HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » The Big Bang And The Aqua...

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 08:38 PM

The Big Bang And The Aquatic Origins of Life in the Quran

From the article:

The creationism and evolution theories are often viewed as being at odds with each other. But are we really dealing with an either/or situation?.....

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

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.51:47



Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/askamuslim/2018/02/the-big-bang-and-the-aquatic-origins-of-life-in-the-quran/#ZsZI4vJ4eSKBYhEh.99

Life coming from the water AND an expanding universe? Who could imagine?







20 replies, 946 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Big Bang And The Aquatic Origins of Life in the Quran (Original post)
guillaumeb Feb 2018 OP
msongs Feb 2018 #1
guillaumeb Feb 2018 #2
Mariana Feb 2018 #6
guillaumeb Feb 2018 #14
ret5hd Feb 2018 #3
guillaumeb Feb 2018 #4
Igel Feb 2018 #5
guillaumeb Feb 2018 #7
marylandblue Feb 2018 #8
guillaumeb Feb 2018 #9
marylandblue Feb 2018 #10
guillaumeb Feb 2018 #11
marylandblue Feb 2018 #12
guillaumeb Feb 2018 #13
marylandblue Feb 2018 #15
marylandblue Feb 2018 #16
guillaumeb Mar 2018 #17
marylandblue Mar 2018 #18
guillaumeb Mar 2018 #19
marylandblue Mar 2018 #20

Response to guillaumeb (Original post)

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 08:42 PM

1. unbelievers. gotta have that dig in there nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 08:44 PM

2. Meaning those who do not believe.

Why do you feel that this was a dig?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 10:25 PM

6. That was the point of the post. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:48 PM

14. A mindreader?

Interesting claim on your part. Groundless, but interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Original post)

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 08:49 PM

3. Yep. Convinced me. The bibble is a science book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 08:50 PM

4. I am happy to help you on your path. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Original post)

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 09:12 PM

5. I've spent too much time watching religionists try to wrest their books to mean secular things.

For the ability to claim that their writs are in accord with current science.

It gets tedious, the contortions that they subject their holy writ to. I harbor a kind of low-key split personality. I figure that my beliefs are my beliefs, my scientific method provides observations, and if they don't agree, meh. It's not like either's been infallible in the past, or that the interpretations of OT passages in the NT are necessarily what's obvious. Doesn't mean I'm going for the unobvious interpretations of Tanach or OT scripture, or insisting on the obvious. Strikes me as getting distraught over the price of onions in India a few years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Indian_onion_crisis), or having sleepless nights over branes and multiverse collisions (https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1218&pid=273049). Nice to piddle with in a detached, intellectual way, but please bleach out all the fervor being commencing.

I will say, though, that most of the time the only people I see adding words in parentheses to make sure that irrelevant words gain relevancy are Muslims. Usually Xians reserve that bit of lunacy for the exposition that follows, or at least segregates their writ in " " with the *real* text that their deity intended carefully non-fenced. Then again, I don't have wide exposure to a lot of religious texts; keeping up with my own should be a nearly full-time job these days. Perhaps it's a standard Taoist or Mormon trope, or all the rage among pop-theologistic rantings.

I still wonder, though, based on a very incomplete dataset, if it's because Xians tend to consider their writ sort-of holy even in translation, while strictly orthodox Muslims have a tendency to consider all translation unauthorized paraphrase. (Sort of like that strange thing known as the "Living Bible" that I've heard cited as authoritative writ in the plethora of all its multitudinous pleonasms.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 01:56 PM

7. An ever expanding universe.

From a 7th century text.

Random chance, or inspiration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:31 PM

8. It doesn't actually say the universe is ever expanding

It says Allah is the expander, which could mean that he expanded it in the past and now it is static, which would not be consistent with modern science. So since it admits of alternate interpretations, it really doesn't prove anything at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:33 PM

9. It says: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.51:47

We are its expander. Not we were its expander. The present tense indicates an ongoing action, not a past action that ended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:40 PM

10. No it doesn't

Bill Gates is the founder of Microsoft. All that means is he still alive. It doesn't mean he is founding Microsoft every second.

Another example. This tool is called an expander.
https://www.supplyhouse.com/Milwaukee-2432-20-M12-ProPEX-Expansion-Tool-Tool-Only

It doesn't mean it is expanding anything now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:41 PM

11. You need to believe this. I understand.

Really, I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:44 PM

12. That's not a valid response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:47 PM

13. Neither was yours.

The tool reference was funny, I will say that.

But the verse clearly defines a past action and an ongoing one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 09:58 PM

15. My tool reference was not intended to be funny

It's simply a way of saying that calling someone or something "an expander" it does not mean that the someone or something is now expanding something. Maybe a better example is this: The Quran also says Allah is the creator of the universe. Now I would say that is something he did in the past, since creation occurred in the past. It doesn't mean that he is creating the universe now, and if it did, it would not be consistent with modern science which says everything in the universe was created in one instant a long time ago.

My answer is serious, yours was condescending. That's why your answer wasn't valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 28, 2018, 10:50 PM

16. Another aspect: Seven Translations of that verse

I found a comparative translation website. The meanings are very diverse. One is clearly clearly in the past tense. Some are in the present tense, but say space is vast, but not that it is expanding or that there is an expander. One says only that Allah can expand space, not that he does.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=51&verse=47

Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.

Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

Muhammad Sarwar: We have made the heavens with Our own hands and We expanded it.

Mohsin Khan: With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

Arberry: And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 11:58 AM

17. 3 speak definitely of continued expansion.

Only 1 uses the past tense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 02:03 PM

18. Point is, multiple interpretations of the same verse

means it can't be used to prove consistency with modern science. Science used to think the universe was static. This verse can be interpreted that way too. The language simply isn't precise enoufh to be any kind of scientific predction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:27 PM

19. Proof and theology are 2 differnt areas.

I see this verse, and other Bible verses, as hints from the Creator. Like the Adam and Eve story, this verse speaks of things that no extant literature imagined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:12 PM

20. It seems theology lets you make up any interpretation you want

while proof requires actual facts. So it would appear that theology is no different from fiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread