Thinking about intelligent design(what Quran says?)

[Emre_1974tr]

Dear friend, yes veda books writing a lot of good datas. But veda books write a lot of wrong-mistake datas too.

 

And bible write a lot of true datas. But bibles have got a lot of mistakes too. because they changed. They aren't original now.

 

But Quran saved from God(last book until big crunch). And only proofs can show this.

 

You can test it. Example you can test mathematical miracles of Quran (of course in arabic Quran)

 

Regards.

[phoenixbyrd]

There is no big cruch. It was, once upon a time, a theory of many for how the universe would end. After more data had been gotten we've since learned that the big crunch will not happen.

 

Example you can test mathematical miracles of Quran

 

And you can test the bible code, or the nostradamus prophecies. All just as open and vauge as the Quran, open to numerous interpretations. Yet, all have one commonality, the interpretation can only come to light after the event/discovery has been made. Which is why men back then were ignorant and stupid despite all the seemingly advanced knowledge you've been able to glean from 3 sentences.

 

The vedix texts don't make any mistakes on the description of radiation poisoning and one way to fight it off. But the problem with the vedic text is, it doesn't speak of those things. Just as the Quran, bible, and nostradamus don't speak of the things that people today arrogantly attribute them as doing.

[InfiniteNow]

Your god should have taught you how to read rules Emre_1974tr, and your understanding of the Qu'ran cannot be trusted since the simple rules of Hypography have gone beyond your comprehension.

[Emre_1974tr]

Dear phoenixbyrd, no i am not speaking about İan Fleming's James Bond Novels or bibles a few mathematical miracles. They haven't got miracles.

 

But Quran giving you real miracles, proofs. You can test it, Dont afraid:

 

(Mathematical Miracle in Lexical Harmony)

 

(Miracle 19)

 

 

 

Regards.

[CraigD]

I don’t believe the Quran’s description of mountains can reasonably be interpreted as coinciding with a modern scientific interpretation.

 

The Quran’s description of mountains, IMHO, refers to a variation of a particular universe model that was popular at the time of its writing (610-632 AD) in the place it was written (the Arabian Peninsula).

 

This model, appearing in very early (ca 4000 BC) Sumerian writing, is of a flat, solid surface of the Earth resting on a vast (possibly infinitely) body of water, covered by a hard, dome-shaped shell (“the heavens”) on which are embedded the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, and other astronomical objects, and enclosing the air.

 

The Quran’s variation of this model appears to deny that the heavens touch the surface at any point. Further, it asserts that mountains are “pegs”, or, more descriptively in English, “stakes” that were physically forced in a downward direction through the surface of the Earth to fasten it to whatever underlies it. (My studies of Quran interpretation is insufficient to suggest what this underlying material was said to be – perhaps someone more familiar with this literature can supply this information?)

 

IMHO, this is an interesting and beautiful example of how a religious document captures a dominant scientific theory existing at the time of its writing. In addition to the practical moral lessons the Quran teaches, it and documents like it provide valuable “snapshots” of human history.

 

However, the assertion that the Earth actually is flat, and that mountains were driven into it from above, is unsupported by physical data.

 

The assertion that the Quran’s description of this ancient universe-model matches the physical data – for example, that the “stakes” of the mountains were driven upward, from beneath the earth, as geological data strongly suggests, is, IMHO, a revisionistic corruption of the text.

 

The assertion that the text - which most scholars, both religious and non-religious, believe were recited by Muhammad to his companions, who wrote and recited them back to Muhammad to assure correct recording and understanding – was incorrectly written – that is, that Allah meant mountains are driven upward, but Muhammad or his companions were unable to understand, interpreting it as referring to an activity with which they were familiar, such as driving tent stakes into the ground – is IMHO incorrect, and an insult of Muhammad and his companions.

[phoenixbyrd]

Numerology does not a god make. Anything that states;

 

God supported His messages He sent to humanity with corroborative evidences. But the psychology that rejected these messages approached these proofs with a ready to deny mind and looked at them with prejudiced ideas.

 

Is highly dubious. I do not readily look upon a religious text as being inherently wrong. I know where religion come's from, why we developed it, and I know ancient man didn't have modern day knowledge.

 

Here, watch this.

 

When on high the heaven had not been named,

Firm ground below had not been called by name,

When primordial Apsu, their begetter,

And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,

Their waters mingled as a single body,

No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,

None of the gods had been brought into being,

And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--

Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.

Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called. (10)

 

Obviously this verse is talking about the singularity that existed prior to the big bang.

 

Before they had grown in age and stature,

Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others.

Long were the days, then there came forth.....

Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival;

Yes, Anshar's first-born, Anu, was his equal.

Anu begot in his image Nudimmud.

This Nudimmud was of his fathers the master;

Of broad wisdom, understanding, mighty in strength,

Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar.

He had no rival among the gods, his brothers. (20)

 

Let's break this down abit.

 

Before they had grown in age and stature,

Anshar and Kishar were formed

 

This screams of the quark/gluon plasma physics of the early universe, before it grew in age and stature and cooled enough for atomic particles to exist.

 

Long were the days, then there came forth.....

Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival;

 

another fine example. Here we see the discussion of atoms and light finally comming into being after many millions of years the initial universe took to cool down.

 

I could and would continue on with this, but hopefully you get the point. You can construe anything you want from any given text you'd like. The Enuma Elish doesn't depict how the universe came to be with modern theories, and yet it could be construed as doing so.

[Emre_1974tr]

Dear friends, "wrong translations of Quran" make you wrong thinking.

 

Wrong english translations or wrong turkish translations of Quran are not real Quran.

 

And you re thinking wrong so.

 

Example:

 

GEOIDAL FORM OF THE WORLD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

30- He made the earth egg-shaped.

79-The Snatchers, 30

 

The Arabic word “dahw” means rotundity like that of the ostrich’s egg. The above verse was also interpreted to refer to the shaping of the earth in the form of an ostrich egg. Prof. Dr. Suleyman Atefl, former head of Religious Affairs in Turkey, gives the following definition of the word, based on the famous Arabic dictionary Lisan u’l Arab: “The word ‘dahw’ means to spread out, giving (something) a round shape.” The word “dahw” had also been defined as a game played with walnuts. Derived from the same stem, the word “medahi” referred to round stones. Despite the meaning of rotundity concealed in words derived from the word “dahw” there have been translators for whom a spherical earth was difficult to conceive, who had to translate it as “to spread out.” The actual shape of the earth does have the shape of an ostrich egg. Thus the shape of the earth is spheroid with depressions at the poles. The exact figure of the earth which had posed a problem throughout history was established by the Quran.

 

Even the books written a few centuries after the descent of the Quran likened the shape of the earth to a tray. Beliefs according to which the earth rested on the horns of an ox or was supported by a fish reigned over mentalities in the Arabic peninsula and many believed that earthquakes occurred when the fish down below waved its tail. The Prophet had no ocean-going ship to cross the earth from one extremity to the other, that would have supplied him with evidence proving the spheroid shape of the earth, nor had he a spacecraft from which he could have had an overall view of our world that would have provided him a photographic image of it, as he was not equipped with a camera. Our knowledge of the sphericity of the earth, which seems to us as an established fact, was then beyond the comprehension and imagination of the majority. Therefore, the Quran’s statement to this effect failed to be grasped. Men believed that the verse referred to the plenitude of the earth, ignoring the sense of rotundity.

 

Thus, at a time when most of the people believed in the shape of earth’s figure as a tray supported by an ox or fish, the Quran had beautifully described its actual shape. The fact that ostriches abounded in the Arabian Peninsula at the time must have permitted those who inquired into this mystery to hold an ostrich egg in their hands and examine it. The geoidal form is a gentle indication of this. The subtlety of the Quran’s expressions provides men with evidence.

 

174- O people! Verily there has come to you an infallible proof from your Lord. We have sent unto you a manifest light.

4-The Women, 174

 

 

Regards.

[phoenixbyrd]

I'm sorry, but seeing as how the Enuma Elish was written before there were ever any arabs, and discuss's how the universe came to be so clearly in light of new modern day scientific discoveries then I can only conclude that the Enuma Elish holds more validity then the more recently written Quran.

 

Praise Anu!

[BibleBeliever]

The Skeptic's bible? I'd never heard of it, thanks for the link. I only read through Genesis 1 and I could find the errors of what they were saying without looking for any help elsewhere. I did, however, Google 'skeptics bible' and found (on page1) a site that refutes the ramblings of the book.

 

PhoenxyByrd when you look for information to back up your opinion on life do you not also look to see if that information has not been shown wrong elsewhere?

 

I am not being sarcastic here, honestly, I just thought that would be standard practice.

 

Do you think, for example, that I hold my views blindly, that in the 25+ years I've been a Christian I just put my fingers in my ears and shut my eyes to what's going on in the world and the scientific community? when scientists find out something new (a weekly occurance, on the news at least) sometimes I smile because it shows that the bible is true - for example when they discovered there are no races but all mankind is related, 'australoids' are not less evolved than 'caucsians' [Natalie Angier, 'Do races differ? Not Really, DNA shows,' New York Times web, Aug. 22,2000]. Sometimes I have to research how the new discovery fits in with the bible's view and it doesn't take long to see there's nothing for me to worry about. The fact that scientists change their mind every few months helps in this respect.

[ughaibu]

I would like the readers of either the Bible or the Koran to point to verses that show some things that are startlingly different, not yet known to science but that recent developments suggest will soon be "discovered". Things from biology, maths or physics would be ideal, things that god knows about, that god included in the book and that can be understood with the correct interpretation.

[phoenixbyrd]

There are many thing's in the bible that are just down right wrong. For instance, magical neked beings from the spooky world creating the universe and life on one tiny planet cuz 'we're like tottaly special dude'. Or noah's flood, not only did it not happen and certainly not on a planetary scale, it's also a direct rip off of an older flood mythology that semi did happen, but was 'mythologized' to fit the beliefs of that region. It didn't happen exactly as told in the original text, but there was a rather large localized flood in that region, which in those times WAS considered the whole planet.

 

And yes, I do believe you hold your beliefs blindly. You've never once physically seen your god, nor once seen physical proof that a god even exists. All you've got is faith and interpretations of natural events that you blindly attribute to your god which is why you rush out and try to interpret new scientific findings to fit your bible which is impossible to do because you can't impart modern knowledge on primitive people in the past unless you develope the mythical time travel machine which is another impossible thing to do cause time doesn't exist the way you think it does and so on and so on etc.

 

And don't even get me started on how the whole religion is one giant hypocritical contradiction after another.

 

EDIT:

 

PhoenxyByrd when you look for information to back up your opinion on life do you not also look to see if that information has not been shown wrong elsewhere?

 

Yes, I do look. I look at all angles, what fits, what doesn't, what has the most evidence for. So far, I've never seen god, or any form of diety of any religion, common sense would also beg of one, why this god and not the other when people out of hundreds of religions all claim to have proof.

[CraigD]

30- He made the earth egg-shaped.

79-The Snatchers, 30

As I understand it, the interpretation of Sura 79:30 is controversial among Quran scholars

 

In phonetic Arabic, Sura 79:30 is: “Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha.” The 1983 M.H. Shakir translation gives it not as “He made the earth egg-shaped”, but as “And the earth, He expanded it after that”. Several other English translation I have encountered are similar to the Shakir translation.

 

I understand that the controversy centers around the translation of “dahaha” or “dahw”, which Shakir and others translate as “spread”. The “egg-shaped” translation appears to be due to the ca. 1980 translation of the Quran by controversial Egyptian-American biochemist Rashad Khalifa. Critics of Khalifa contend that “dahaha” doesn’t mean “egg” or “egg-shaped” at all, noting that the usual Arabic word for “egg”, “baiza”, has no phonetic of etymological connection with “dahaha”.

 

It seems to me very unlikely that the 7th Century companions of Muhammad who so carefully transcribed his dictation (Like most people of his time, Muhammad could not read or write) to produce the Quran, and the many Quran scholars and teachers preceeding Khalifa, would have interpreted Sura 79:30 as “He spread the earth”, when it should have been the very different “He made the earth egg-shaped”, and this error not be noted and corrected until around 1980.

 

Emre_1974tr, are you aware of any evidence of the appearance of this alternate “egg-shaped” translation or commentary on it predating Khalifa?

 

The Prophet had no ocean-going ship to cross the earth from one extremity to the other, that would have supplied him with evidence proving the spheroid shape of the earth, nor had he a spacecraft from which he could have had an overall view of our world that would have provided him a photographic image of it, as he was not equipped with a camera. Our knowledge of the sphericity of the earth, which seems to us as an established fact, was then beyond the comprehension and imagination of the majority.

I agree that Muhammad, a rural Arab 6-7th century Arab, was unlikely to have knowledge of the shape of the Earth. However, this is not likely to have been true of all of the people with whom he had his companions has close contact.

 

The spherical shape of the Earth was widely known and written about by the 3rd century BC. Greek astronomer and mathematician measured Eratosthenes measured it experimentally with remarkable accuracy (possibly within 2% of the modern value) around 240 BC.

 

Both the earlier speculations of the Greeks, and Eratothenes scientific, work was widely known among Greek, European, Arab and Persian scholars, so would likely not have been altogether unfamiliar to contemporaries of Muhammad. Early Islamic astronomers are known to have been familiar with Greek scientific texts, with consistently described a spherical Earth, so would have been unlikely to mistranslate any “Earth is a sphere” references in the Quran.

20th century Sura 79:30 translation controversy & the history of theories of the shape of the Earth

[Lancaster]

The Skeptic's bible? I'd never heard of it, thanks for the link. I only read through Genesis 1 and I could find the errors of what they were saying without looking for any help elsewhere. I did, however, Google 'skeptics bible' and found (on page1) a site that refutes the ramblings of the book.

[/Quote]

 

Please, please Biblebeliever, don't act like you have refuted the site just because another site (which you did not bother to link to) says that it is incorrect. Let's see you do some thinking for yourself. Or at least give some examples.

 

PhoenxyByrd when you look for information to back up your opinion on life do you not also look to see if that information has not been shown wrong elsewhere?

 

You might want to take your own advice, there.

 

Do you think, for example, that I hold my views blindly, that in the 25+ years I've been a Christian I just put my fingers in my ears and shut my eyes to what's going on in the world and the scientific community? when scientists find out something new (a weekly occurance, on the news at least) sometimes I smile because it shows that the bible is true - for example when they discovered there are no races but all mankind is related, 'australoids' are not less evolved than 'caucsians' [Natalie Angier, 'Do races differ? Not Really, DNA shows,' New York Times web, Aug. 22,2000]. Sometimes I have to research how the new discovery fits in with the bible's view and it doesn't take long to see there's nothing for me to worry about.

 

Just because the Bible does not contradict something scientific doesn't mean that it is correct. Why is mankind related? Because we are the same species. I mean really.

 

The fact that scientists change their mind every few months helps in this respect.

 

Please do not make sweeping generalizations like this. Scientists update their research and theories often, which is a good thing. The Bible hasn't been updated in a thousand years. That fact helps me to see what's so wrong with using it as a scientific document.

[phoenixbyrd]

I believe he's talking about The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained

 

In which for only the low low price of $19.99 and one eternal soul you could learn such gems as.

 

Genesis 1:1-2:3 - The first of two contradictory creation accounts. Compare with Gen. 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.

 

The answer:

 

* Genesis 1 and 2 are complementary accounts of creation. Genesis 1 is a detailed account of the entire creation week. Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of creation on the 6th day. Further, the Hebrew word for "formed" in Genesis 2:19 could also be translated "had formed". This clarifies the assertion of two, contradictory creation accounts.

 

Which is just spiffy. See if we twist it this way then it could mean this and thus negating the divinely inspired contradiction. God never was good at spelling!

 

Leviticus 11:5-6 - The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud."

 

The answers:

 

* In the 21st century, we consider "chewing the cud" regurgitating partially digested materials and chewing on it (like cows do). This is called "rumination." However, this isn't necessarily the same meaning and definition of this Hebrew word ("gerah") that the ancient Israelites had.

 

* Rabbits practice "refection." They chew on their dung which consists of partially digested food and partially undigested food. Therefore, there is a similarity even between our current understanding of "chewing the cud" and an ancient understanding of it. They both chew undigested food. At any rate, the Israelites didn't use different words for rumination and refection, so "gerah" (translated cud) had to suffice.

 

Or through the simple lack of not having the proper wording anything can mean anything! The wonders don't end there folks, just pull out your credit cards and pay the lord for all the explanations you'll ever need for all the divinely inspired contradictions!

 

of course I could be wrong and it could be another site. But I sure did enjoy that site! What a hoot.

[Emre_1974tr]

Dear CraigD; “dahw" is mean "ostrich’s egg" always. But peoples "translating" to Turkish or English different until today.But word is in same mean always.

 

Second Example:

 

"Kevkeb" is "planet" in arabic.

 

But this word translating like "star" until today. This is wrong like first example.

 

Necm:Star

 

Kevkeb: Planet.

 

And in Quran, kevkeb different, necm different.

 

Regards.

[Agememnon]

OK, guys, check this out. As it turns out, that guy is right! The Quran does speak truth. Look at this undeniable proof for black holes:

 

75- So, I swear by the place where the stars fall.

 

How can anyone argue against the fact that this is obviously a black hole that is being described!

 

Not to mention that the Quran knows about underground water! How does it know?! Only God could have written this:

 

21- Do not you see that God sends down water from the sky and places it into underground springs.

 

 

This is proof that the Quran knows about photosynthesis:

 

18- And the dawn as it breathes.

 

Seriously, this place changed me:

 

Quran Miracles.

 

...NOT!

[Lancaster]

OK, guys, check this out. As it turns out, that guy is right! The Quran does speak truth. Look at this undeniable proof for black holes:

 

75- So, I swear by the place where the stars fall.

 

How can anyone argue against the fact that this is obviously a black hole that is being described!

 

Not to mention that the Quran knows about underground water! How does it know?! Only God could have written this:

 

21- Do not you see that God sends down water from the sky and places it into underground springs.

 

 

This is proof that the Quran knows about photosynthesis:

 

18- And the dawn as it breathes.

 

Seriously, this place changed me:

 

Quran Miracles.

 

...NOT!

 

Wow! The Quran is so insightful. Praise Allah and all his wisdom!