Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
al-amiyr

The Qur'aan Cosmological Model

276 posts in this topic

Maybe you could put up a link where those interested can read your article in full.

Just for ease of access?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one would like you to see the thesis in it's entirety rather being drip fed. Then again, some of that information is hard to digest and elaboration and explanation is mire than welcome....for some of us it maybe easier to digest in bits.

:)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one would like you to see the thesis in it's entirety rather being drip fed. Then again, some of that information is hard to digest and elaboration and explanation is mire than welcome....for some of us it maybe easier to digest in bits.

:)

And rightly so. I often cannot express the things I teach with bits and pieces at a time. Then people acuse me if being cryptic... Then, When I say what I think I know.., im trying to be a guru... I know more than some... Not as much as others.. That's the only claim any of us have.

Teachers are leaders which means the people learning must be led. At the end we we can come to our own conclusions. And our friend here has already accomplished goal number one. I'm already more interested in Islamic scripture and philosophy. I'm still waiting to see if it's on par with the bible code or Nostradamus but that is entirely up in the air.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe any book is divine, they all come from the hand of man. Just paper and ink, not worth a mans or womans life. I'm a Pagan, child of the earth, we have no sacred texts, what we learn is from nature. Which is why I read a lot of science. I try not to mix my religious practice and science, because they are two different things, like oil and water.

Truth encompasses both religion and science. If you try and separate them from one another then you will fail to appreciate Truth in either.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you could put up a link where those interested can read your article in full.

Just for ease of access?

Unfortunately there is no complete article in written form. What you see here is how far I am up to now. I hope to finish the next 100 pages within the next month. The notes are all scattered and I shall bring them together as one united entity and then spread them apart across the world for healthy debate inshaa allaah (if God had willed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother are you going to add anymore?

Yes! Probably another 500 posts just on the Qur'aan Cosmological Model based on just two verses of the Qur'aan. I have not really even begun yet. At the moment I am busy doing all the delineations based on the QCM and extracting the mathematical equations which I am preparing for future posts.

I have also begun similar discussions on other forums and it appears that wherever it is discussed it reaches the most views in record time. Out of approximately 200 000 views on various aspects of the Qur'aan Cosmological Discussions this past year I have not found anyone who could give a meaningful critique against it. The nearest they came to it was to try an attack the poster personally. The other strategy was to try and derail the thread to get it closed.

At the moment this forum contains the furthest updated information and I will continue to do so if nothing happens to the thread. Therefore let everybody interested stay on track because there are much to be discussed and still to be debated. Hopefully I will post another tomorrow. Sometimes it takes me ten hours to work on just one post. I am also preparing my responses to the questions that I have not yet answered. Those responses will only be understood after I had posted deeper knowledge about The Qur'aan Cosmological Model inshaa allaah (if God had willed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting topic but i hope to move faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one would like you to see the thesis in it's entirety rather being drip fed. Then again, some of that information is hard to digest and elaboration and explanation is mire than welcome....for some of us it maybe easier to digest in bits.

:)

- - -

And rightly so. I often cannot express the things I teach with bits and pieces at a time. Then people acuse me if being cryptic... Then, When I say what I think I know.., im trying to be a guru... I know more than some... Not as much as others.. That's the only claim any of us have.

Teachers are leaders which means the people learning must be led. At the end we we can come to our own conclusions. And our friend here has already accomplished goal number one. I'm already more interested in Islamic scripture and philosophy. I'm still waiting to see if it's on par with the bible code or Nostradamus but that is entirely up in the air.

- - -

Unfortunately there is no complete article in written form. What you see here is how far I am up to now. I hope to finish the next 100 pages within the next month. The notes are all scattered and I shall bring them together as one united entity and then spread them apart across the world for healthy debate inshaa allaah (if God had willed).

- - -

Brother are you going to add anymore?

- - -

Yes! Probably another 500 posts just on the Qur'aan Cosmological Model based on just two verses of the Qur'aan. I have not really even begun yet. At the moment I am busy doing all the delineations based on the QCM and extracting the mathematical equations which I am preparing for future posts.

I have also begun similar discussions on other forums and it appears that wherever it is discussed it reaches the most views in record time. Out of approximately 200 000 views on various aspects of the Qur'aan Cosmological Discussions this past year I have not found anyone who could give a meaningful critique against it. The nearest they came to it was to try an attack the poster personally. The other strategy was to try and derail the thread to get it closed.

At the moment this forum contains the furthest updated information and I will continue to do so if nothing happens to the thread. Therefore let everybody interested stay on track because there are much to be discussed and still to be debated. Hopefully I will post another tomorrow. Sometimes it takes me ten hours to work on just one post. I am also preparing my responses to the questions that I have not yet answered. Those responses will only be understood after I had posted deeper knowledge about The Qur'aan Cosmological Model inshaa allaah (if God had willed).

- - -

Good, I'm looking forward to it.

:)

- - -

Very interesting topic but i hope to move faster.

Here is some more information of what transpired after I had written that original cosmological newspaper article in 1991 with which I began the opening of this thread. It contains some discussion about the accelerated expansion of the universe (it is a written reply to a question that I was asked). I hope to hear some comments upon this argument. I will soon be posting further continued detailed information from the Qur'aan Cosmological model. (In.)

][/b]

post #1

Two articles up for debate I wrote for a local newspaper in 1991.I have expanded considerably upon them since that time.

Those articles were written by me over twenty years ago. As the years passed my knowledge about what the Qur'aan contained also increased enormously. In 1992 I began a series of lectures (more than 100 and an audience of more than 5000 persons of many fields of study). I had drawn large charts whereon I had demonstrated The Qur'aan Cosmological Model. At that time I had already explained that according to the QCM the universe had undergone a Bounce and not just a Big Bang. I rejected the notion of a singularity being the origin of the universe based upon the analyses of the QCM. Keep in mind that it has nothing to do with my own opinion, I was just researching what the Qur'aan was saying on the matter just like anybody would research any theory upon a matter.

- Towards the end of 1991 I discovered that the QCM actually made mention of the word bounce (TaFaRa --> TafRah) and I started using the term since that time and this is also recorded on some videos of the time. I only realized afterwards that this term was only becoming popular in the cosmological language afterwards. Still there is no scientific proof that there was a Big Bounce. The world will have to wait for the outcome of this information. But I have already made known what the QCM has said on the matter.

- In many of my lectures I stated my puzzle to understand one very important problem I found in the QCM. It was either a deficiency of knowledge on my part or a contradiction in the QCM. I spent about five years wondering about it and came to the following conclusion from the QCM analyses.

Firstly, what was the problem?

According to the QCM the universe ( samaa' singular of samaawaat) is in a state of expansion and run away expansion. At another place in the Qur'aan it states that the Universe (samaawaat plural of samaa') is almost split apart or fully expanded. To understand fully we must study the 310 verses of the Qur'aan where the words samaa' and its plural samaawaat occur. At another point in the Qur'aan it says that the universe will be rolled up and repeat the previous process. This Model of the universe I already drew up in the early 1990's.

Because the Qur'aan states that the Universe is made up of seven divisions of extra terrestrial spaces ( like the solar system .... space.... galaxy ... space ... galactic clusters ... space ... clusters of galaxies ... space) it appears that the inner space that we observe is accelerating outward at a faster rate than the rate of the outer spaces. something like this.

s - - - - - - ->s - - - - - ->s - - - - ->s - - - ->s - - ->s - ->s ->s>:<

It appears that most of the mass of the universe lies on the outside and that is causing the inner expansion to accelerate. That is but a glimpse into the Qur'aan Cosmological model. It has nothing to do with me other than my presentation of it. Whoever wants to challenge it must come up with the evidence.

And as I stated in the same article over twenty years ago and I quote,

][/b]

post #1

The preponderance of the evidence at present indicates that the universe is open (q < ½).The Hubble Space Telescope and other advanced scientific instruments being built will through much light upon these matters. We would probably in the next ten years know what the deceleration parameter of the universe is. Until then, we must all await the outcome of the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophically and scientifically speaking brother, you say that most of the mass lies outside the universe.....by mass do you also mean matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have sufficient knowledge to make this short.

This claim for science in the Koran (from a fellow South African nogal) covering cosmology for a change, is popping up everywhere and in particular on Muslim forums. It consists of unsubstantiated claims for the inerrancy of the Koran and some miraculous contents which scientists find baffling and overwhelming, even though real scientists simply smile and move on.

I wanted to test some of the claims and stopped by to take a look even before this entire book on cosmology is “revealed” to us mere mortals much like the Koran over 23 years.

What is the basis for all these claims within cosmology? What is the “Qur’aan Cosmological Model” based on? Well, just a few words in 2 sentences or verses (21:30, 21:104) found in the Koran, the Islamic basis for the belief system.

21:30 Are the disbelievers unaware that the heavens and the earth were but one solid mass which We tore asunder, and that We made every living thing from water? Will they not have faith?

means

the whole of space and everything that it contains including the earth were once upon a time in a state that was brought together as one unified entity for the purpose of breaking it apart again to form the universe which is in an observed accelerated expansion to this day.

How can this be associated with cosmology?

21:30 Are the disbelievers unaware that the heavens and the earth were but one solid mass which We tore asunder, and that We made every living thing from water? Will they not have faith?

Are the disbelievers = spiritual

the heavens = spiritual

the earth = cosmology or geology or astrology or or or

solid mass = physics

We tore asunder = spiritual/undefined

We made = creationism

living thing = biology

water = nature or chemistry

Will they not have faith? = Spiritual

Now it says: The Qur'aan Chapter 21:30 again - but actually looks at 21:104. Sloppy!

That Day = spiritual, refers to judgment day

We will fold up heaven = nonsensical

like folding up the pages of a book =. human invention

As We originated the first creation = spiritual creation

so We will regenerate it. = spiritual creation

It is a promise binding on Us = prose

That is what We will do = prose

Nothing regarding cosmology, just standard religious ramblings.

The four technical terms are:

- samaawaat (plural form of high, lofty, raised, upraised, uplifted, upreared, exalted, or elevated)

- ‘arD (Earth, floor, land)

- Ratqan (sewn up, closed)

- Fataq (slit, unstitched, open)

Technical terms? Describing a Cosmological Model? It sounds more like ancient superstitions.

My own version of: “Take 4 words and apply anything you want”

In the most ancient of texts we find the following sentence, which could not be understood up until recently, when modern science finally managed to decipher it and have come to know it’s miraculously accurate meaning.

Mimi nataka targona tikwe.

  1. If I take the naturalistic pluralist form of ‘mimi’ as a double ‘mi’, I can show in great detail how, when you run the cosmological algorithmic compression over it, the letter ‘e’ in its naturalistic and intended form, forms out of the combination of these letters.
  2. ‘nataka’ obviously comes from what all ancient languages call ‘is’ and serves as the great historical equalisation factor, which we apply here as meaning “equal to”.
  3. The ‘targona’ has its root in the heavy word ‘targ’ and thus can only mean ‘huge size’.
  4. Finally, ‘kwe’ means to go, run, fast, run fast, speed, break barriers, speak, ask, worm, brush, rocket, space, so we look at the context and we see immediately that it is ‘speed’ of course.

‘Mimi’, as we have shown in great detail above, is the equivalent of ‘e’ and this is followed by the sign for equality, which was at the forefront of what our forefathers had in mind when they discussed this theme in great detail. After that we come to know that the ‘targ’, the inimitable energy is followed by ‘kwe’. It is interesting to note that ‘kwe’ has an added qualifier, the ‘ti’ in front of it, which denotes ‘more of’ or many.

If we now apply logical and rational thinking and remember the grace of those who bestowed this sequence of words onto us, we see that e = mass and then many ‘kwe’ which obviously has to mean

E=mc2

It’s elementary, dear Watson.

You just take 4 words, attribute anything you like to them and you can have them say anything you want.

What I see here is someone who has no scientific, let alone cosmological background, trying very hard to project modern perceptions using copy/paste texts into an old book. If this were a personal opinion or some ideas to test them, it would be fine. But this is claiming that real scientists substantiate this and are in total agreement, even amazed.

Just an example of how almost everything in these posts is either wrong, inaccurate or wishful thinking:

“verified by Edwin Hubble in 1929, when he was commissioned to search the depth of the universe through the most advanced scientific instrument at the time, the newly built one hundred inch diameter Mount Wilson Telescope”

Hubble never verified “Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity” but the notion that there were more than a single galaxy. Hubble had a staff position at the Mount Wilson Observatory and was not commissioned. There is no Mount Wilson Telescope and no “most advanced scientific instrument”. The Mount Wilson Observatory has more than one telescope and the larger, which was not new but completed in 1917, is called the Hooker Telescope, because J Hooker paid for it. Hubble started the data collection in 1923 and discovered several galaxies and confirmed the suspected expansion of the Universe.

The author has a very primitive perception of what space and the Universe is. He does not define anything and hopes that the reader will insert the necessary knowledge into the gaps, not following the evidence but finding evidence for a pre-supposed result. In addition this demonstrates the half-knowledge I see so often in Muslims. Like a guy once claimed algebra was not used by the Sumerians but was “invented” by Muslims and actually claimed there was a person called Al-Jabr, which is the origin for the word algebra. He did not know that it’s just a word meaning to “clear up”. He claimed so many inventions were made by Muslims and probably cried when he found out the truth and the origin of all this, mere interpretation.

Example: the word heaven or heavens is used some 250 times in the Koran. As meteorological or spiritual concept. As a solid firmament or as the abode of his god. The outcome is that a stab at a definition yields the singular of heaven as “the space around an object”. How much how big how wide how long how dense how flexible…. Nobody knows. Is the space around a quark the same as around a galaxy? Nobody knows.

But it’s not enough as now it gets hilarious: the word used in the Koran is the plural of this space “-the all encompassing space in which all the physical entities or objects of the Universe find their existence” [sic]

Wow! The Universe is something which contains elements of something? So the Universe is surrounded by something, like a balloon, which is being blown up, causing everything to expand. Ignoring that space itself is expanding? To make matters even worse, his Koran mentions 7 heavens, which he now needs to get into this, model, so he invents another 6 balloons, which are outside the initial balloon. Buffoon!

Is there any real world confirmation for this? Erm, no.

But if there are 7 heavens and they inflate together with our Universe, it means they must have come from the same origin. Does that mean if ‘Heavens and Earth’ were once a singularity so was the heaven where Allah lives? And Moses and Abraham and Jesus and all the others who live on the various floors?

Or is all this due to the “richness” of the Arabic language? Which makes the Koran use vague and ambiguous words which is the opposite of science, which has no ambiguity and utilises highly precise and accurate terms.

Posting some contents in English and then, if someone protests and shows the true nature of this tripe, referring them to the “original” Arabic is disingenuous. If you attempt to claim something in English I will reject it in English. If you say something is detailed and promise more and more detail which is not forthcoming I reject your claims for any future explanations.

Define something, show the relevance and back it up. Not what you are doing. Why don’t you take ONE (1) claim at a time and go over it in detail right now, instead of piling up claim after claim and only promising a later justification or explanation?

And what will you do if anything you claim to be correct now, will somehow be proven wrong? Apostate?

And if all else fails, ask the ever popular question: who dunnit?

And if I don’t know, god did.

Better luck with your other “models” which will hopefully be based on facts and not some vague words.

PS. Just some examples why I find this entire article so bad:

Nonsensical, funny and unexplained expressions:

“… produce the following algorithmic compression” with its “The Qur'aan Lexicographical Model”

Qur’aan Cosmological Model (as opposed to?)

Qur’aanic cosmological algorithmic compression

the entire universe from before T = 0 (Time was equal to zero)

in higher dimensional time reversed

splitting apart as observed at present time

universe would continue in its splitting apart phase

singular mass (I know only inertial or gravitational mass)

primordial distention

the universe in its vertical evolution

further adduced via inference and allusion that the universe in its horizontal evolution

“The above data derived from the Qur’aan … are still puzzling the minds of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century.”

“the Qur’aan is the only scientific document that categorically asserts the correctness of its delineation i.e. that the deceleration parameter of the universe is q > ½ .” Koran = science???

“The Qur'aan has a higher cosmology called The Qur'aan Metacosmogonical Model and one higher than that called The Qur'aan Metacosmological Model and beyond that lies The Hidden Book and beyond even that lies The UM (womb, mother, matrix) of The Hidden book.”

“we witness a magnificent display of verbs, nouns, and adjectives that go back to describe each and every phase of the universe at its exact time and place in great detail”

The word “detail” is used 20 or 25 times and never is any detail provided

Wrong, erroneous, mistaken:

the Qur’aan challenges the five billion three hundred and fifty million people on earth

the first mentioned cosmological verse that states that the universe was ‘a singular mass’ which then split apart

The Qur'aan states that nothing that has been said to the Prophet Muhammad(S+) is new.

(make up your mind and don’t contradict yourself so often)

Sumerians wrote about the splitting of heavens and Earth as did the Babylonians

Hindu Cosmology is much more detailed and accurate, by chance, but it’s there

Jews like Josephus said: he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts

Greeks: produced a cosmic egg that split to become the heaven and the earth

“deceleration parameter” The Qur’aan Cosmological Model delineates it q > ½.

Totally misunderstood and awfully wrong. What sentence in the Koran says “q > ½”???

It looks as though the author took the simplest equation he could find and, without any knowledge or understanding, did a copy/paste hack. He did not notice that this is a derivate of a type of Friedman equation for a mass-only Universe and then a Newtonian interpretation.

Example: For comparison of Eq. (4) to the BB-Friedmann universes for q >1/2 to q < ½, then tH < 2/3 to tH > 2/3, and for deceleration q = ½, tH = 2/3. This last case represents an SC-intermediate matter-dominated universe and SC- Eqs. (A.16) and (A.18) agree.

(4) è H ≡ R / R & = (1/t)(ρ/ρ2), ½ ≤ Ht ≤ 1 as t →∞, H → 0, Only looking at the scale factor a(t), ignoring all possible variables this is the easiest form: q = −a´´a/(a´)2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will respond to each of these points within a matter of days. Virtually every point that was made was taken out of context as I am going to show from posts which were already presented; a farrago of assertions and wild fancies of the poster; half cooked and half invented without addressing the issue. There are at least 100 points to discuss in the above fabrication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You WILL respond. You WILL do this and you WILL do that. Get on with it *snip*

Edited by Paranoid Android
insult removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will respond to each of these points within a matter of days. Virtually every point that was made was taken out of context as I am going to show from posts which were already presented; a farrago of assertions and wild fancies of the poster; half cooked and half invented without addressing the issue. There are at least 100 points to discuss in the above fabrication.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to make this short.

This claim for science in the Koran (from a fellow South African nogal) covering cosmology for a change, is popping up everywhere and in particular on Muslim forums. It consists of unsubstantiated claims for the inerrancy of the Koran and some miraculous contents which scientists find baffling and overwhelming, even though real scientists simply smile and move on.

I wanted to test some of the claims and stopped by to take a look even before this entire book on cosmology is “revealed” to us mere mortals much like the Koran over 23 years.

What is the basis for all these claims within cosmology? What is the “Qur’aan Cosmological Model” based on? Well, just a few words in 2 sentences or verses (21:30, 21:104) found in the Koran, the Islamic basis for the belief system.

How can this be associated with cosmology?

21:30 Are the disbelievers unaware that the heavens and the earth were but one solid mass which We tore asunder, and that We made every living thing from water? Will they not have faith?

Are the disbelievers = spiritual

the heavens = spiritual

the earth = cosmology or geology or astrology or or or

solid mass = physics

We tore asunder = spiritual/undefined

We made = creationism

living thing = biology

water = nature or chemistry

Will they not have faith? = Spiritual

Now it says: The Qur'aan Chapter 21:30 again - but actually looks at 21:104. Sloppy!

That Day = spiritual, refers to judgment day

We will fold up heaven = nonsensical

like folding up the pages of a book =. human invention

As We originated the first creation = spiritual creation

so We will regenerate it. = spiritual creation

It is a promise binding on Us = prose

That is what We will do = prose

Response 1

The translation of these two Qur'aan Cosmological verses which you have presented here for your argument to disprove that they do contain cosmological information is baseless because they have been inaccurately translated. They contain mistranslated words as well as inaccurate tenses. Therefore your analysis that you presented above is completely flawed. This could easily be demonstrated if you are serious about putting this model to the test. Here is the most correct translation of the words. Four words were not translated because there is no one word in English corresponding with the original Arabic. The Qur'aan itself further defines the terms in greater detail. We will call these key untranslated words the Qur'aan Cosmological Model technical terms (QCMTT).

Firstly, here is the original Arabic of the first QCM verse that every Muslim reads:

Qur’aan 021:30

أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا

أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا

فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا

وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ

أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Secondly, here is the transliteration:

‘a-wa-lam yara lladhiyna kafaruw

‘anna as-samaawaati wa-l-‘arDa kaanataa Ratqan

fa-Fataq-naa humaa

wa-ja”al-naa min al-maa’i kulla shay’in hayyin

‘a-fa-laa yu’minuwna

Here is the most accurate translation of the verse. Though by no means perfect. The key words have not been translated because they are technical terms in their own right and cannot be translated without grave loss of the original. I will select and explain each of them adequately with proofs from the Qur'aan itself as well as the authoritative Arabic dictionaries.

translation

Have those who have disbelieved now not seen:-

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratq

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

And We made from water every living thing.

Will they now not believe?

This verse contains an encyclopedia of information of which I will touch upon only the cosmological aspects. To do that I will simply extract the parts of the verse that I have already emboldened.

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratq

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

What is the verse actually saying. When we read it at face value we see that it speaks about how ALLAAH (God) brought about the creation of the universe we happen to find ourselves living in. This earth upon which we live, the sun and the moon and the stars, and everything else that the universe contains.

Let us go over it again exactly as it is written.

ALLAAH says, "

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratq

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again."

Absorb that and next I will upload the meanings of those QCM technical terms from - not my opinion - but from the greatest English-Arabic dictionary that was compiled by the highly respected Christian English scholar Dr Edward William Lane who died in 1876 - 53 years before the discovery of the expansion of the universe. Will that satisfy you or are you bent on just wishing to deny that the Qur'aan contains detailed cosmological information far ahead of its time. To let you know, I have already clarified the above in previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore your analysis that you presented above is completely flawed.

Not an analysis, just showing that none of the words used by you in the sentences from the Koran have any connection whatsoever with cosmology.

Your claim is that the Koran says:

"the whole of space and everything that it contains including the earth were once upon a time in a state that was brought together as one unified entity for the purpose of breaking it apart again to form the universe which is in an observed accelerated expansion to this day."

21:30 Are the disbelievers unaware that the heavens and the earth were but one solid mass which We tore asunder, and that We made every living thing from water? Will they not have faith?

the disbelievers - spiritual

the heavens - spiritual

the earth - cosmology or geology or astrology or or or

solid mass - physics

We tore asunder - spiritual

We made - creationism

living thing - biology

water - nature or chemistry

Will they not have faith? - Spiritual

Your claim is false. Even without the Koran your claim is utterly wrong.

This could easily be demonstrated if you are serious about putting this model to the test.

There is no model. It is mere wishful thinking. If you have a model, present it and let others verify it.

Four words were not translated because there is no one word in English corresponding with the original Arabic.

Fine. You fail demonstrating the accuracy of the Koran. If you are intellectually unable to verify this is in English I will reject it in English.

You have attempted to answer one error. And failed. What about the other 55,000?

Edited by StopS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an analysis, just showing that none of the words used by you in the sentences from the Koran have any connection whatsoever with cosmology.

Your claim is that the Koran says:

"the whole of space and everything that it contains including the earth were once upon a time in a state that was brought together as one unified entity for the purpose of breaking it apart again to form the universe which is in an observed accelerated expansion to this day."

21:30 Are the disbelievers unaware that the heavens and the earth were but one solid mass which We tore asunder, and that We made every living thing from water? Will they not have faith?

the disbelievers - spiritual

the heavens - spiritual

the earth - cosmology or geology or astrology or or or

solid mass - physics

We tore asunder - spiritual

We made - creationism

living thing - biology

water - nature or chemistry

Will they not have faith? - Spiritual

Your claim is false. Even without the Koran your claim is utterly wrong.

There is no model. It is mere wishful thinking. If you have a model, present it and let others verify it.

Fine. You fail demonstrating the accuracy of the Koran. If you are intellectually unable to verify this is in English I will reject it in English.

You have attempted to answer one error. And failed. What about the other 55,000?

Not an analysis, just showing that none of the words used by you in the sentences from the Koran have any connection whatsoever with cosmology.

Your claim is that the Koran says:

"the whole of space and everything that it contains including the earth were once upon a time in a state that was brought together as one unified entity for the purpose of breaking it apart again to form the universe which is in an observed accelerated expansion to this day."

21:30 Are the disbelievers unaware that the heavens and the earth were but one solid mass which We tore asunder, and that We made every living thing from water? Will they not have faith?

the disbelievers - spiritual

the heavens - spiritual

the earth - cosmology or geology or astrology or or or

solid mass - physics

We tore asunder - spiritual

We made - creationism

living thing - biology

water - nature or chemistry

Will they not have faith? - Spiritual

Your claim is false. Even without the Koran your claim is utterly wrong.

There is no model. It is mere wishful thinking. If you have a model, present it and let others verify it.

Fine. You fail demonstrating the accuracy of the Koran. If you are intellectually unable to verify this is in English I will reject it in English.

You have attempted to answer one error. And failed. What about the other 55,000?

- - -

Well! you want to play by your own rules. If you insist in not making a study of the Qur'aanic terminology on which the QCM is based and using your own incorrect terms and come up with your own ideas then go ahead and imagine as you please. Until you decide to investigate what the Qur'aan is saying, this discussion will not be able to continue. The ball is in your court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well! you want to play by your own rules. If you insist in not making a study of the Qur'aanic terminology on which the QCM is based and using your own incorrect terms and come up with your own ideas then go ahead and imagine as you please. Until you decide to investigate what the Qur'aan is saying, this discussion will not be able to continue. The ball is in your court.

Your claim is that the Koran says:

"the whole of space and everything that it contains including the earth were once upon a time in a state that was brought together as one unified entity for the purpose of breaking it apart again to form the universe which is in an observed accelerated expansion to this day."

21:30 Are the disbelievers unaware that the heavens and the earth were but one solid mass which We tore asunder, and that We made every living thing from water? Will they not have faith?

the disbelievers - spiritual

the heavens - spiritual

the earth - cosmology or geology or astrology or or or

solid mass - physics

We tore asunder - spiritual

We made - creationism

living thing - biology

water - nature or chemistry

Will they not have faith? - Spiritual

YOU make the claim - YOU need to prove it.

You make the claim in English, I will reject it in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- - -

Well! you want to play by your own rules. If you insist in not making a study of the Qur'aanic terminology on which the QCM is based and using your own incorrect terms and come up with your own ideas then go ahead and imagine as you please. Until you decide to investigate what the Qur'aan is saying, this discussion will not be able to continue. The ball is in your court.

Without taking sides I just want to say that many here will not be able to read and understand the original language the Qur'an is written in and must rely on English for the discussion. As such you need present it in English and any counters to your claim will be in English using English translations of the Qur'an. If you consider the counter arguments incorrect, is it because the English translations are incorrect? If the answer is yes then you need to point out correct translations to facilitate the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without taking sides I just want to say that many here will not be able to read and understand the original language the Qur'an is written in and must rely on English for the discussion. As such you need present it in English and any counters to your claim will be in English using English translations of the Qur'an. If you consider the counter arguments incorrect, is it because the English translations are incorrect? If the answer is yes then you need to point out correct translations to facilitate the discussion.

100% agreed. That is exactly what I have done here. This model is based on two verses of the Qur'aan. It contains four technical terms that I said cannot be translated without grave loss of the original. Therefore I went at length to set out the meanings of those four words contained in those two cosmological verses. Those technical terms have been transliterated and can be studied like any other English words. I have presented the meanings as I have already stated on more than one occasion from the Arabic - English Dictionary of Dr Edward William Lane who passed away in 1876 - 53 years before the discovery of the expansion of the universe in 1929.

There are no Qur'aan translations which faithfully translated those terms. I have checked about seventy translations and not one convey the full details.

Here is an example of what I presented in above posts. I hope that my explanation is satisfactory. I would appreciate it greatly if you would let me know.

Must be read from post #1 #8 #9 #12

Let us now present the first of the two Qur’aan Cosmological Model (QCM) verses from the 'real' Qur'aan; meaning the one in Arabic as it has been presented by the Prophet (S+). Let us begin the exposé!

Here is the Arabic text of the first Qur’aan Cosmological Model verse with transliteration.Don't be dismayed if you cannot read the Arabic because it is the transliteration which we will be using here for our exposition.

Qur’aan 021:30

أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا

أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا

فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا

وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ

أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

transliteration

‘a-wa-lam yara lladhiyna kafaruw

‘anna as-samaawaati wa-l-‘arDa kaanataa Ratqan

fa-Fataq-naa humaa

wa-ja”al-naa min al-maa’i kulla shay’in hayyin

‘a-fa-laa yu’minuwna

Here I present the most accurate translation of the verse. Though by no means perfect. I have not translated the key words because they are technical terms in their own right and cannot be translated without grave loss of the original. I will select and explain each of them adequately with proofs from the Qur'aan itself as well as the authoritative Arabic dictionaries.

translation

Have those who have disbelieved now not seen:-

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratqan

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

And We made from water every living thing.

Will they now not believe?

This verse contains an encyclopedia of information of which I will touch upon only the cosmological aspects. To do that I will simply extract the parts of the verse that I have already colored in.

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratqan

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again.

What is the verse actually saying. When we read it at face value we see that it speaks about how ALLAAH (God) brought about the creation of the universe we happen to find ourselves living in. This earth upon which we live, the sun and the moon and the stars, and everything else that the universe contains.

Let us go over it again exactly as it is written.

ALLAAH says, "

that the samaawaat and the ‘arD

(1)- were both Ratqan

(2)- and so We Fataq them both again."

I would like you to repeat the verse at least three times so that you can become familiar with those four untranslated technical terms of which I have already said cannot be translated without grave lost of the original. The problem is that when scholars think that they can translate these technical terms of the Qur'aan into English or for that matter into any other language and they go ahead and then begin to do so they effectively make the Qur'aan completely dysfunctional. Then people who have no understanding of what the original is saying begin to read and study it and start making all kinds of proclamations as to what the Qur'aan is really saying. So they have misled themselves and all others who follow them and that goes for all those who repeat their behavior.

To be continued ( the explanation of the four Qur'aanic Cosmological Model Verses) inshaa allaah (if God had willed).

Must be read from post #1 #8 #9 #12 and #19

The four technical terms are:-

- the samaawaat

- the ‘arD

- Ratqan

- Fataq

The definite article ‘al’ ‘the’ I have translated as 'the samaawaat' and not 'al-samaawaat'; and 'the ‘arD' and not 'al-‘arD'. You would have noticed that I have written ‘arD' with a capital D instead of with a small d. The reason for this is that there are two d’s in the Arabic language; one pronounced at the tip of the tongue like the ‘d’ in the English word ‘did’ and the other pronounced with the tongue against the roof of the mouth and similar to the ‘D’ in the English word ‘Dark’ but even more emphatic. It is said that the Arabic language is the only language which contains this letter or sound. In fact almost all Muslims mispronounce this emphatic ‘D’ and thus destroy the Qur’aan with their tongues without realizing it because every letter of the Qur’aan is a multi-dimensional space-time configuration. The Jews have done the same thing with the letters of the Torah which are also all multi-dimensional space-time configurations. The Christians have no part in this science because they have completely discarded the alphabet of the Bible and opted to translate and read the Holy Book in other alphabets and languages. For Example the letter ‘M’ called ‘MiyM’ and ‘Mem’ in Hebrew are the symbols for the mathematical equation of a circle x/2 + y/2 = r/2. This is what is referred to as the knowledge contained in all the Divine Books. If this knowledge is lost then virtually everything becomes lost. The Divine Books would then become interpretations of infinite duration- like it is now.

Let us look at the technical term samaawaat

samaawaat is the plural of the Arabic word samaa’. If we were to open an Arabic dictionary like that of Edward William Lane which was published in 1865 and regarded as one of the greatest dictionaries of all time we will find the following definitions or explanations.[/font]

As a verb:

- he or it was, or became, high, lofty, raised, upraised, uplifted, upreared, exalted, or elevated. [/font]

- he or it rose, or rose high.

-he or it rose higher or above.

As a noun:

-the higher, or upper, or highest, or uppermost, part of anything.

-the sky, or heavens.

Let us look at the technical term‘arD.

As a verb:

- he or it became lowly or submissive.

- he or it became or rendered heavy, slow, sluggish, inclining, or propending, to the ground.

-it collected moisture, and became luxuriant with herbage

-it became soft to tread upon, pleasant to sit upon, productive, and good in its herbage or vegetation.

-the ulcer, or sore, became blistered, and wide, and corrupt, and dissundered.

As a noun:

With the definite article ‘the’

- the earth as opposed to heaven.

-the ground, as meaning the surface of the earth, on which we tread and sit and lie.

-the floor

Without the definite article ‘the’

- a land, or a country.

- a piece of land or ground.

- anything that is low.

Let us look at the technical term - Ratqan.

From the verb: Rataqa

- he closed up.

- he sewed up, or together.

Ratqan

- closed up.

- sewn up.

Let us look at the technical term - Fataq.

It is the verb: - Fataqa

- he slit it, rent it, rent it asunder or open, or divided it lengthwise.

- he disjoined it, or disunited it

- he undid the sewing of it, unsewed it, or unstitched it

(- became swollen, or inflated, in the flanks.

- appeared after concealment.)

As the noun: -Fatqan

- a rent, slit, or the like.

- an open, and a spacious, place.

There we have the meanings of the four technical terms; as verbs as well as nouns.

We are now getting close to the formation of the Qur’aan Cosmological Model. After that the QCM will start to come alive.

Have again another good look at the Qur’aan Cosmological Model below. Can you begin to recognize where we are in the Model.

QCMfig001.png

Continued in posts to follow inshaa allaah (If God had willed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother it's fairly clear StopS *snip* cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic, classical arabic and that it's a rich language full of depth, when translating any language into another, you will not have an equivalent word, for example, in cosmology you nay describe something which takes upto four words in English, but in Arabic one word covers all four descriptions, that's the depth and richness. In English how many words do you have which mean or describe a sword? Maybe 5-10, in Arabic over a 100 words, same can be applied to other objects. I guess my main point is that StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning of those verses, ie unlearned Arab may get the same meaning as he is inept to delve deeper in the literature so he sticks to a layman meaning which suffices for him, for those with more insight and learned in Arabic and sciences can delve deeper to find the true depth of the verses. An

Ecycolpedic description of the universe simply within two verses is because god chooses the best word possible in the verses, not just that if you delve deeper in to linguistic miracle of the Quran you understand there's a perfect choice of words, structure, form, other tools used which are also perfect that if we humans colluded, used all our resources, we could not even muster a verse like those in the Quran in Arabic.

I mean clearly StopS *snip* has no idea about the linguistics, contextual form etc he is basing his whole argument on translations, which are simply someones opinion as to which English words represent the original Arabic. However he ignores the lexicons and the dictionaries written by esteemed arabists who are unbias non muslim expeers.

Brother ignore this dude, if your opponent can only function purely on a limited sense ie English translation alone and not willing to learn more about Arabic, then it's futile. *snip* Keep your good work going.

Edited by Paranoid Android
Removed personal attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother it's fairly clear StopS has one brain cell and cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic, classical arabic and that it's a rich language full of depth, when translating any language into another, you will not have an equivalent word, for example, in cosmology you nay describe something which takes upto four words in English, but in Arabic one word covers all four descriptions, that's the depth and richness. In English how many words do you have which mean or describe a sword? Maybe 5-10, in Arabic over a 100 words, same can be applied to other objects. I guess my main point is that StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning of those verses, ie unlearned Arab may get the same meaning as he is inept to delve deeper in the literature so he sticks to a layman meaning which suffices for him, for those with more insight and learned in Arabic and sciences can delve deeper to find the true depth of the verses. An

Ecycolpedic description of the universe simply within two verses is because god chooses the best word possible in the verses, not just that if you delve deeper in to linguistic miracle of the Quran you understand there's a perfect choice of words, structure, form, other tools used which are also perfect that if we humans colluded, used all our resources, we could not even muster a verse like those in the Quran in Arabic.

I mean clearly StopS is inept in understanding the above points, He has no idea about the linguistics, contextual form etc he is basing his whole argument on translations, which are simply someones opinion as to which English words represent the original Arabic. However he ignores the lexicons and the dictionaries written by esteemed arabists who are unbias non muslim expeers.

Brother ignore this dude, if your opponent can only function purely on a limited sense ie English translation alone and not willing to learn more about Arabic, then it's futile. You end up entertaining trolls. Keep your good work going.

Do you know these sentences from the Koran?

"Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." 40:28

"Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass." 31:19

“And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames.” 49:11

I suggest you behave accordingly if you are a true Muslim.

If you are the same "lion" who ran away from me on Facebook, you know what happens next. If not, you will learn.

"StopS has one brain cell" this is a true statement. If you wanted to belittle me and try and insult me, you forgot the word "ONLY". You need to concentrate if you want to be a good insulter....

"cannot compute the notion that the Quran is in Arabic" is a true statement. Computing means yo take 2 items and interconnect them using a defined process. That a book is written in a language would be a matter of grasping or understanding. You really need to concentrate on what you are writing and learn how to insult properly.

"takes upto four words in English". Again: concentrate. Nobody understands what you are trying to say! Is Arabic precise or can one word have several meanings?

"StopS Cannot get passed the layman meaning" are you trying to say: StopS can't get past ...? Well, then I suggest you concentrate and write it properly, if you are comparing languages and are performing exegesis here. Or is it eisegesis?

Now, let me leave your inability to properly express yourself and examine your factual points.

Ooops, there are none. This is just an emotional rant, whining and crying about my factual criticism.

But if you are so good at explaining classical Arabic, why don't you tell me what samaawaat means. Define it in your own words. If you can't do this, it means I am right and hiding behind words which are declared untranslatable and so complex they are above and beyond the English language then the Koran is not easy to understand as is claimed in the Koran itself is dishonest and contradicting the Koran itself.

The Koran is intended for all mankind and nations and not just Arabs.

(2:161, 2:164, 2:213, 2:221, 4:174, 7:26, 7:27, 7:31, 7:35, 13:7, 14:52, 17:88, 17:9, 35:45, 36:60, 49:13, 64:2, and many more).

But in any case: it should still be easy to understand and clear. As is stated in:

54:17- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

54:22- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

54:32- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

54:40- We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

In Arabic so you don't think this could be down to translation:

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

Walaqad yassarna alqurana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

75:19 Then, it is undertaken by Us to explain it.

6:114 He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail

16:89 We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things.

41:3 A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail

There you have it and now please tell me what exactly samaawaat means. Or are you telling everybody the Koran is wrong?

Edited by StopS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore I went at length to set out the meanings of those four words contained in those two cosmological verses.

I have presented the meanings as I have already stated on more than one occasion

No, you have not explained anything. It is only your wishful thinking that makes you repeat these assertions over and over ad nauseam.

While preparing a video about your nonsensical claims and outdated approach I noticed how sloppy you are in your research and presentation.

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I was under the impression, looking at the childish diagram that it should be

Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Is this intended?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you have not explained anything. It is only your wishful thinking that makes you repeat these assertions over and over ad nauseam.

While preparing a video about your nonsensical claims and outdated approach I noticed how sloppy you are in your research and presentation.

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I was under the impression, looking at the childish diagram that it should be

Kh = T +R +F +2T +2R +2F

Is this intended?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Where have I ever written the sequence as follows. Do you like to distort the work of others? Is it true what lion spoke about one brain cell? It makes me wonder!

Why have you, in more than 30 years of research, never noticed that you need to check your work? In the above diagram you say:

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I have always written the sequence as follows.

beginning with R (as contained in the first QCM verse 21:30.

Kh = R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F beginning with R (Ratq = bringing together, but unspecific as to the state of the origin)

beginning with T ( information contained in another qur'aanic verse says there was T i.e. specific as to the state of the origin)

Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

All of the above I have already explained in previous posts.

The diagram I said was just a basic diagram not meant to go into all the details for now. Do you want me to put 300 diagrams in one place.

You run all over the internet world misquoting all the time. When I point it out you make excuses. You specially came to this forum just to distort what I said. Now I ask you again , Where did I say

Kh = T +R +F +2R +2F

I would appreciate if other readers can verify what the facts of this case are.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have I ever written the sequence as follows. Do you like to distort the work of others? Is it true what lion spoke about one brain cell? It makes me wonder!

I have always written the sequence as follows.

beginning with R (as contained in the first QCM verse 21:30.

Kh = R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F beginning with R (Ratq = bringing together, but unspecific as to the state of the origin)

beginning with T ( information contained in another qur'aanic verse says there was T i.e. specific as to the state of the origin)

Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

All of the above I have already explained in previous posts.

The diagram I said was just a basic diagram not meant to go into all the details for now. Do you want me to put 300 diagrams in one place.

You run all over the internet world misquoting all the time. When I point it out you make excuses. You specially came to this forum just to distort what I said. Now I ask you again , Where did I say

I would appreciate if other readers can verify what the facts of this case are.

Thanks.

What have you explained? What does samaawaat mean in the Universe?

"I have always written the sequence as follows: Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F"

Well, then show me that sequence in your diagram.

You should wonder about your own braincells and less about others.....

You: Kh = T + R + F + 2R + 2F

Me: Kh = T + R + F + 2T + 2R + 2F

I have added something you missed. Where am I distorting anything?

You are pathetic! Show me a misquote! Just one (1). You are unable to do so. I am not aware of ever having misquoted someone. I have shown how you lie, how you mislead, how you deceive, how you fool people and you still have the audacity to accuse others of something they never did. Amazing how dishonest you are.

Well, I exposed you in our TV show last night and will continue doing so.

Next:

What about my factual question?

Also, it says in the title: a delineation of the origin, evolution and final fate of the Universe. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Are you unable to answer? It is a factual question. Simple. Straight. What are origin and final fate in an oscillating model?

Edited by StopS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.