Scientific Errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shukri18
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 76
  • Views Views 15K
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I'm saying is that things you take as being scientific or mathematical error could quite easily seen as creative use of language.

You said "If the biblical text is accepted in the straightforward way that creation scientists want to accept the Bible...". Yes, of course if you do this you will encounter problems, but then all you're doing is arguing against their interpretation of the text. Asking people to correct you doesn't make much sense in light of that.
The Bible consists of descriptions written by men, it does not claim to be the literal word of God as does the Qur'an.

Anyway.
"ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about... and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about".
We don't know if the author intended to convey an exact measurement or an approximation. Also, I would call an orange round or a roti round, two different and imprecise descriptions. The article in question might not be a perfect circle.

I'm not even going to try with Ezra and Nehemiah, I can't be bothered wading through all those figures. Some people claim to have resolved it but I'd say they just can't count.

"divided the light from the darkness" could well be figurative.

"-wrong deffiniton of illumination and moon, in the Genesis the moon is referred to as a light, scientificly the moon is just a reflection of the sun's light."
Qur'an 10:5 "He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light..."
 
"-wrong deffiniton of illumination and moon, in the Genesis the moon is referred to as a light, scientificly the moon is just a reflection of the sun's light."
Qur'an 10:5 "He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light..."

5) He it is who has made the sun a [source of] radiant light and the moon a light [reflected],'° and has...


http://www.geocities.com/masad02/010


all the best
 
Last edited:
That may be the gist of the phrase, but even Asad put the word 'reflected' in brackets as it's not in the original text.
 
That may be the gist of the phrase, but even Asad put the word 'reflected' in brackets as it's not in the original text.
Asad's translation & interpretation of Quran is one of the most bona-fide and coherent translations.It is scrupulously referenced so he does not give his opinion rather quotes some of the greatest scholars after the manifestation of the Quran
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10720330/Message-of-Quran-Muhammad-Asad-Islam

if you desire to actually read the Quran, and have a cohesive discussion of contents, using several sources and well sakhr (arabic dictionary) or any other you deem 'credible' I have no problems with that whatsoever (as time consuming as that would be).
But don't come teach us (especially) Arabic speakers of the contents therein, least of which from snippets from atheist websites and then throw a temper tantrum when there is as well other credible translations that are just as merited that differ on meaning!

all the best
 
Then you recognise the issue. Shukri18 is criticising the English translation of the Biblical text.
 
but you don't have two biblical texts that are the same.. as well there are many chapters missing between the protestant and catholic bible.. further the 'original' bible if there is such a thing isn't even written in the tongue or language of Jesus, whereas the Quran has always been the same, even if the translations are off, you can always go back to the archetype and correct your stance.. also you'll find that even though in Islam sunnis makeup 90% and the rest are 10% we all still use the exact same Quran..
one thing you don't appreciate I believe about the Quran is that it is written like a poem.. can you imagine the difficulty of making an entire text with some verses revealed twenty yrs apart to follow in syntax meaning and rhyme?

can you do this with the bible, one chapter if not actually every chapter?


[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsk58tjsuaM[/MEDIA]

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvH0jGAAefI&feature=channel_page[/MEDIA]

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2-ie5G9kxo[/MEDIA]

ALL THE BEST!
 
If people want to watch the videos they could follow links, there's no need to jam up the thread with them.
but you don't have two biblical texts that are the same.. as well there are many chapters missing between the protestant and catholic bible..
The dead sea scrolls hold a copy of the OT which is about 95% the same as current versions and dates ~AD100, I don't think that's too shabby given it's age.
The OP hasn't looked at a Hebrew copy as far as I can tell, ancient or otherwise, accurate or not.
further the 'original' bible if there is such a thing isn't even written in the tongue or language of Jesus, whereas the Quran has always been the same
There is no 'original' Quran either, we only have it on trust that the document handed down is the same as the pieces dictated during his life.
 
firmament = expanse

Genesis 1
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Not sure what your problem with the moon's reflected light? It is a lesser light, not the source of light.

Don't try so hard to dipute the Bible. LOL! The Quran says the earth is flat!
015.019
YUSUFALI: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
PICKTHAL: And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein.
SHAKIR: And the earth-- We have spread it forth and made in it firm mountains and caused to grow in it of every suitable thing.

a round earth:
Isaiah 40
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Job26
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

Job 38
13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

LOL!! Just sounds better then "bouncing the ball so hard that the wicked fall off of it"!!!

Four corners of the earth - north, south, east, west

your pool queston:
http://www.learnthebible.org/molten_sea_value_of_pi.htm

The Bible never claims to be a science book, but a guide for your salvation, a way to get close to GOD. When a scientific statement is made it is consistant with science, but written so man from the earliest of time could understand it.
 
If people want to watch the videos they could follow links, there's no need to jam up the thread with them.

You care about the jamming of the forum because? Are you fostering its existence with pocket change? This is my form of da3wa in reference to a point I have made, if you don't like it, you don't have to click on it just the same.. further this section is entitled 'Comparative religion' any media clips are acceptable here if they are of relevance!
The dead sea scrolls hold a copy of the OT which is about 95% the same as current versions and dates ~AD100, I don't think that's too shabby given it's age.
Have you actually read it? I'd really love to see a few excerpts from it since you have it in your library and find such great similitude between them and the current versions:

Israeli scholar challenges accepted wisdom on Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming Essenes never existed

By MATTI FRIEDMAN , Associated Press
Last update: March 17, 2009 - 11:13 AM


http://www.startribune.com/world/41374427.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr




Isra-lis Continue To Hide and Obfuscate Dead Sea Scrolls And What They Say About Yeshua!
http://zionistgoldreport.wordpress....d-sea-scrolls-and-what-they-say-about-yeshua/

A few links on the matter of which you are now and like on every thread expert =)


The OP hasn't looked at a Hebrew copy as far as I can tell, ancient or otherwise, accurate or not.
The OP like myself attended catholic school and studied their bible as well attended their mass! other than that she is not merely speaking of the OT!
There is no 'original' Quran either, we only have it on trust that the document handed down is the same as the pieces dictated during his life.
Yeah there are four original copies of the Quran for a mostly oral tradition society and unlike the bible started being scribed during the time of the prophet on old bones and such and later compiled in the order the prophet dictated.. as an example the first verse revealed doesn't appear in chapter I.. thus we know that it is all true to the way it was intended to be! you should re-visit old threads as I really do get annoyed with refractory denseness!

all the best
 
Last edited:
I'd really love to see a few excerpts from it since you have it in your library and find such great similitude between them and the current versions:
Garry Brantley's assessment.
Israeli scholar challenges accepted wisdom on Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming Essenes never existed
Unsure about the relevance of this...
The OP like myself attended catholic school and studied their bible as well attended their mass!
Being experts on the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Bible why on earth do you both then criticise it's English translation, considering how much we are scolded when we do the same with the Quran?
Yeah there are four original copies of the Quran for a mostly oral tradition society and unlike the bible started being scribed during the time of the prophet on old bones
I think our definitions of 'original' differ. There is no copy of the Quran which was wholely compiled by, or under the supervision of, the Prophet.
 
I don't want Garry's assessment, I want yours--Did you read it?
Don't read an assessment of a cliff note and then come speak to me with bravado!

Unsure about the relevance of this...
The relevance is, there is alot of talk of the actual content of the dead sea scrolls, given that the Jews took them and hid them disabling all kinds of other scholars to have a proper assessment of content!

Being experts on the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Bible why on earth do you both then criticise it's English translation, considering how much we are scolded when we do the same with the Quran?
You have missed something very basic a central theme to 'Christianity' not mentioned in the bible yet deduced, I say by that same token that makes Gods of Men should everything else be equally examined to see what it is that drove an allegedly Monotheistic religion into the throws of paganism using that text!
By the way I can understand a great deal of Aramiac more than any Christian here on board, unless they were originally from Iraq!

I think our definitions of 'original' differ. There is no copy of the Quran which was wholely compiled by, or under the supervision of, the Prophet.
Arabia was an oral society, and still continues to be, the same way I can recite suret Ar'Rahman by heart as was done millenniums ago with the exact same integrity without having ever to open a page of the Quran which is exactly how I have come to memorize it and such is the case with millions of Hafith world wide.. can we say the same about the 'Bibles'

all the best
 
The relevance is, there is alot of talk of the actual content of the dead sea scrolls, given that the Jews took them and hid them disabling all kinds of other scholars to have a proper assessment of content!
Aren't the vast majority now viewable in the Israel Museum?

I don't see how the fact that I've not read the original scrolls means that you can claim all these people are wrong when I'm guessing you haven't seen them and compared them to the modern bible either. Otherwise you'd actually present some evidence to dispute that they are accurate to the degree stated.
Arabia was an oral society, and still continues to be, the same way I can recite suret Ar'Rahman by heart as was done millenniums ago with the exact same integrity without having ever to open a page of the Quran which is exactly how I have come to memorize it
All the same, there's no way that you can show those words are the words that came out of the Prophet's mouth.

None of this explains why we're criticising the English translation.

Submission org is a Quran only sect, I don't really need to read content to know what they think!
I take it then that you have compared the Tashkent Quran to your own copy and found it to be in complete agreement.
 
Aren't the vast majority now viewable in the Israel Museum?
Who knows what is being shown and what is being withheld?.. however question remains, have you visited any museum or read excerpts of them? I ask because like on every subject you display such authority, which I am not sure where stemming from? It isn't very forth coming to appear a scholar on a subject where again you are literally commenting on cliff notes that someone has summarized for you!

I don't see how the fact that I've not read the original scrolls means that you can claim all these people are wrong when I'm guessing you haven't seen them and compared them to the modern bible either. Otherwise you'd actually present some evidence to dispute that they are accurate to the degree stated.
I am not the one who made the statement of 90+ accurate to the current versions? it was you! Thus logic would dictate you'd have to back it up with something other than a random blogger's opinion, as you can see if you scroll back, other people have differing opinions!
Again, something about research, and scientific integrity is missing here..
I wouldn't write on the Quran if I haven't actually read it..


All the same, there's no way that you can show those words are the words that came out of the Prophet's mouth.
yeah they are.. his actual words (the hadiths) and the Quran are very different.. thus anyone with half a brain can distinguish the difference between a Quranic recitation and the anything else whether coming out of the prophet or not.. there is no dispute... The Quran is its own testament!
However anyone can write a passage and stick it in the bible, which is in fact what has been done!
None of this explains why we're criticising the English translation.
Try not to go off on tangents then-- other than that, obviousely 'something has been lost in the translation'!
I take it then that you have compared the Tashkent Quran to your own copy and found it to be in complete agreement.

I have seen the copy in Egypt and it is in complete agreement as it is one of the four originals..

try again!


all the best
 
Who knows what is being shown and what is being withheld?.. however question remains, have you visited any museum or read excerpts of them? I ask because like on every subject you display such authority, which I am not sure where stemming from?
I'm simply restating what scholars of the field have said.
yeah they are.. his actual words (the hadiths) and the Quran are very different.. thus anyone with half a brain can distinguish the difference between a Quranic recitation and the anything else whether coming out of the prophet or not.. there is no dispute... The Quran is its own testament!
You speak of scientific integrity and then make a pronouncement like that?

That is not evidence.
I have seen the copy in Egypt and it is in complete agreement as it is one of the four originals..
That's not what I asked, is it?
 
I'm simply restating what scholars of the field have said.
Actually that isn't what scholars on the field have said..
Also parroting the opinion that voices yours doesn't equal sound research or professional integrity!
Not only have you not read the OT but you haven't the 'dead sea scrolls' exactly why should anyone care what you think?
What do you reckon we ought to base it on?
You speak of scientific integrity and then make a pronouncement like that?
That is indeed a statement free of personal prejudices, a challenge of the Quran was to bring a sura like it even if it were the shortest which is suret Al kawathar composed only of three verses.
The criteria for language, syntax, rhyme transcendence and meaning.

Do read:
The issue you brought up relates to the Qur'anic challenge to "produce a surah like it". [On the subject, I thought I might mention that M. M. Al-Azami, the author of a decisive refutation on missionary and orientalist polemic on the Qur'anic preservation is now in the process of writing a book called "The Qur'anic Challenge: A Promise fulfilled". Shaykh Al-Azami is a renowned scholar in both the Western and Islamic world, with a PhD from Cambridge University, he is also a Professor Emeritus at King Saud University in Riyadh Saudi Arabia.]. The challenge is really quite simple: "if you think this Qur'an is fabricated, then why don't you write your own book and follow that? See if that enjoys the same success as the word of God."

This challenge was given to the arabs at the time of the Prophet saws whose poetry was their most salient skill and they used to recite their poetry with pride. They were the masters of arabic poetry and there were none to compare with them. Yet they tried and were unsuccessful in producing a scripture like the Qur'an, and they recognized their failure in this regard very quickly. Nowadays, people who are ignorant of the arabic language think that they will easily be able to cook up something like the Qur'an. The fact of the matter is - the masters of arabic poetry have already tried and failed; the only reason why these modern challengers have not recognized their failure is because they are truly ignorant of the literary devices to begin with, and thus are unequiped to compare their meek compositions with the word of God.

One example of a book written in arabic by a challenger in called 'The True Furqan". Dr. Ali Ataie makes some interesting comments on this composition in his introduction to his 'Gospel of Jesus':
The True Criterion?

A book was just recently released by Wine Press Publishing called “Furqanul Haq,” or “The True
Criterion.” The editorial review on Amazon.com reads: “Arabic and English side-by-side on
every page. Prose and poetry of the highest caliber in classical Arabic with English interpretation.
It contains 77 surahs (chapters) dealing with as many subjects which are beautifully written and
easily understood. Love, Light, Peace, Truth, Repentance, Women, Marriage, Fasting, Prayer,
Abrogation, The Sacrifice, Inspiration, Paradise, The Scale and The Excellent Names are some of
the chapters written in the unique style of the Quran.” Sounds good, right? The problem: This is
not the Qur’an!

Apparently, some poor Arab Christian on his last evangelical leg decided to plagiarize many of
the chapters of the actual Qur’an and made minor changes in order to “Christianize” the text. The
despicability and deception of such a move is surpassed only by its desperation. The Bible isn’t
working for them; they have to use OUR scripture in order to convert people to their religion. I’m
flattered, but still very offended.

After Muslim readers made a big hue and cry about the book to Amazon, one Christian
commented: “I don’t understand why this book offends Muslims. Doesn’t the Koran say that
infidels should try to produce something like the Koran in order to prove that they can’t? Well,
we did!” The verse in question is: “And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time
to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers
besides Allah, if your doubts are true” (al-Baqarah 2:23).

The crucial part of this verse that our Christian friend failed to recognize is the phrase “besides
Allah,” meaning without the help of Allah’s Word. In other words, don’t copy wholesale from the
Qur’an and make a few minor textual adjustments and claim that you have produced something
comparable to it. -- That is called forgery. Reminds me of the Words of God: “But when Our
Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say:
‘Bring us a reading other than this, or change this.’ Say: ‘It is not for me, of my own accord, to
change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should
myself fear the penalty of a Great Day to come’” (Yunus 10:15). If I copied down verbatim a
Shakespearian Sonnet with the exception of a few words here and there that I added on my own,
can I possible say that I have produced a Sonnet equal to that of the English Master? Certainly
not.

The detractors of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) accused him of forging the
Qur’an from the Bible. Yet there isn’t even a SINGLE verse in the entire Qur’an that is near
identical to a verse in the Bible. -- “When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah
knows best what He reveals in stages,- they say, ‘Thou art but a forger:’ but most of them
understand not” (an-Nahl 16:101). It’s true that some of the stories are similar, but that is because
the Qur’an confirms as well as corrects certain Biblical narrations that had been fabricated by the
hands of men. This is why the Qur’an is the Criterion! The Qur’an lay outside all of the familiar
categories of Arabic rhyme and prose. It is a miracle of language, rhetoric, poetry, and is
absolutely inimitable.

Last example: Allah reveals, “O mankind! Here is a parable set forth, listen to it! Those on whom,
besides Allah, ye call, cannot create even a fly, if they all met together for the purpose” (al-Hajj
22:73)! “Wait a minute,” you might say, “Scientists today have cloned livestock! A fly would be
no problem.” Cloned yes, but create? Never. Allah is referring to the creation of a fly out of
nothing, just as He creates. Taking an animal’s DNA, its entire genetic make-up and a substance
that GOD created Himself, and using it to clone a sheep or cow does not constitute creation. The
same applies to “Furqanul Haq.” You cannot rival God’s miracle by using His miracle to do so!

News of this book has led me to a very interesting and important project. Obviously, the
“Furqanul Haq” is not the Qur’an. But what if I were to do the same thing to the Christian
scripture? What if I took elements present in the four canonical Gospels and harmonized them
into a single account and “Islamicized” the text in a few places? Why not? Certainly Christians
are constantly demanding from us to produce the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (or at least our
version of it) in light of our rejection of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as God’s
infallible Word. It would be a bitter taste of their own medicine. Besides, this is exactly what the
evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did themselves! My resulting work has been named:
“???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????,” (Greek for Alethinos Evangelion Iaysus Christos)
- “The True Gospel of Jesus Christ” or simply “Injeel-ul-Haq.”
(Gospel of Jesus, pp. 2-3)​
In additon to the points mentioned by Dr. Ataie, whenever I discuss this issue, I begin with an important definition -that of the Qur'an. When the Qur'an challenges others to produce something like it, the prerequisite is that someone understand what the Qur'an is to be able to attempt the challenge. The 'Qur'an' literally means a recitation. The Qur'an was not revealed to Prophet Muhammad saws as a book, nor was it dispersed or preached primarily in written form - it was through recitation that is was primarily recieved and dispersed. Thus, anyone attempting to answer the challenge must produce for us a recitation - not just a written composition. So let us see if these critics can produce for us a recitation that matches the quality of such:
http://quran.islamway.com/mishary1424/025.mp3
http://quran.islamway.com/matrood/002.mp3
http://quran.islamway.com/ayyoubharam/024.mp3

There are probably thousands of other recitations forum members could link you to. Let these critics try tp produce anything that has the power of these recitations. When, I listen to these recitations, understanding their meaning as well, I'm gripped by their power and beauty. I get a feeling of immense tranquility when I listen to these recitations that I never get listening to anything else. And its not just me or other Muslims raised as Muslims. Those who convert to Islam having read much of the Qur'an experience the same undescribable feeling when listening to the Qur'an.

And I'm not ignorant of the compositions of the critics either. I have read many of their attempts to answer the Qur'anic challenge in arabic, and have tried many times reciting them out-loud but in vain, as each word feels like an obstacle to the one trying to recite with tajweed. These compositions are unrecitable and are no different from the average written pieces of arabic composed by human beings (in many cases the critics' compositions do not even meet the standard of acceptable written arabic).

My above explanation has focused on the literary style of the Qur'an, although one must remember that to produce something like the Qur'an involves other things as well. Briefly, I'll mention them. The composition must be able to match the Qur'an in terms of purity of the message - it must call human beings to something recognizable as truth and free from defects. The message itself must also be free of discrepancies/inconsistencies. The message must be universal and practical - beyond the bounds of culture and time, and must appeal to human beings so to attract followers from across the world as the Qur'an has. The message must be comprehensive in that it gives human beings guidance in every sector of life, be it social, physical, mental, emotional, political, environmental, and of course spiritual. It must stand the test of time, and be able to stand up in the face of logical and scientific criticism. It must be deep enough to invite centuries of works expounding on its meanings (just as the number of Tafsirs of the Holy Qur'an are more than hundreds of thousands).

These are just some of the basic aspects of the challenge. I expect Dr. Al-Azami will have much more detail for us in his up-coming work, inshaa'Allah.
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/6556-challenge-quran.html



That's not what I asked, is it?
You ask alot of non-questions-- as silly as you are silly!
from the lowest common denominator I am read on the subjects I gauge.. and that is why you are always two steps behind, the moment I post it, you google it and then come contradict me, not based on solid research knowledge or expereince but just out of love of negating a Muslim!


all the best!
 
What I'm saying is that things you take as being scientific or mathematical error could quite easily seen as creative use of language.

You said "If the biblical text is accepted in the straightforward way that creation scientists want to accept the Bible...". Yes, of course if you do this you will encounter problems, but then all you're doing is arguing against their interpretation of the text. Asking people to correct you doesn't make much sense in light of that.
The Bible consists of descriptions written by men, it does not claim to be the literal word of God as does the Qur'an.

Anyway.
"ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about... and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about".
We don't know if the author intended to convey an exact measurement or an approximation. Also, I would call an orange round or a roti round, two different and imprecise descriptions. The article in question might not be a perfect circle.

I'm not even going to try with Ezra and Nehemiah, I can't be bothered wading through all those figures. Some people claim to have resolved it but I'd say they just can't count.

"divided the light from the darkness" could well be figurative.

"-wrong deffiniton of illumination and moon, in the Genesis the moon is referred to as a light, scientificly the moon is just a reflection of the sun's light."
Qur'an 10:5 "He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light..."

Okay first off Azy I did not post this forum to criticize the Bible, but rather to gain a better understanding of it. I would like to believe that I came off with this topic with the utmost respect for Christianity and the Bible. Which is why I stated CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, but you would rather be defensive and make imprudent claims about the quran.
As for that quote from the quran, my friend don't put up small bits of the quran and say its justified, because in the quran Allah does describe the moon as a reflection of the sun's light.
The quote you have just proves the figurative language that is used in the quran. Way to go having one of your points proving my claims correctly:)
 
Okay first off Azy I did not post this forum to criticize the Bible, but rather to gain a better understanding of it. I would like to believe that I came off with this topic with the utmost respect for Christianity and the Bible. Which is why I stated CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, but you would rather be defensive and make imprudent claims about the quran.
If you look back at the previous posts you'll find 5 off-topic posts by your friend including personal slights on myself, leading to her defensive comments about a line I posted.

I did not make any claims initially, but presented one line to illustrate that if viewed superficially the same argument could be made against it.
The quote you have just proves the figurative language that is used in the quran. Way to go having one of your points proving my claims correctly:)
How do you figure that? It show that your claims related to the scientific inaccuracy of the Bible are only true if you take them absolutely literally, which we know you probably shouldn't.

I don't see why you think I would be defensive about Biblical claims, I have nothing to defend.
 
If you look back at the previous posts you'll find 5 off-topic posts by your friend including personal slights on myself, leading to her defensive comments about a line I posted.

Don't make false allegations, and feign knowledge in a field where you are not even superficially read and then come indirectly hide behind 'off topic' !


all the best
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top