The hackenslash Challenge (split)

[iSok]

Thank you for your reply, iSok.  I'm well aware of the concept of "light upon light."  Basically it means that because of the multiple definitions which words in Arabic have, the Quran can be interpreted in many ways.  I think your reply shows that until modern science had shown that the universe was expanding, the verse you use to show a miraculous foretelling of modern science was not understood in the way that your translator used it.  You choose to see it as miraculous; for this I do not fault you.  You (and others who subscribe to these ideas) may try to say that infidels such as myself should see the fact that the verse can be re-translated to reflect modern science as a sign of the miraculous nature of the Quran.  I do not see it that way.  When words can have so many meanings (as is the case in Arabic) then it's inevitable that people will change their understanding of the writing to reflect the modern world when it suits their agenda.  This is not miraculous, and is not a sign to me of a divine origin for your holy book.

I understand your concept Recusant.

I don't consider anyone an infidel (I think the word infidel has a rather harsh meaning). I am not put on this world to judge, but only to grow and learn.

The term ‘Kafir’ used in the Qur’an, translators usually translate it into ‘disbelievers’.
‘Kafir’ comes from the root ‘Kafara’, and that means ‘to cover or conceal’.

In the word of the Qur’an, ‘Kafirs’ are people who consciously or unconsciously
reject a divine gift or truth. The Qur’an asks about these people.

“Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts may thus learn wisdom?”
(22:44)

“Do they not examine the earth?” (26:7)

“Do they not travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before them?” (30:9)

Within Islam, there are also people known as the ‘ahl-al-Fatra’. People who never got the message, or didn’t/couldn’t understand it.
They aren’t accountable for their actions nor for their beliefs.
I would be accountable now, because I understand the message from A to Z, if I would reject it, I would probably be an ‘kafir’.

However, the verse above does not have an unlimited amount of meanings.
Basically two; 'Power' and 'Expanding'. You are right, that people approach the verse in a different way since recent scientific discoveries.
But the interpretation that follows from the original verse, has a basic foundation in it’s original verse.
‘Power’, ‘Expanding’ or ‘Power’ and ‘Expanding’ (for example the verse about the Earth that was spread out).
These two key elements, were always present.
The interpretation does not just fall out of the sky, that’s what I am trying to say.
This is however not the only verse, there are many more.
I hope you understand.

I’ll open a new topic in the creationism section about evolution very soon, I hope you can participate and answer the many questions I have, since I am here to learn.

[Recusant]

You are kind, but I do consider myself an infidel, and a barbarian. I have good reason to adopt those words to describe myself. I do not care what others may choose to call me. As the old quip has it: "Just don't call me late for dinner."

If you put the word in question into "google translate," yet another meaning will be given:  "lifting"  Also, the root of this word can have many different meanings.

Most Arabic words have more than two meanings, depending on the context.  So while the context of this word in these two ayat gives the two meanings you show, I think that if it were to somebody's advantage to use yet another meaning, and they felt inspired by Allah to do so, then they would feel justified in using it in yet another different way.

[iSok]

You are kind, but I do consider myself an infidel, and a barbarian. I have good reason to adopt those words to describe myself. I do not care what others may choose to call me. As the old quip has it: "Just don't call me late for dinner."

If you put the word in question into "google translate," yet another meaning will be given:  "lifting"  Also, the root of this word can have many different meanings.

Most Arabic words have more than two meanings, depending on the context.  So while the context of this word in these two ayat gives the two meanings you show, I think that if it were to somebody's advantage to use yet another meaning, and they felt inspired by Allah to do so, then they would feel justified in using it in yet another different way.

How can you consider yourself an infidel if in your worldview God doesn't exist?
Others may call you an infidel, but surely calling yourself an infidel is acknowledging God Google translation to understand grammar of a language, it's more a simple and useful tool.
It's true that some words in the Arabic language have multiple meanings, but the words that were chosen for certain verses are pretty much correct
to describe certain events.

Just give me some time, this forum will soon enough be changed into 'Happy Muslim Forum', mark my words

[Recusant]

How can you consider yourself an infidel if in your worldview God doesn't exist?
Others may call you an infidel, but surely calling yourself an infidel is acknowledging God Google translation to understand grammar of a language, it's more a simple and useful tool.
It's true that some words in the Arabic language have multiple meanings, but the words that were chosen for certain verses are pretty much correct to describe certain events.

Just give me some time, this forum will soon enough be changed into 'Happy Muslim Forum', mark my words lol

[iSok]

How can you consider yourself an infidel if in your worldview God doesn't exist?
Others may call you an infidel, but surely calling yourself an infidel is acknowledging God Google translation to understand grammar of a language, it's more a simple and useful tool.
It's true that some words in the Arabic language have multiple meanings, but the words that were chosen for certain verses are pretty much correct to describe certain events.

Just give me some time, this forum will soon enough be changed into 'Happy Muslim Forum', mark my words lol

The two meanings were always present in the verse.
In my previous post I mentioned that Abdul Ala (He wasn't a scientist, he lived in Pakistan, probably never heard about the expansion of the universe)
wrote in 1967 (before this issue of 'science in the Quran') in his tafseer, that the same verse could also have a second meaning (expansion of the universe).

If he knew the theory back then, he would have probably used that translation as the translation of the verse.
Instead of explaining it in his tafseer, but he didn't.

Right now the Qur'an says that besides this universe where we live in, there are 6 more (in total 7)
And probably also 6 other Earth's besides this one.

Alien life for example.
Do you consider this as a prediction?
(42:29) And of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the living creatures that He has spread out in them. He has the power to bring them together when He so wills.

Or the 365 days, 12 months and 30 days? (I have a complete list)

What do you think of the water-land mass ratio? Too far fetched?

[iSok]

Recusant, let me add this one.

Verse 21:30

اَوَÙ,,ÙŽÙ...Û¡ يَرَ اÙ,,ÙŽÙ'ذِيۡنَ كَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَÙ' اÙ,,سَÙ'Ù...ٰوٰتِ وَاÙ,,ۡاَرۡضَ كَانَـتَا رَتۡÙ,ًا فَفَتَÙ,ۡنٰهُÙ...َا‌ Ø•
وَجَعَÙ,,ۡنَا Ù...ِنَ اÙ,,Û¡Ù...َآءِ كُÙ,,ÙŽÙ' شَىۡءٍ حَىٍÙ'‌ Ø• اَفَÙ,,َا يُؤۡÙ...ِنُوۡنَ‏


Sahih International
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

Muhsin Khan
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Pickthall (1930)
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

Yusuf Ali (1934)
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Shakir
Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

Dr. Ghali
And have not the ones who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the earth were an integrated (mass), then We unseamed them, and of water We have made every living thing? Would they then not believe?

Maulana Muhammad Ali (1917)
21:30 Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And We made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?


So we can conclude that all of the famous translators, translated the verse in the same way of interpretation.

However, the universe expanding was first introduced by Lemaitre in 1927
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding in 1929.
In 1949 the term 'Big Bang' was used for the first time by Fred Hoyle.
After a while, scientists concluded that all matter must have come from one point (if you reverse the expanding of the universe).

But almost 35 years before that, Maulana Muhammad Ali, interpretates verse 21:30 just like all other translators in the following way in 1917.

[21:30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And We made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?

And the meaning which was chosen by the later translator was chosen to reflect modern science. This is not a prediction of modern science.

What about this? Can this be seen as a prediction in the field of science?

[Recusant]

So we can conclude that all of the famous translators, translated the verse in the same way of interpretation.

However, the universe expanding was first introduced by Lemaitre in 1927
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding in 1929.
In 1949 the term 'Big Bang' was used for the first time by Fred Hoyle.
After a while, scientists concluded that all matter must have come from one point (if you reverse the expanding of the universe).

But almost 35 years before that, Maulana Muhammad Ali, interpretates verse 21:30 just like all other translators in the following way in 1917.

[21:30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And We made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?

And the meaning which was chosen by the later translator was chosen to reflect modern science. This is not a prediction of modern science.

What about this? Can this be seen as a prediction in the field of science?

*sighs with a wry smile*

Do you expect me to take this as a prediction of modern cosmology?  Thiis aya is talking about separating or rending heaven from earth., and the fact that water is essential for life. How does that relate to cosmology?  The Big Bang is not described in anything close to the imagery which we see here.  In fact, the first separation event described in modern cosmology would be the separation of the forces immediately following Planck time: Separation of gravity from the other fundamental forces in the first of the "spontaneous symmetry breaks."  Then another break occurs as the strong force differentiates.  Then the hypothesized inflationary period. This is still nothing like "rending" of "heaven and earth."  In fact, the universe is believed to have still been a more or less uniform state of extremely high energy; matter as we know it didn't even exist. Rather it's described as "a sizzling sea of quarks."  Then a final symmetry break; the electromagnetic and weak forces differentiate. It's only after this that it's theorized that the first particles appear.  Not even nuclei yet; just protons, neutrons and other baryons. It's only after somewhat after this that the universe is thought to have become transparent to light.


(Timeline image from hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu)

Tell me where in this do you see any "parting," "cleaving," "rending," of heaven from earth?  In fact, I'm just going to forget cosmology on a grand scale for a moment, because this aya isn't talking about the cosmos, but of the earth itself.  The earth was not formed by being separated from the heavens. Rather it formed by coalescing.  The planets in the solar system were built up over time. How do you reconcile that with the imagery of the aya which you quote?  

As for the issue of water being the basis of life, Muhammad had lived for his whole existence in a desert.  Desert people have no illusions of how important water is if you want to live.

So as a disbeliever, no I do not see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, then rent by Allah.  I don't find this at all convincing, and I do not now believe.

As far as I'm concerned, presenting these supposed miracles from the Quran will do little to persuade me, iSok.  You should not be surprised to hear that this isn't the first time I've encountered a young Muslim who wanted to proclaim them to the "disbelievers."  I may not jump to answer them as quickly as you might like. Though I do find the Arabic culture interesting, the Quran itself does not hold the same interest.  I won't say that I've heard all of the "Miracles in the Quran," but I have heard many of them.  Not one has actually piqued my interest so far.  Except perhaps for the willingness of Muslims to adopt them, they seem to be yet another set of mystical reworkings of a holy book.  Almost on par with the "Bible Code."

[iSok]

*sighs with a wry smile*

Do you expect me to take this as a prediction of modern cosmology?  Thiis aya is talking about separating or rending heaven from earth., and the fact that water is essential for life. How does that relate to cosmology?  The Big Bang is not described in anything close to the imagery which we see here.  In fact, the first separation event described in modern cosmology would be the separation of the forces immediately following Planck time: Separation of gravity from the other fundamental forces in the first of the "spontaneous symmetry breaks."  Then another break occurs as the strong force differentiates.  Then the hypothesized inflationary period. This is still nothing like "rending" of "heaven and earth."  In fact, the universe is believed to have still been a more or less uniform state of extremely high energy; matter as we know it didn't even exist. Rather it's described as "a sizzling sea of quarks."  Then a final symmetry break; the electromagnetic and weak forces differentiate. It's only after this that it's theorized that the first particles appear.  Not even nuclei yet; just protons, neutrons and other baryons. It's only after somewhat after this that the universe is thought to have become transparent to light.


(Timeline image from hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu)

Tell me where in this do you see any "parting," "cleaving," "rending," of heaven from earth?  In fact, I'm just going to forget cosmology on a grand scale for a moment, because this aya isn't talking about the cosmos, but of the earth itself.  The earth was not formed by being separated from the heavens. Rather it formed by coalescing.  The planets in the solar system were built up over time. How do you reconcile that with the imagery of the aya which you quote?  

As for the issue of water being the basis of life, Muhammad had lived for his whole existence in a desert.  Desert people have no illusions of how important water is if you want to live.

So as a disbeliever, no I do not see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, then rent by Allah.  I don't find this at all convincing, and I do not now believe.

As far as I'm concerned, presenting these supposed miracles from the Quran will do little to persuade me, iSok.  You should not be surprised to hear that this isn't the first time I've encountered a young Muslim who wanted to proclaim them to the "disbelievers."  I may not jump to answer them as quickly as you might like. Though I do find the Arabic culture interesting, the Quran itself does not hold the same interest.  I won't say that I've heard all of the "Miracles in the Quran," but I have heard many of them.  Not one has actually piqued my interest so far.  Except perhaps for the willingness of Muslims to adopt them, they seem to be yet another set of mystical reworkings of a holy book.  Almost on par with the "Bible Code."

Recusant,

I see what you think. I don’t know how old you are, but probably older than I am.
You have probably the thought off:

“What is this kid trying to claim? That this so called holy book (that was made up by man) he believes in, actually predicts science? How low can you get in order to propagate your religion?”

I’m telling you here that the Quran comes from a Divine source by quoting different verses, while you probably rejected the idea of a God a long time (decades?) ago or never had this idea.
So yes Recusant, I understand that in the very least I might annoy you. If I surpass a limit then do notify me of that, I won’t mind.


The orginal meaning of an ‘aya’ or ‘ayat’ is Sign. When we talk about aya, we talk about signs.
So the Qur’an is not a book of science, but a book of signs. So in the Qur’an there are ‘signs’ for people.

So what are the principles of the Big Bang theory? (The origin of our universe).


It says, that all matter that we know now came from one point (a singularity), with an infinite density and an infinite temperature (hot).
If we take a look at the verse again.

Yusuf Ali (1934)
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30)

The verse indicates with ‘heavens and the earth’ to all matter. Like I said before, that according to the Qur’an we are not alone in this universe. We humans live on Earth, that is the reason that the earth has been mentioned here.

So the verse says, (1) that everything we now see, was joined in one point.
The second part of the verse states; (2) that this point of matter was eventually ‘cloved asunder’.
(3)The last is about water, which is essential for our earth (doesn’t mean that other planets with life are supported by water).

And yes, Muhammad (pbuh) could have known point 3, but the point 1 and 2, he couldn’t have known it.

So the verse says: Everything once in one point  --->  then 'tore' it appart.
litterally means 'Tore it appart' (translated it as 'cloved them asuner') -->               فَفَتَÙ,Ù'نَاهُÙ...َا

I think it’s a very good indication on how the universe began.

As for the graph you posted. If I'm not wrong, it shows what happened in the moments after the initial 'Bang'? (temperature(k) and time(s) )
However it does say that the singularity (Which we all came from) shows 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' immediatly
after the 'Bang'. So the singularity was 'torn appart'. (Do correct me if I'm wrong)

There are many many other reasons why the Qur'an is from a divine origin (what I believe).
The reason I take this aspect to debate and show it to you is because the verses
most of the time do not belong to a context.  The Qur'an talks about one subject and before it engages into another, it uses a verse like this as a pause for the reader.

It's easier for you to respond.
So I hope you don't mind if we can proceed this topic.

[iSok]

If no one minds, I would like to add this one to the list.

In Arabic, each letter of the alfabet has a numerological value.

Iron is called 'Hadid' in the Qur'an.

Ha - 8
D -  4
i-  10
D- 4

4 + 10 + 4 + 8 = 26 (the atomic number of Iron)

[Asmodean]

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30)

...Is that what you think that verse says?

Me, I think it says that heaven and earth were separated while saying nothing about their former condition. A tire and a car do not make a singularity, or even a single unit of (in this case the car's) creation, as you put it - they make a system. There is a difference.

EDIT:

So, we have established that

So the verse says, (1) that everything we now see, was joined in one point.

No, not in one point.

The second part of the verse states; (2) that this point of matter was eventually ‘cloved asunder’.

Separated by force, in other, more technical terms. Not from a point though. From a system... Kind of like changing tires, yes?

(3)The last is about water, which is essential for our earth (doesn’t mean that other planets with life are supported by water).

Water is essential, and yet, we are not made of it. Oh, there is a lot of water in us, but just because the bulk of a car (since I use that example) is steel, doesn't mean the car as a whole is made of steel. It is not. There is rubber, plastic, light metals like aluminium, copper for wiring, silicon oxide for glass, whatever they make the glue of, petroleum products, textiles (and so on)


You see, your book needs to be interpreted a certain way in a certain light to make certain sense. Interpreted differently, yet true to the word, it might mean something different.

[Asmodean]

If no one minds, I would like to add this one to the list.

In Arabic, each letter of the alfabet has a numerological value.

Iron is called 'Hadid' in the Qur'an.

Ha - 8
D -  4
i-  10
D- 4

4 + 10 + 4 + 8 = 26 (the atomic number of Iron)

What is Xenon called? Does it match its atomic number? Hydrogen? Carbon? Bismuth? Magnesium?

What exactly is the point of that post you made, if there is a point there?

Oh, and how do you know the numbers are supposed to be added? Here, let me try...

8*4+10^4=10032

I got paid that amount for a job I did five years ago (close enough) What is significance of THAT?

[iSok]

Asmodean,

I would have to be very creative to interpretate in the way you just did.
By taking an example as a car and tyres....


I explained earlier that with 'Heavens and Earth' is meant 'everything'.
And this point of 'matter' was eventually 'rented', and all the matter of this singularity lead to the earth and the heavens (universe).

And didn't everything come from one point?

What is Xenon called? Does it match its atomic number? Hydrogen? Carbon? Bismuth? Magnesium?

What exactly is the point of that post you made, if there is a point there?

Oh, and how do you know the numbers are supposed to be added? Here, let me try...

8*4+10^4=10032

I got paid that amount for a job I did five years ago (close enough) What is significance of THAT?

The most logical way is to sum up the numbers.

Ha
D
i
D

If you sum up these letters, they form a word.
If you sum up their values, you get 26 as number.

[Stevil]

The most logical way is to sum up the numbers.

Addition is much more logical than multiplication. Everyone knows that.

[iSok]

The most logical way is to sum up the numbers.

Addition is much more logical than multiplication. Everyone knows that.

Excuse me for my poor English, I was looking for the word 'adding them up'.
You do get 26, by adding the numbers up.

[Asmodean]

I explained earlier that with 'Heavens and Earth' is meant 'everything'.

So..?

As I explained to you, it's not a single point the book implies, but a system. Within itself, a car is also everything and yet it is a system, not a single point.

Oh, and how do you know the numbers are supposed to be added? Here, let me try...

If you sum up these letters, they form a word.
If you sum up their values, you get 26 as number.

THAT part, you have at least attempted to answer. The minor part of my question, of course. I will address this, then re-post the issue I have with this.

Mathematical addition is a different process to that of making a word out of letters. Addition increases value, so adding A to B would increase the value of B, making it into a different constant, C, for instance. Thus, adding ke to the bab would not necessarilly make a kebab, done mathematically.

You are comparing things which should, in the name of intelligence, not be compared, so my point stands. How do you know you are supposed to perform mathematical addition?

Now to the important stuff:

What is Xenon called? Does it match its atomic number? Hydrogen? Carbon? Bismuth? Magnesium?

What exactly is the point of that post you made, if there is a point there?

Address that, please.


As for the logic of addition... E=m+c+2, yes? E being the energy, m being the mass, c being the light speed constant and 2 being 2..?