Meteors chase things?
-
Wow, what a complete misunderstanding of the true nature of meteors just like everybody else had back in the 7th century. The Quran thinks meteorites are things that Angels throw across the sky. Who cares whether they're thrown at the invisible jinn or not, it's embarrassing to suggest that meteorites are thrown at anything at all or pursue anything at all. Once someone realizes that the weather people can predict meteor showers with great accuracy, the error becomes clear. Once someone realizes that meteorite showers are caused by the earth, while circling the sun, bumps into dust and debris left behind by a comet that also does a different orbit around the sun, then, it starts to become pretty clear how badly the Quran misunderstood these things, just like everybody else did back then.
Hey, maybe those satellites are picking up heaven's conversations, because they got past the guards and flaming missiles. So next time I'm watching Teletubbies, I'll realize that I'm watching conversations in heaven. I'm privy to what the jinn are not.
-
You cannot prove that meteors do not hit jinn. Jinn are invisible and unknown to us. Yet another pathetic attemp at discrediting the Quran.
-
I can prove that meteorites don't chase or pursue anything nor are they thrown at anything nor fired at anything. Who cares about the jinn being invisible, meteorites pursue nothing. It just looks that way when we look at the sky, but it's an optical illusion that fooled Muhammad and everybody else until modern astronomy came along. Just to be clear. Meteorites don not chase the jinn, nor do they chase space shuttles, nor satellites nor anything. Is that a little more clear? Here's an article about them. It explains how weathermen know when and where meteorite showers will occur every year. Did you think they could predict this because the jinn was telling them when they were going to eves drop on heaven?
http//starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question12.html
-
The meteorites happen to hit the unbelieving jinn in certain times of the year. Is this more clear?
-
The meteorites happen to hit the unbelieving jinn in certain times of the year. Is this more clear?
Except those that snatch a hearing by stealth, and they are pursued by a clear flame, brightly burning. Meteorites aren't directed towards anything. Should I post Ibn Kathir tafsir that says that Angels throw these things as well as saying they never miss?
-
Except those that snatch a hearing by stealth, and they are pursued by a clear flame,
So you are saying that certain meteorites can hit the jinnin thier course? I am sorry but can elaborate further.
Meteorites aren't directed towards anything.
Could be true but on thier course they smash unseen creatures. No contradiction here.
Should I post Ibn Kathir tafsir that says that Angels throw these things as well as saying they never miss?
There is no priesthood in Islam. I do not have to listen to what someone said hundreds of years ago.
-
So you are saying that certain meteorites can hit the jinnin thier course? I am sorry but can elaborate further
Could be true but on thier course they smash unseen creatures. No contradiction here.There is no priesthood in Islam. I do not have to listen to what someone said hundreds of years ago.
What does pursue or follow mean? What do missiles do? Aren't they fired at things? Aren't projectiles thrown at things? Read the verses and you will clearly see these things there. And clearly, it did look like these things were shooting across the sky. That's where the old, inaccurate name of "shooting stars" came from. So it would have made perfect sense for Muhammad to have seen these things as chasing or pursuing something or being thrown at something.
-
What does pursue or follow mean? What do missiles do? Aren't they fired at things? Aren't projectiles thrown at things? Read the verses and you will clearly see these things there. And clearly, it did look like these things were shooting across the sky. That's where the old, inaccurate name of "shooting stars" came from. So it would have made perfect sense for Muhammad to have seen these things as chasing or pursuing something or being thrown at something.
Meteorites hit Jinn in thier due course. I honestly see no problem with that.
-
Like poles repel, opposing poles attract.
"Jinn" are described as smokeless fire, so if a dumb object was "pursuing" them, it can mean
A) A dumb object literally running after a "jinn" => Your silly POV
B) Jinn are ionised, the burning plume is also ionised with the opposite charge, meaning that if the "jinn" made of smokeless fire gets too close, the burning plume will automatically attract.
C) The "jinn" can travel through space but fail to calculate every meteor's trajectory, and hence, collide.
-
Like poles repel, opposing poles attract.
"Jinn" are described as smokeless fire, so if a dumb object was "pursuing" them, it can mean
A) A dumb object literally running after a "jinn" => Your silly POV
That's not what my silly POV is, that's what the word pursue or follow means. Nice try.
B) Jinn are ionised,
Where did you get that from?
the burning plume is also ionised with the opposite charge
Where did you get that from?
meaning that if the "jinn" made of smokeless fire gets too close, the burning plume will automatically attract.
Wow!! How creative. It's a shame that you have absolutely zero basis for this. i can make up creative, imaginary ideas too.
C) The "jinn" can travel through space but fail to calculate every meteor's trajectory, and hence, collide.
That doesn't reconcile the usage of follow, pursue, (151 or the reference to projectiles being thrown at them by angels. What you also don't realize is that most meteorites are actually not hard, solid objects but are instead streaks of dust. But it sure looked like they were missiles flying across the sky (675)
-
That's not what my silly POV is, that's what the word pursue or follow means. Nice try.
Where did you get that from?
Where did you get that from?
Wow!! How creative. It's a shame that you have absolutely zero basis for this. i can make up creative, imaginary ideas too.
That doesn't reconcile the usage of follow, pursue, (151 or the reference to projectiles being thrown at them by angels. What you also don't realize is that most meteorites are actually not hard, solid objects but are instead streaks of dust. But it sure looked like they were missiles flying across the sky (675)
The word "pursue" or "follow" can also be used in reference to A being attracted to B. Strange language? Yes. Is it out of line? No. The north pole of a magnet will always attempt to pursue the south pole of a magnet. Personification does not mean that the entity in reference is a person.
Where did you get that from?
Tell me, what are the possible connotations of "smokeless fire"? What fire exists without any form of smoke? 5515. Regardless, that is one of several possibilities. My word isn't the Quranic word, that is my present understanding, not THE Quran's understanding.
Where did you get that from?
We are talking about objects neither you or I have even seen or had contact with. The description is vague.
Wow!! How creative. It's a shame that you have absolutely zero basis for this. i can make up creative, imaginary ideas too.
Have fun, refuting 3rd grade physics is a worthwhile hobby. Positive attracts negative. Another creative, imaginary idea, is that the Quran refers exclusively to your preconception alone.
That doesn't reconcile the usage of follow, pursue, (151 or the reference to projectiles being thrown at them by angels. What you also don't realize is that most meteorites are actually not hard, solid objects but are instead streaks of dust. But it sure looked like they were missiles flying across the sky (675)
Meteorites are actually hard, solid objects. "Streaks of dust" are called "comets", but this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic physics.
Likewise, please show where "angels" throw projectiles at jinn, and likewise, define "angels", then post the Arabic word for "angels" and show how it means your conception. Good luck. 675 depends on your erroneous understanding of "samawat" as "sky".
-
The word "pursue" or "follow" can also be used in reference to A being attracted to B. Strange language? Yes.
Yes indeed, and this is where the creativity starts. First an answer is attempted, and when it doesn't work, here comes the unbridled creativity. This should be good.
Is it out of line? No. The north pole of a magnet will always attempt to pursue the south pole of a magnet. Personification does not mean that the entity in reference is a person.
Where does it say that meteorites have a polarity or charge, and jinns have a charge too? you're just making up any wild story you can think of with zero basis. Hey, maybe it's due to Klingons circling Uranus too. That invention has as much basis as what you are saying.
Tell me, what are the possible connotations of "smokeless fire"? What fire exists without any form of smoke? 5515.
Don't we have to first ascertain the existence of the jinn first before we can answer this? Heh, for all we know, smokeless flame was a neat concept for Muhammad to invent.
Regardless, that is one of several possibilities. My word isn't the Quranic word, that is my present understanding, not THE Quran's understanding.
I don't even think it's a possibility, or even if it is a remote one, it's one with no basis behind it whatsoever except for someone's creative imagination. Heck, maybe you should be a science fiction writer.
We are talking about objects neither you or I have even seen or had contact with. The description is vague.
Nice try at the refocus, but we are not talking about objects that you or I can't see. We are talking about objects that we CAN see. Meteorites, and we know what they really are.and they not only don't chase invisible jinn, they don't chase anything. Not the jinn, not space shuttles, not satellites. Nothing. So this excuse or diversion doesn't work.
Have fun, refuting 3rd grade physics is a worthwhile hobby. Positive attracts negative.
Why is smokeless flame immediately a positive and regular flame is a negative? Would you care to explain that specific example from a scientific angle? Of course not, because you are merely making this all up to hide the error
Another creative, imaginary idea, is that the Quran refers exclusively to your preconception alone.
Yeah, it can mean anything in ther universe. In fact, any problematic verse can mean anything in the universe. In fact, we can't ever really tell what the quran means, right? Bull.
Meteorites are actually hard, solid objects. "Streaks of dust" are called "comets", but this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic physics.
No dodo. Meteorite showers happen when the earth bumps into a streak of dust left by a comet that is also circling the earth. So the comet and the dust streak are not one and the same. Check your facts. But this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic astronomy. And, I haven't attempt to refute one single thing from physics. I just refute your errant notions, like I just did here.
Likewise, please show where "angels" throw projectiles at jinn, and likewise, define "angels", then post the Arabic word for "angels" and show how it means your conception. Good luck. 675 depends on your erroneous understanding of "samawat" as "sky".
Do you respect IBN Kathir? Let me know before I go and look for it. His tafsir is supposed to be highly respected. Anyway, sky or lowest heaven. Take your pick. The problem is still there.
-
Yes indeed, and this is where the creativity starts. First an answer is attempted, and when it doesn't work, here comes the unbridled creativity. This should be good.
The actual root definition of the word (t-b-ayn) does not mean either passive or activeness, it simply denotes A going to/towards B. Minus brownie points for your bark being larger than your bite. There is no creativity, but your silliness in confusing the English word for the Arabic. Even in English, those words don't always denote activeness.
Where does it say that meteorites have a polarity or charge, and jinns have a charge too? you're just making up any wild story you can think of with zero basis. Hey, maybe it's due to Klingons circling Uranus too. That invention has as much basis as what you are saying.
It is an example that is plausible in reality and can fit into the information provided by the Quran. In reality, I simply don't care about whether those verses mean what. Some people have diseased hearts and minds and they look for meanings in them, however.
Don't we have to first ascertain the existence of the jinn first before we can answer this? Heh, for all we know, smokeless flame was a neat concept for Muhammad to invent.
Smokeless flames have existed since the dawn of time. As for "jinn", if you care to define the meaning of the word, we can ascertain their existence.
I don't even think it's a possibility, or even if it is a remote one, it's one with no basis behind it whatsoever except for someone's creative imagination. Heck, maybe you should be a science fiction writer.
Of course, it is impossible, or has a remote possibility, which is why Roy C. Sullivan was struck by something that never existed - an amazing feat, given that it occurred to him seven times.
Nice try at the refocus, but we are not talking about objects that you or I can't see. We are talking about objects that we CAN see. Meteorites, and we know what they really are.and they not only don't chase invisible jinn, they don't chase anything. Not the jinn, not space shuttles, not satellites. Nothing. So this excuse or diversion doesn't work.
And please show where you have proven the original Arabic to refer exclusively to meteors. I don't need silly translations, I want the original text, highlighted, and defined, with authentic references.
Why is smokeless flame immediately a positive and regular flame is a negative? Would you care to explain that specific example from a scientific angle? Of course not, because you are merely making this all up to hide the error
There are two issues - a, your reading comprehension, or the lack of it, and b, the simplicity of what a "smokeless flame" can be. I'll give you a clue, this "smokeless flame" exists in a fire, without the smoke. For reference, the Quran refers to fire as coming from the green tree, not any tree, but the GREEN tree, in 3680, so we will use that as our benchmark. Tell me the components of a fire from a green tree, and you will find your painfully obvious answer.
No dodo. Meteorite showers happen when the earth bumps into a streak of dust left by a comet that is also circling the earth. So the comet and the dust streak are not one and the same. Check your facts. But this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic astronomy. And, I haven't attempt to refute one single thing from physics. I just refute your errant notions, like I just did here.
Some very large dust particles. rotfl
Do you respect IBN Kathir? Let me know before I go and look for it. His tafsir is supposed to be highly respected. Anyway, sky or lowest heaven. Take your pick. The problem is still there.
rotfl
-
1517-18
366-10
675
728-9hadiths and ibn kathir commentary from Qhatada
These verses can refer to angels not meteorites.
-
The actual root definition of the word (t-b-ayn) does not mean either passive or activeness, it simply denotes A going to/towards B. Minus brownie points for your bark being larger than your bite. There is no creativity, but your silliness in confusing the English word for the Arabic. Even in English, those words don't always denote activeness.
I never even raised the point of active or passive. You did. I'm just answering it.
It is an example that is plausible in reality and can fit into the information provided by the Quran. In reality, I simply don't care about whether those verses mean what. Some people have diseased hearts and minds and they look for meanings in them, however.
This is exactly why the Quran has no errors in it. Because it's followers are so dogmatically brainwashed, that no matter what is shown to them, they simply are not capable of accepting it. vBut it's funny that when Muslims look at other religious scriptures, suddenly they have a decent ability for objective thought and analysis. Isn't that interesting? Why yes it is.
Smokeless flames have existed since the dawn of time.
Please link it and show me it's electrical charge.
As for "jinn", if you care to define the meaning of the word, we can ascertain their existence.
jinn means to conceal or to hide which refers to their ability to make themselves invisible if they so desire. The word has absolutely nothing to do with smokeless flame, although I accept the smokeless flame description because it's just as pointless to argue about as an invisible being. But my point is, where did you get the electrical charge notion about the jinn and meteorites. You still haven't told me that yet.
Of course, it is impossible, or has a remote possibility, which is why Roy C. Sullivan was struck by something that never existed - an amazing feat, given that it occurred to him seven times.
And please show where you have proven the original Arabic to refer exclusively to meteors. I don't need silly translations, I want the original text, highlighted, and defined, with authentic references.
Well, OK, so a little change in direction here, eh? If one angle doesn't work, try another. In fact, keep trying any angle you can think of, as the truth doesn't really matter, answering the question with anything you can think of to make it go away is what matters. So if NOW, the story is that it doeswn't refer to meteroites, then what else can we see in the sky that is a bright flame and appears to fly across the sky as if it is pursuing something or chasing something? I'm open to suggests (if they're good)
There are two issues - a, your reading comprehension, or the lack of it, and b, the simplicity of what a "smokeless flame" can be. I'll give you a clue, this "smokeless flame" exists in a fire, without the smoke. For reference, the Quran refers to fire as coming from the green tree, not any tree, but the GREEN tree, in 3680, so we will use that as our benchmark. Tell me the components of a fire from a green tree, and you will find your painfully obvious answer.
Why don't you just post the scientific article? No need for hints or clues as you are wasting time.
Some very large dust particles. rotfl
rotflActually, while you're rolling on the floor, you may want to realize that most shooting stars are made up of particles as small as a pebble or even smaller. So what's so funny? Go do the research before you laugh.
