which re-occurs every 6 or 7k years affecting Earth. When I ask about this you say it does not affect Earth.
You say that a new Earth every few years and when I ask you whether Earth today is in this 6000 year cycle you blast me and accuse me of failing to grasp something.

Yet you have not once really explained something. Every time I ask you a question you come up with more mumbo-jumbo.

So I have a straight question for you how old is Earth? The answer must be a number and the unit is in years. Let's see if you can answer this.

I don't recall saying it was "magical", although at your stage of awareness that's probably the best way for you to approach the subject for the time being.

The cycle I am talking about is a geo-geneo-political cycle, which you seem to have conveniently omitted from your cherry picked "recap" of what I have attempted to explain to you. Seems to me, if you are as smart as you posture yourself to be, you should be able to put together some Latin roots and get what I am saying here.

You can call it a 'cycle of humanity' if you like. This cycle is coming into view more and more all the time, though it is still suffering under a significant amount of repression. But, it isn't very difficult at all to put together the evidences which show that this planet has hosted global civilizations in its past that have also had high technology, etc.

It's even getting to the point that echoes of the same religious concepts found in Christianity and other world religions are coming from our ancient history. Paganism, to a great extent, is just the remnants of past cycles where earlier Heros and Saviors have performed their roles in past cycles. It isn't so much that Paganism is "wrong" as much as it is problematic because things are mixed up and "out of season" for the playing out of the current cycle.

You can think of this as certain places on this earth are designated as a stage where a pageant is being presented. There are certain individuals who have been cast in different parts and they enter and leave the stage in accordance with how the script dictates. They agree ahead of time to do what the script calls for them to do. There is a large number of supporting staff that keeps the stage and all of its operations under control. There is a specific script that shall be followed and the script is the focus. This is why many religious people call their holy books the "scriptures". In some cases the actors may not perfectly perform their roles but the pageant goes on just the same. There isn't the luxury of doing any cuts and retakes. And, so, when you have dingbats who try to take the stage and act out parts of the script that are not currently called for (Pagans), they are ushered out of the facilities for being disruptive, etc.

I also intend for this little analogy to be seen as limited in scope. There are many people who can opt out of both participating in or viewing the pageant if that is their choice. But, they cannot opt out of the global impact this production produces. The entire purpose of this pageant is to spur the evolutionary progress of our species. It involves much pain and sacrifice on the part of the cast members, but they are willing to endure it for the sake of the greater good that can and does result. This production is designed for producing a maximal impact upon its viewers. It has elements of great suspense, intrigue, unexpected turns, tragedy, ironies, hopes, joys, ecstasy and bliss unimaginable to the average person.

So, there really is no more magic to it than any very well produced theatre production. The only difference is the level of organization and orchestration spans into spiritual realms that you do not yet understand. That's why I suppose you would go ahead and call it "magical". But, there is no magic to it at all when you are the magician or the magician has let you in on his secrets. Another analogy that is worthy of attention, that I am not necessarily endorsing entirely, is the movie "The Matrix". There is a matrix that does exist that we collectively are the creators of. This matrix is "re-loaded" and played out over and over. Each time it is repeated there is a new "conception". Things get tweaked here and there and off we go again. This all happens whether you are consciously aware of it or not.

Anyway, back to your more pointed question. How old is the earth? If you are talking about this planet we reside upon, 3rd planet from our sun, my understanding is that it is approximately 3.5 billion years old. But, to really pin this down to an answer with the kind of precision you seem to want, we would then have to start defining a number of distinctions as to when it passed some kind of a distinctive developmental milestone we could both agree upon as having come into existence as a planet. So far as I can tell, there isn't a substantial level of understanding of how planets are formed and when exactly you can say they advance from some earlier more primitive form and morph into a planet. The components from which our planet is made appears to be elements that require far more transformative conditions on the molecular level than are taking place in our own sun. So, scientists have a lot of explaining to do if our planet didn't originate from our sun in some way. I don't yet see any scientists trying to explain how a planet such as ours comes into existence using the level of scientific proof to establish solid facts.

Side note A movie I would like to recommend for your viewing pleasure is called "Privileged Planet". There are so many unique and incredible factors that contribute to our beautiful sphere to host the manner of life that it does. Well worth watching.

So, perhaps I'll make one more attempt to poke a little light in through your extremely thick skull. If you ever get to the point that you are willing to decipher the symbolism of Genesis chapter 1, then we can talk about what it actually directly pertains to that isn't cosmic and that related to a cycle that lasts 7 thousand years that repeats every 6 thousand years. Yes, I am implying there is overlap between adjacent cycles.

StopS

I don't recall saying it was "magical", although at your stage of awareness that's probably the best way for you to approach the subject for the time being.

You still don't get it, do you?

You said the the cycle is for "new heavens and a new earth" and then you say it is NOT for planets, stars and universes. Which is it?
I asked you before what a "geo-geneo-political cycle" is supposed to be and you never answered. You just repeat the mumbo jumbo and mention the description scientist. As though you knew what this meant.

This is going nowhere at all. You will just write more and more without any contents. I asked one tiny question and receive pages of nothing. Only to get a number I was trying to extract, which is larger than 1 million.

Instead of doing what amyr does, why don't you take ONE (1), just one sentence from the first 9 sentences in Genesis and show the equivalent description in reality? This means just one paragraph, not this endless rambling you are hiding behind. My challenge is to restrict this to 500 characters. Take a simple example and show a simple correspondence. 11. Concise, short, simple.

kylixguru

You still don't get it, do you?
I see very clearly where you are struggling with what I am trying to explain.

You said the the cycle is for "new heavens and a new earth" and then you say it is NOT for planets, stars and universes. Which is it?
I said that "heavens and earth" are symbols that have a representation that is deciphered in terms of people. You, however, completely deny that they are symbolic and refuse to consider anything along those lines.

I asked you before what a "geo-geneo-political cycle" is supposed to be and you never answered. You just repeat the mumbo jumbo and mention the description scientist. As though you knew what this meant.

This is going nowhere at all. You will just write more and more without any contents. I asked one tiny question and receive pages of nothing. Only to get a number I was trying to extract, which is larger than 1 million.

Instead of doing what amyr does, why don't you take ONE (1), just one sentence from the first 9 sentences in Genesis and show the equivalent description in reality? This means just one paragraph, not this endless rambling you are hiding behind. My challenge is to restrict this to 500 characters. Take a simple example and show a simple correspondence. 11. Concise, short, simple.

I already said that the "greater light to rule the day" spoken of in Day 4 of the Creation Account pertains to the advent of Jesus in the 4th millennium of our current cycle of creation. He called himself the light and life of the world because he understood who he was in terms of the blueprint. Everything in the creation account of the Torah pertains to people in a symbolic manner and the Torah explicitly lays this out in Genesis 24 as I have already explained.

If you are unwilling to substantively address this, then you for sure will not get any further and I'm ok with that. But, if you are going to persist to toss out your unsubstantiated pejoratives against me, while keeping yourself willfully blind and ignorant of what I am willing to continue to explain (if you are sincere), then you are merely harassing me.

StopS

I said that "heavens and earth" are symbols that have a representation that is deciphered in terms of people.

No, you don't. You contradict yourself and are now trying to make it look as though these are referring to different things. Either learn to write precise and defined sentences, and if you contradict yourself explain what you mean. The reaction you show now is rather juvenile.

You, however, completely deny that they are symbolic and refuse to consider anything along those lines.

You should know better by now. You can only deny what has been established. So far you have established nothing except that you estimate that Earth is 3.5 billion years old.

I already said that the "greater light to rule the day" spoken of in Day 4 of the Creation Account pertains to the advent of Jesus in the 4th millennium of our current cycle of creation.

And so what? A "greater light" is what? "Ruling the day" means what exactly? Who spoke what in which account? What is an advent of which Jesus? What 4th millennium based on what occurrence of which cycle?
You are making no sense at all!!! Why can't you follow easy instructions and do it step by step, defining stuff and then proposing your hypothesis? Like this it is just a big mess.

He called himself the light and life of the world because he understood who he was in terms of the blueprint.

Who is "he"? Where did who call herself or himself a light? Is this in the Torah? Where? What is the life of the world? What blueprint by whom describing what in which area?

Everything in the creation account of the Torah pertains to people in a symbolic manner and the Torah explicitly lays this out in Genesis 24 as I have already explained.

No, you have not explained anything. You make claims and claims and more claims. You invent words and expressions and are making absolutely no sense at all. I ask for a short, concise paragraph and get a waterfall of nonsensical claims.

If you are unwilling to substantively address this, then you for sure will not get any further and I'm ok with that. But, if you are going to persist to toss out your unsubstantiated pejoratives against me, while keeping yourself willfully blind and ignorant of what I am willing to continue to explain (if you are sincere), then you are merely harassing me.

I have asked a factual and very precise question. You ignore it.
So my answer is no, I will not address this drivel, substantively or not, what ever that may mean. I am not "tossing" anything but asking a factual question. I am not harrassing you but asking one, single, precise, defined question. If you are able to, answer it or leave it.

kylixguru

No, you don't. You contradict yourself and are now trying to make it look as though these are referring to different things. Either learn to write precise and defined sentences, and if you contradict yourself explain what you mean. The reaction you show now is rather juvenile.
I appear to you to contradict myself. However, as of yet, you do not yet demonstrate that you understand me. So, your claim that I contradict myself is a bit premature don't you think?

You should know better by now. You can only deny what has been established. So far you have established nothing except that you estimate that Earth is 3.5 billion years old.
I have made reference to many things which are factually established. You, however, afford them zero consideration. Unfortunately, you lack the ability to see that this is why you are getting nowhere.

And so what? A "greater light" is what? "Ruling the day" means what exactly? Who spoke what in which account? What is an advent of which Jesus? What 4th millennium based on what occurrence of which cycle?
You are making no sense at all!!! Why can't you follow easy instructions and do it step by step, defining stuff and then proposing your hypothesis? Like this it is just a big mess.
Evidently you lack the necessary prerequisites to be studying in my class room.

Who is "he"?
Can't you read simple English? Why are you so willfully obtuse?

Where did who call herself or himself a light? Is this in the Torah? Where? What is the life of the world?

John 8
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

What blueprint by whom describing what in which area?
The creation account in Genesis chapter 1 that gives the basic framework of how things are going to play out during that cycle of creation. The blueprint was given by God for the areas upon this planet where the covenant people of the Lord would be.

No, you have not explained anything. You make claims and claims and more claims. You invent words and expressions and are making absolutely no sense at all. I ask for a short, concise paragraph and get a waterfall of nonsensical claims.
Have you read Genesis 24 yet?
At the very completion of outlining the 7 days of creation it says "These are the generations..."
The Hebrew of the term "generations" used in this passage relates to people.
This is just simple algebraic substitution here. Surely you remember algebra?
Granted this isn't with simple numbers but the logic is no less applicable here.

I have asked a factual and very precise question. You ignore it.
So my answer is no, I will not address this drivel, substantively or not, what ever that may mean. I am not "tossing" anything but asking a factual question. I am not harrassing you but asking one, single, precise, defined question. If you are able to, answer it or leave it.

I provide the best answers that I can. I agree my language is not always easy to follow, but what seems clear to me is you are more interested in just having me discredited outright with no substantive consideration being given. I consider that highly disingenuous.

StopS

I appear to you to contradict myself. However, as of yet, you do not yet demonstrate that you understand me. So, your claim that I contradict myself is a bit premature don't you think?

You do not APPEAR to have contradicted yourself but I clearly showed using quotes how you did. You have not yet come up with a coherent argument, so how can I demonstrate any understanding? Understanding nothing is not understanding something.

I have made reference to many things which are factually established.

Nope, you have not. Not ons single one. I asked you several times for that. Nothing, so far.

You, however, afford them zero consideration. Unfortunately, you lack the ability to see that this is why you are getting nowhere.

From the look of things you have not demonstrated the capability to do that.

Evidently you lack the necessary prerequisites to be studying in my class room.

Yep, a typical amiyr attitude. Nonsensical, unsubstantiated and just making claims.

Can't you read simple English? Why are you so willfully obtuse?
John 8
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

I was not aware of John writing in the Torah. Have we switched religions all of a sudden? Have we switched religious books? Next you will come up with Xenu or the golden tablets of the Mormons. This sucks bad!

The creation account in Genesis chapter 1 that gives the basic framework of how things are going to play out during that cycle of creation. The blueprint was given by God for the areas upon this planet where the covenant people of the Lord would be.

Prove it! Show it! Demonstrate it! I have been asking for this from the word go and all you provide is more claims. Prove something. Anything. Just stop this onslaught of nonsensical claims.

Have you read Genesis 24 yet?
At the very completion of outlining the 7 days of creation it says "These are the generations..."
The Hebrew of the term "generations" used in this passage relates to people.
This is just simple algebraic substitution here. Surely you remember algebra?
Granted this isn't with simple numbers but the logic is no less applicable here.
I provide the best answers that I can. I agree my language is not always easy to follow, but what seems clear to me is you are more interested in just having me discredited outright with no substantive consideration being given. I consider that highly disingenuous.

Oh boy! What about "one sentence from the first 9 sentences in Genesis" is so difficult to understand? That is what I asked for. What do I get? pages of nonsense. You are providing nothing, not what I asked for and nothing which would substantiate your claims in the least. Either show something or leave it. This is getting tedious and still leading nowhere. Jumping into Genesis 2, which incidentally says "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman" which we know is scientifically wrong, when I clearly specified you should prove something from the the first 9 sentences in Genesis is not exactly helping. Sigh. Always the same problems with people like you.

If this is the best you can do I strongly suggest you leave it.

kylixguru