M
M
moonymoony
Guest
Wil, can you tell me your own comments on the topic?
Heck and I thought I put more of my thoughts there than you did!
What I think is like our Christian apologetics who try to show the earth less than 10k and how creation happenned exactly as shown, you've got the same folks in your belief system that desire beyond measure to prove ancient texts extremely accurate.
I think if you read the same passages that he quotes you wouldn't come to all those same conclusions. Its a stretch, a large stretch, and one that doesn't bode well as proving anything other than some folks will grab at any straw, however weak.
I think it better to read our scripture and look for the truths we find in it that resonate with us...and not try to backward engineer the works into something it isn't and never was.
I believe the Quran is probably wonderful in its own right, and works like this simply deminish both the book, and those that wistfully gravitate to it. It is a sign of one questioning their belief to me.
What I think is like our Christian apologetics who try to show the earth less than 10k and how creation happenned exactly as shown, you've got the same folks in your belief system that desire beyond measure to prove ancient texts extremely accurate.
I think if you read the same passages that he quotes you wouldn't come to all those same conclusions. Its a stretch, a large stretch, and one that doesn't bode well as proving anything other than some folks will grab at any straw, however weak.
I think it better to read our scripture and look for the truths we find in it that resonate with us...and not try to backward engineer the works into something it isn't and never was.
I believe the Quran is probably wonderful in its own right, and works like this simply deminish both the book, and those that wistfully gravitate to it. It is a sign of one questioning their belief to me.
M
moonymoony
Guest
God says in the Quran "Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it, (it is) sent down by the All-Wise, Worthy of all praise"
We believe the Quran is extremely accurate and the sciences that we know today Was revealed to Muhammad 1400 years ago.
just because we dont understand some of the verses does not mean they are not true. we have a blind faith in the Quran.
It is a unique reference for scientists.
i dont expect you to believe the sciences of the Quran because you have a different faith which tells you to believe in your book, but i would like to give you an example of the knowledge discovered in the Quran.
We believe the Quran is extremely accurate and the sciences that we know today Was revealed to Muhammad 1400 years ago.
just because we dont understand some of the verses does not mean they are not true. we have a blind faith in the Quran.
It is a unique reference for scientists.
i dont expect you to believe the sciences of the Quran because you have a different faith which tells you to believe in your book, but i would like to give you an example of the knowledge discovered in the Quran.
The Quran on Mountains:
A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9).
Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)
Schematic section. The mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)
nother illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158.)
This is how the Quran has described mountains. God has said in the Quran:
Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?
(Quran, 78:6-7)
Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground (see figure 9) and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground.2 So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word 'peg,' since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.3
Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.4 They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran:
And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you...(Quran, 16:15)
Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960's.5
Could anyone during the time of the Prophet Muhammadhave known of the true shape of mountains? Could anyone imagine that the solid massive mountain which he sees before him actually extends deep into the earth and has a root, as scientists assert? A large number of books of geology, when discussing mountains, only describe that part which is above the surface of the earth. This is because these books were not written by specialists in geology. However, modern geology has confirmed the truth of the Quranic verses.
Islam Guide: A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, Muslims, & the Quran
No as I previously mentioned, I give those that do the same to our scriptures equal amounts of grief.
M
moonymoony
Guest
I must say i am very surprised by your reply. what i know is that when people of any of the Abrahamic religions discover something in their holy book that is related to anything in the universe, they spread it so that all people know that the source of knowledge is God not humans.
Vajradhara
One of Many
wonder why that book isn't used in science classes.
moonymoony, if you're going to treat a religious text as a science book, then don't be offended if people challenge the fact that it is not a science book.
It is the preserve of fundamentalists to insist religious texts take precedent over science, which is obviously insulting to people with any understanding of science - not least the pick and choose way it is handled.
If that's too much for you to deal with, then please don't start religious discussions pushing forward the view that your religious scriptures are a science textbook, especially through copy/pasting from fundamentalist websites, and demand they be unchallenged.
In the meantime, I won't be removing any replies from this thread - you've made the assertion, it's for you to defend it.
It is the preserve of fundamentalists to insist religious texts take precedent over science, which is obviously insulting to people with any understanding of science - not least the pick and choose way it is handled.
If that's too much for you to deal with, then please don't start religious discussions pushing forward the view that your religious scriptures are a science textbook, especially through copy/pasting from fundamentalist websites, and demand they be unchallenged.
In the meantime, I won't be removing any replies from this thread - you've made the assertion, it's for you to defend it.
M
moonymoony
Guest
i am not offended by wil or any respectful poster.
we are supposed to have a decent discussion that does not include disrespectful people like that one.
i am not imposing my book or beliefs on anyone. i copied that article and pasted it here to get respected peoples thoughts, and
I thank wil very much for replying to my post.
we are supposed to have a decent discussion that does not include disrespectful people like that one.
i am not imposing my book or beliefs on anyone. i copied that article and pasted it here to get respected peoples thoughts, and
I thank wil very much for replying to my post.
hugz to you too!
However that 'some' is a vast minority.
Now as to the all knowledge belonging to the all knowing and us just working our ways through discoveries I'd agree. But all religious texts, if they are given by G!d to man, they are received by man and our knowledge and understanding and prejudices and these get into the texts...they can't not.
I'd simply replace that with 'when SOME people' and your statement would be correct.
However that 'some' is a vast minority.
Now as to the all knowledge belonging to the all knowing and us just working our ways through discoveries I'd agree. But all religious texts, if they are given by G!d to man, they are received by man and our knowledge and understanding and prejudices and these get into the texts...they can't not.
imo it is an insult to many with an understanding of religion.
M
moonymoony
Guest
Thank you again wil.
I wish some people could learn how to talk respectfully like you.
I wish some people could learn how to talk respectfully like you.