Sun orbits the galaxy?
-
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.
-
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
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. There it is. You just said it. The Quran is not interpreted by what it says, it's interpreted by reality. So any new discovery immediately gets attached to the Quran. WOW !! I've been saying this more than once, and it indeed displays faulty, skewed logic. Anyway, the connection lies in the fact that they are all referenced in the same verse or adjoining verse multiple times in the Quran. If the point were in your favor, you'd be telling me that this was a clear "contextual" truth of the Quran. But now, it's the old "how do you know for sure"? Then again, how could i possibly expect any objectivity? Am I crazy? I guess I am if I expect that.
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.
Oh. But you don't have a pre conceived notion the other way? Oh, OK. ;D
No, your idea (good to see you have finally acknowledged this )
Oh God, the little wanna be scientist that won't quit.
only works with active, or in any way, shape or form that avoids tautology, i.e. a full truth table.
Ummmmm...Would you care to explain to me how multiple moons all orbit around other planets? Is that active or passive? Seems like it's passive to me. So why wouldn't it be passive in the case of the sun and moon both orbiting the earth?
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 want you to show the case for the word "impossible", OK? I'm not so sure about that.
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.
Does the earth spin or is it all relative? Geostationary Satellites.
The moon for months, definitely, sun for days, not too sure.
Well be sure about it because that's what it says, as opposed to what you can invent. AND, it says the MOON is used for counting years, not the sun. So you were wrong. Again.
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.
Sun - day
moon - month -year
simple.
The tafseer/exegesis is incorrect, or rather, your usage of that tafseer.Allah doesn't put information in brackets ;D.
Didn't I link it? If not, I will . BTW, do you know what tafsir is? It's commentary on the "supposed" word of Allah. so why would you even mention brackets?
If you look at that aya, it is tautological.
Oh God, everything is tautological. Who drilled this into your head?
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.
But actually, we can also say that the sun and moon do the same path since the sun drags the moon along with it, right? Just thought I would show you a bit of your own creativity ;D Hey, it's possible, right? ;D
If I can invent it, and you can't disprove it, then you must respect it as legitimate, right? ;D
The only obstacle in your brain is your refusal to compare the Quran with reality
No, that is your obstacle. The Quran is reality for you, and then you go out and find examples of this reality. That is faulty and backwards. Yes, I am familiar with the term "axiomatic", and it's generally associated with undetected brainwashing.
and hence denying its challenge in 106 and other verses.
010.006
YUSUFALI 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.So what? What was you're point?
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
Show me this and link it.
- 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.
We were talking about how the visual observation was the same, which is why a book mentioning that night and day gradually transistion is no real indication that it understood roundness of the earth whatsoever. It was merely recounting what the naked eye saw.
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.
You are mentally all over the map.
That is part of the subject. The Quran tells us God is reality
So what? Oh, and by the way, you better be really careful, because the Quran clearly says the Allah is not his creation. He clearly separates himself from his creation.
then we should look towards reality for God. It does not get any simpler than that.
Yes, Simple. So leave Islam and explore what mystics have to say.
I already demonstrated that BOTH the perception of Muhammad in the 7th century and our indirect observations are correct by that Quranic verse.
And i answered that, and you didn't answer it back, which is why you are now dealing with it again.
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
That's a nail?
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.This is nothing but stupid, common sense observation.
Tonight's forecast is "dark", with increasing patches of light towards morning. It's a miracle !!!! Surely this is from God !!!!! You guys crack me up ;D ;D
-
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?
"Wahuwa allathee khalaqa allayla waalnnahara waalshshamsa waalqamara kullun fee falakin yasbahoona"
" "
" "The word I am talking about is
When we say in Arabic
It means science of galaxies/science of universe
And so the word
can mean galaxy or universe.Pardon me while I don't particularly trust you.
It's mutual.
You've already tried to swap words out.
No I have not. I have already explained to you many times that words can have more than one meaning.
-
"Wahuwa allathee khalaqa allayla waalnnahara waalshshamsa waalqamara kullun fee falakin yasbahoona"
" "
" "The word I am talking about is
When we say in Arabic
It means science of galaxies/science of universe
And so the word
can mean galaxy or universe.It's mutual.No I have not. I have already explained to you many times that words can have more than one meaning.How do I know you're not just making this up? Yoo're just telling me what iit also means, but you need to substantiate it. you can tell me whatever you feel like because I don't know Arabic. So you could tell me that the word also means moon, but why am i supposed to believe you? you have to substantiate. Otherwise, as far as I.m concerned, you're just inventing things.
But aside from that, if that means galaxy or universe, then where is the word orbit or rounded course in the verses? Is it merely trying to say that the sun and moon merely fly through space while it's also talking about day and night?
-
How come the Arabic that I have for the sentence looks different than yours?
It should not. I am talking about verses 2133 and 3640.
How do I know you're not just making this up? Yoo're just telling me what iit also means, but you need to substantiate it. you can tell me whatever you feel like because I don't know Arabic. So you could tell me that the word also means moon, but why am i supposed to believe you? you have to substantiate. Otherwise, as far as I.m concerned, you're just inventing things.
This is common knowledge in Arabic. I will try and substantiate it, but be sure that I am not inventing anything.
But aside from that, if that means galaxy or universe, then where is the word orbit or rounded course in the verses? Is it merely trying to say that the sun and moon merely fly through space while it's also talking about day and night?
yasbahoona
-
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. There it is. You just said it. The Quran is not interpreted by what it says, it's interpreted by reality. So any new discovery immediately gets attached to the Quran. WOW !! I've been saying this more than once, and it indeed displays faulty, skewed logic. Anyway, the connection lies in the fact that they are all referenced in the same verse or adjoining verse multiple times in the Quran. If the point were in your favor, you'd be telling me that this was a clear "contextual" truth of the Quran. But now, it's the old "how do you know for sure"? Then again, how could i possibly expect any objectivity? Am I crazy? I guess I am if I expect that.
It IS a clear contextual truth from the Quran. The basis of your argument is pure clutching at straws. The verse is right no matter whose perception is used, but you wish to attribute a 7th century understanding so you can claim it is "false" or "tales of old" and coincidentally, it is correct in modern times. This verse, is not something you can compare to reality and come out as truthful in. There are many other verses in the Quran you could have used, which do look incorrect according to reality, you could have chosen them.
Let's see, in reality
1.) The Sun doesn't overtake the Moon
2.) Day never overtakes night.
3.) Both the Sun and Moon take predefined paths.
Simple, eh? The verse is correct, no matter what.
Now, your ridiculous assumption that the Moon is associated with night, and Sun with day in the Quran, and they orbit Earth, both (which they do, relatively), is utter rubbish, because unless the moon is emitting "darkness", there is no way for it to happen. Clearly you wish to picture a moon opposing the Sun, with Earth between them, and them continually spinning around the Earth, never overtaking each other. Too bad for you, in 7116, 2561, and 105, it clearly states both are lights, and one (the Sun) is a source of light.
Oh. But you don't have a pre conceived notion the other way? Oh, OK.
Reading comprehension is a very useful skill to have.
Ummmmm...Would you care to explain to me how multiple moons all orbit around other planets? Is that active or passive? Seems like it's passive to me. So why wouldn't it be passive in the case of the sun and moon both orbiting the earth?
We are talking about the Earth/Moon/Sun and Day/Night/Month/Year system, not about other moons. It IS passive in the case of the Sun and Moon both orbiting the Earth, technically both the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth in any case - just not through the geodesic.
I want you to show the case for the word "impossible", OK? I'm not so sure about that.
When it says "It is not permitted", and then "the Moon is a light", then we can only say that genuinely is impossible for your system to work. Leaving, absolute passiveness.
Does the earth spin or is it all relative? Geostationary Satellites.
What are you talking about? Of course the Earth spins. It takes two to tango, and the Earth spins, the universe spins around it. Satellites would be included in that.
Well be sure about it because that's what it says, as opposed to what you can invent. AND, it says the MOON is used for counting years, not the sun. So you were wrong. Again.
The moon is not exclusively used for measuring years. It says the moon is used for counting years, but not "NOT THE SUN". There is a difference. See 696. But the moon is used for counting the months, which are twelve. See this http//free-minds.org/articles/science/timing.htm.
Didn't I link it? If not, I will . BTW, do you know what tafsir is? It's commentary on the "supposed" word of Allah. so why would you even mention brackets?
Thanks for the information.
Oh God, everything is tautological. Who drilled this into your head?
Strawman. Are you trying to see how many fallacies you can cram into one sentence? A tautology is self-evident, so the point stands.
But actually, we can also say that the sun and moon do the same path since the sun drags the moon along with it, right? Just thought I would show you a bit of your own creativity Grin Hey, it's possible, right? Grin
If I can invent it, and you can't disprove it, then you must respect it as legitimate, right? Grin
We can say it's possible, like I said my theory was possible and nothing more. Unfortunately for you, I already disproved that rubbish. You should go back to Klingons orbiting Pluto or Jesus water-skiing.
No, that is your obstacle. The Quran is reality for you, and then you go out and find examples of this reality. That is faulty and backwards. Yes, I am familiar with the term "axiomatic", and it's generally associated with undetected brainwashing.
The Quran is very specific about things. Here, it refers to the Sun and Moon and their orbits. There is no need to "go out and find" because everywhere in the Quran, they are shoved in our faces. Reality is the benchmark, and the logic is that if the Quran doesn't contradict reality in any way, it stands high.
So what? What was you're point?
A direction to see signs...
Show me this and link it.
About what, the thunder or the curvature? God forbid you use common sense. On a flat Earth, it would be sharp, not completely gradual, because the Sun's light "shadow" would hit exactly where it was aimed, aside from atmospheric things. With curvature, you get diffraction, distortion, absorption in the air, reflection, and so on, leading to it getting weaker and light diminishing from the greater dstances, and the end result being a completely gradual day/night cycle. By the way, we are comparing a crackle of electricity to a super sized ball of gas, I don't think a source is needed .
We were talking about how the visual observation was the same, which is why a book mentioning that night and day gradually transistion is no real indication that it understood roundness of the earth whatsoever. It was merely recounting what the naked eye saw.
The naked eye also sees a round Earth.
You are mentally all over the map.
You are baffled. An Arab could only have sat back and passively (;D) observed the gradual shift, today, we can actively go out and prove it, and manipulate it.
Yes, Simple. So leave Islam and explore what mystics have to say.
rotfl
Who would these mystics be? Let me guess, Starjade, the Doomsday Prophet??
rotfl
And i answered that, and you didn't answer it back, which is why you are now dealing with it again.
Where?
This is nothing but stupid, common sense observation.
Have you heard of a word called "tautology"?
-
What does yasbahoona mean?
It can mean to swim, which in this context means to orbit.
-
It can mean to swim, which in this context means to orbit.
Okay, so the Quran never tells us the things orbit at all. It tells us that these things swim in outer space. That does not denote a circular path in the least. So we have absolutely no mention of a circular path. Keep diggin that hole.
-
Okay, so the Quran never tells us the things orbit at all. It tells us that these things swim in outer space. That does not denote a circular path in the least. So we have absolutely no mention of a circular path. Keep diggin that hole.
It means to orbit as well.
-
Oh, so it means both words at the same time. Not a duel meaning word, but a word that means two things simultaneously. ;D ;D That's pretty cross eyed, wouldn't you say?
It has more than one meaning. To orbit, to run, to imagine, to swim etc...
-
More than one at the same time or same instance? ;D ;D
?
I have already told you that words can have several meanings. -
?
I have already told you that words can have several meanings.No, you are hiding. Can I mean two different things at the same time when i say a word? I know a word can have two different definitions. But can I simultaneously mean two different things when I utter one word one time? Am I telling you two different things at one time? And the answer is, no. Words can have two meanings, but an utterance of the word can only have one. It has to be ONE of the meanings for the word, not two at the same time.
So therefore, that verse cannot simultaneously reference orbit and outer space at the same time or in the same exact utterance. So you're going to have to pick one. Is it outer space or orbit?