The article talks about creation, that God created in six days and rested on the seventh. The bible is not a book of science, but it says that all life was created according to its kind, this seems to be in direct conflict with science and evolution.
I don't see corruption in the bible, I just don't think that the theory of evolution can be correct. In the Quran, it also says about a six day creation, so it seems we might both be in conflict with science.
In the spirit of searching for 'One God'
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Bible nowadays has been changed because it added with words that not originally from Bible. Christians themselves admit it. But the term corrupt is excessive, I think.
However, the most important is, as Muslims we don't follow Bible. So why should we waste our time only to criticize other people holy book that we don't follow?. It's better if we focus to our own problem like bad habit among some Muslims which they twist Qur'an verses to support their own agenda or to justify their wrong behavior.
Idk if there are any christians left who follow the Messiah, and the Injill revealed to him, and believe him AS to be a Prophet of Allah, and not son of god, or god, audhu billah.
In exactly how was there a "day" before there was the earth?.
Oh Pygo, why you forget that the sun doesn't make day and night, but the earth that make it. Day and night happen not because the sun revolves around the earth, but because the earth rotates on its axis while revolves around the sun.
Apparently, light existed on Earth before the sun too.
Peace
Greetings,
Solar system formed together. So, basically there was no earth before the sun, and there was no sun before the earth. This is what I learn from science. But if religious scripture say differently, I regard it as a mystery.
Maybe I am different than many other religious people. I never mix religion with science, and it makes me can understand religion and understand science better.
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God said "LET THERE BE LIGHT". Then there was still nothing, but you could see it.
A slight problem there, who could see light?
At that point in creation, there was only God and if God could see light, why does it have to be light from our sun? God created trillions of light emitting stars.
If we read books like the Bible and Qur’an, with the intention of trying to find fault, we may well overlook all the good and inspirational messages also.
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God said "LET THERE BE LIGHT". Then there was still nothing, but you could see it.
May I correct this a little (you can disagree of course and I think you will), using your own words: In the beginning, there was nothing but God (who said "Let it be light").
May I correct this a little (you can disagree of course and I think you will), using your own words: In the beginning, there was nothing but God (who said "Let it be light").
As those who clicked the link perhaps noticed, the article was about the Bible’s interpretation rather than its preservation. But thousands of ancient Biblical manuscripts, along with ancient translations, plus frequent Biblical quotations in the writings of the Church Fathers, all demonstrate the Bible’s preservation. Christians, of course, have always held the Bible to be sacred and would not want to change it. But the most persuasive consideration is God’s enduring faithfulness. God has always preserved His truth in the world. There is no reason to think that His faithfulness suddenly and for the first time failed after the Messiah’s Ascension into heaven. The promise, "The truth of the Lord endureth for ever," remains as true now as it was when the words first appeared in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Creation of the Universe in Six Days
As per the Bible, in the first book of Genesis in Chapter One, the universe was created in six days and each day is defined as a twenty-four hours period. Even though the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, ‘Ayyaam’ is the plural of years; this word has two meanings: firstly, it means a standard twenty-four hours period i.e. a day, and secondly, it also means stage, period or epoch which is a very long period of time. When the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, it refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs; scientists have no objection to this statement. The creation of the universe has taken billions of years, which proves false or contradicts the concept of the Bible which states that the creation of the Universe took six days of twenty-four hour durations each.
I have my own.. but, focusing on the topic, the word which has been translated into 'days', as a root word means period, as in moments in time, a day is also a measureable moment span. Eventually, the popular translation of days took root to the largely non Arabic muslims.
Simple explanation. So to say the world was created in 6 or 7 periods is not too far fetch.
it refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs; scientists have no objection to this statement.
Well, historical facts are not a valid subject of science. There would be nothing to repeat experimentally in order to find counterexamples for the claim. Scientific research would have to be something like this: "I will arrange an experiment setup in our new lab and create something similar to the earth in 48 hours". It is obvious that this cannot be done. Furthermore, calculations on how many billions of years the age of the earth would be, are interesting, but cannot particularly be understood to be "repeating experiments in order to find counterexamples". Historical facts are the domain of historians and the historical method, which ultimately always rests on eyewitness depositions. There are no eyewitness depositions available, but only estimations based on calculations. So, the age of the earth in terms of x billions of years, is indeed an interesting conjecture, but clearly falls outside the scope of every possible accredited academic method. Some people believe that this kind of calculations should also count as science, but that would open the door to accept pretty much anything as science, and that would be in violation of anti-alchemy policies established in the past, specifically to deny scientific status to a host of other conjectures and Ponzi schemes that would benefit from leaving the door open, in order to also acquire coveted scientific status.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks