Big Bounce ( no Bang )- Qur'an says ::The fate of the universe.

[Ruh]

The verse is referring to the sky, not the universe as the universe includes the earth, but if I remember correctly the word used for sky (was it Assama I forget) means what is opposite of the earth.

The Arabic word سماء is used in a quite a different senses in Qur'an . It can be a local sky to the whole universe . A modern word like Galaxy / المجرة or Space/ فضاء was not known to human that time , hence GOD had to deal with the known words but contexting to the right application in Qur'an . The case of the Arabic word سماء is quite vivid in that perspective .

Nonetheless let us hypothetically assume your misinterpretation is the true interpretation and the word used refers to the entire universe. This contradicts known science for we know that the universe is not flat like a page (for if it were so 2 dimensional it’s component parts such as the earth and yourself would have to be flat to fit within it).

Fortunately modern science knows more about both the sky and the universe than the relatively primitive author of the Quran did, and is aware of the multidimensional nature of the universe.

I don't know what the source of your knowledge about this issue , not to choke you , NASA has used the same example (Paper/Sheet/Page whatever you call it ) to express the shape of the universe as the Qur'an did . Only the difference between them was 1400 years .
WMAP- Shape of the Universe

And to get the WMAP and CMB parameters right , please click below :

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

 

[Ruh]

You are changing skies to mean what you want it to mean.

FYI the Earth is part of the universe not separate from it. More so the Earth didn't exist for almost 10 billion years after the event. Yawn. Ergo it was never joined as the Earth didn't exist then. Try again son. Less copy/pasting from your apologist websites and more effort into understand the scientific concept you fail to use due to your ignorance of those concept.



Again you are changing skies to mean what you want it to mean



Again you are changing skies to mean what you want it to mean




False conclusion made due to you changing words to mean what you want to mean. Low effort apologistics. Try again

 

[Ruh]

No it cannot - two different things - "visible sky" is not the same as "universe" - you are making a leap here
The words kawn, alkun, and dunyana do not appear at all in the Qu'ran

Literacy in classical Arabic is needed to be handy here . That is the best I can say at the moment .

 

[Ruh]

No it cannot - two different things - "visible sky" is not the same as "universe" - you are making a leap here
The words kawn, alkun, and dunyana do not appear at all in the Qu'ran

 

[Windwalker]

Read the original text from the Qur'an . It will testify I did't do any manipulation of the meanings .



I denote 'no established conclusions' , if you mind to read again .

Yes, you are reading into the texts. If you can show me any Islamic scholar before the Big Bang theory came out, expounding on the teachings of Quran and concluding they point to a Big Bang model of the universe, before that model came out, then you'd have an interesting argument. But my guess is, you'll be met with silence on the matter.

Prove me wrong. Any commentaries from the 16th century Islam talking about that? Or are these interpretations after the model was proposed in the 1900s? If you can only find them after, then they are reading back into the text what no one else interpreted prior to it. There's nothing miraculous to see here.

 

[ManSinha]

There is absolutely no evidence any heaven exists - IMHO - it a figment of imagination of most people - spurred on by "holy texts" like you are quoting. If you have any evidence that can be independently examined - please supply it.

 

[Ruh]

Yes, you are reading into the texts. If you can show me any Islamic scholar before the Big Bang theory came out, expounding on the teachings of Quran and concluding they point to a Big Bang model of the universe, before that model came out, then you'd have an interesting argument. But my guess is, you'll be met with silence on the matter.

Prove me wrong. Any commentaries from the 16th century Islam talking about that? Or are these interpretations after the model was proposed in the 1900s? If you can only find them after, then they are reading back into the text what no one else interpreted prior to it. There's nothing miraculous to see here.

Commentary , Islamic scholar have nothing to do in it . Qur'an is there in front you . Read it and judge it .

 

[Ruh]

There is absolutely no evidence any heaven exists - IMHO - it a figment of imagination of most people - spurred on by "holy texts" like you are quoting. If you have any evidence that can be independently examined - please supply it.

You got the answer . In Arabic sama dealt with a varieties of celestial denotation . You doubted it , I provided the evidence . I am happy .

 

[ManSinha]

You got the answer . In Arabic sama dealt with a varieties of celestial denotation . You doubted it , I provided the evidence

No you did not - you provided text from a book - that is called circular reasoning
"Heaven exists because xyz says so - I believe xyz - so it must be true" - that means exactly nothing

When hard objective evidence - like the glass of water you drink from to quench your thirst for example - is called for - you got exactly nothing - except faith and belief. Which is fine for you. Don't expect others to believe just because you say so.

 

[Ruh]

No you did not - you provided text from a book - that is called circular reasoning
"Heaven exists because xyz says so - I believe xyz - so it must be true" - that means exactly nothing

When hard objective evidence - like the glass of water you drink from to quench your thirst for example - is called for - you got exactly nothing - except faith and belief. Which is fine for you. Don't expect others to believe just because you say so.

At least I showed you a proof from one of the venerated classical Lexicon in favor of my argument , and you are singing your own song only . Is there anything better you can bring here which is not off topic ?

 

[viole]

WE is a majestic plural referring to one person but in a respectful way . It is canonized in so many other languages . 'Nahnu/ نحن ' as WE is that type of majestic plural .

Royal we - Wikipedia

Now We understand.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ruh]

Now We understand.

ciao

- viole

We are really happy to know that...

 

[ManSinha]

At least I showed you a proof from one of the venerated classical Lexicon in favor of my argument , and you are singing your own song only . Is there anything better you can bring here which is not off topic ?

Again I am an outsider asking questions - I do not "have to bring anything" all you have is words in a book describing fantastical things / realms - you got nothing that stands up to actual proof in reality as we know it.

You opened this thread asserting various things - I am asking questions to clarify - you have not been successful at answering other to point to a few words in different books - your book talks about stuff that is not existent or unprovable - like heaven and the "existence" of Adam and Moses - fictional characters at best - treated as prophets - which makes your book part fantasy.

 

[danieldemol]

The Arabic word سماء is used in a quite a different senses in Qur'an . It can be a local sky to the whole universe . A modern word like Galaxy / المجرة or Space/ فضاء was not known to human that time , hence GOD had to deal with the known words but contexting to the right application in Qur'an . The case of the Arabic word سماء is quite vivid in that perspective .

If modern humans (of limited knowledge) can identify the need to create new words and explain their meanings to explain these topics to avoid confusion with the unscientific misconceptions of seventh century Arabia then so could the omniscient Allah.

There is no functional difference between a god that didn’t know of these concepts and one that used the wrong terms to describe them.

No Assama cannot mean universe as by definition the universe includes the earth, whereas Assama excludes the earth.

I don't know what the source of your knowledge about this issue , not to choke you , NASA has used the same example (Paper/Sheet/Page whatever you call it ) to express the shape of the universe as the Qur'an did . Only the difference between them was 1400 years .
WMAP- Shape of the Universe

And to get the WMAP and CMB parameters right , please click below :

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

You partially got me here. I confess I was ignorant of the analogies that scientists use to explain the shape of the multidimensional universe.

That being said, it is clear you are attempting to retrofit science where it does not belong in the Quran.
'Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional spacetime of the universe.'*

'Cosmologists normally work with a given space-like slice of spacetime called the comoving coordinates'*

'To speak of "the shape of the universe (at a point in time)" is ontologically naive from the point of view of special relativity alone: due to the relativity of simultaneity we cannot speak of different points in space as being "at the same point in time" nor, therefore, of "the shape of the universe at a point in time"'*

So basically the whole concept of reaching a point in time where God rolls up the universe in "His right hand" like it was a two dimensional piece of paper is not fitting the concept of science.

Furthermore, examine the following verse;
'No just estimate have they made of Allah, such as is due to Him: On the Day of Judgment the whole of the earth will be but His handful, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand: Glory to Him! High is He above the Partners they attribute to Him!'
Quran 39:67

Now consider the possibilites with respect to known science. A flat curvature of the universe may indicate that the universe is either finite or infinite. If it is infinite, then if God has his hand filled with the "whole earth" then how is He going to fit an infinite universe within His "right hand"?

On the other hand if the universe is finite, 'Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle'* Although this represents a similar problem whereby if God has His hand filled with the Earth He will not be able to fit the Universe in His other hand, nontheless look at visual representations of the torus and Klein bottle;

Torus;

Klein Bottle;

By comparison many seventh century Bedouin people living in Arabia imagined the sky as a large tent covering. In such a historical context it is clear that the Quran is referring to the sky as being like a tent which can be rolled up.

For more info see: Scientific Errors in the Qur'an - WikiIslam

*From Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[Ruh]

Again I am an outsider asking questions - I do not "have to bring anything" all you have is words in a book describing fantastical things / realms - you got nothing that stands up to actual proof in reality as we know it.

You opened this thread asserting various things - I am asking questions to clarify - you have not been successful at answering other to point to a few words in different books - your book talks about stuff that is not existent or unprovable - like heaven and the "existence" of Adam and Moses - fictional characters at best - treated as prophets - which makes your book part fantasy.

You are bringing so many off topic elements here eg , heaven , Adam , Moses . Sorry mate , can't entertain you now .

 

[Ruh]

If modern humans (of limited knowledge) can identify the need to create new words and explain their meanings to explain these topics to avoid confusion with the unscientific misconceptions of seventh century Arabia then so could the omniscient Allah.

There is no functional difference between a god that didn’t know of these concepts and one that used the wrong terms to describe them.

What is the point of making a word that is not known to the contemporary audience ? The concept of the words Universe , Galaxy , Milky way , Black hole were far fetched in 7th century so what is point of the making a dictionary for those vocabulary ? Rather it was wise as in case of Qur'an and Bible both used Samaa to denote a broad spectrum of concepts in astronomy which even in 21st century make a perfect sense . It serves both generation in a their levels .

No Assama cannot mean universe as by definition the universe includes the earth, whereas Assama excludes the earth.

As I showed you from the Lexicon of Hans-Wehr , Samaa denotes 'celestial' , hence technically if the solar system is included in this , the earth would come automatically . Hasn't it ?

You partially got me here. I confess I was ignorant of the analogies that scientists use to explain the shape of the multidimensional universe.

That is fine . It happens to everybody . I do appreciate your honesty .

That being said, it is clear you are attempting to retrofit science where it does not belong in the Quran.
'Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional spacetime of the universe.'*

'Cosmologists normally work with a given space-like slice of spacetime called the comoving coordinates'*

'To speak of "the shape of the universe (at a point in time)" is ontologically naive from the point of view of special relativity alone: due to the relativity of simultaneity we cannot speak of different points in space as being "at the same point in time" nor, therefore, of "the shape of the universe at a point in time"'*

So basically the whole concept of reaching a point in time where God rolls up the universe in "His right hand" like it was a two dimensional piece of paper is not fitting the concept of science.

Furthermore, examine the following verse;
'No just estimate have they made of Allah, such as is due to Him: On the Day of Judgment the whole of the earth will be but His handful, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand: Glory to Him! High is He above the Partners they attribute to Him!'
Quran 39:67

Now consider the possibilites with respect to known science. A flat curvature of the universe may indicate that the universe is either finite or infinite. If it is infinite, then if God has his hand filled with the "whole earth" then how is He going to fit an infinite universe within His "right hand"?

On the other hand if the universe is finite, 'Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle'* Although this represents a similar problem whereby if God has His hand filled with the Earth He will not be able to fit the Universe in His other hand, nontheless look at visual representations of the torus and Klein bottle;

Torus;

Klein Bottle;

By comparison many seventh century Bedouin people living in Arabia imagined the sky as a large tent covering. In such a historical context it is clear that the Quran is referring to the sky as being like a tent which can be rolled up.

For more info see: Scientific Errors in the Qur'an - WikiIslam

*From Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

To cut the long story short .... Right Hand' in Arabic means a possession with authority or power and not physical hand in such . Ref. See Qur'an 24:33,4:36, 4:33, 4:25,16:71, 23:6, 24:31,24:33.

 

[PruePhillip]

Qur’an has the following to say about the beginning of the universe:

21:30 Do not those who disbelieve see that the skies and the earth were a single entity? Then WE parted them ……

So the universe started from a primordial singularity and they parted . But the verse didn’t mention how they were parted. We have the answer from the other verse of the Qur’an but from the same chapter. We have it at the end .

And then we found this:

51:47 And the sky WE constructed with force/strength and indeed WE are expanding it….

Almighty GOD used a force ( !? ) and as a result the universe started to expand . Interesting here to mention that the original Arabic word of expanding (لموسعون) is in its Imperfect Verbal form (IV), meaning this expansion is happening now and will continue in future. Therefore an expanding universe is confirmed.

Meanwhile before going to the doom of the universe, Qur’an discussed so many other relevant topics concerning cosmology which I feel not to bring it up here to save time and space . Let us stick with the topic and finish it up.

Now what is the fate of the universe? Big Crunch, Big Rip or Big Bounce? Here is what the Qur’an proposes:

21:104 The day WE will fold the sky like folding of the page of books as WE began the first creation, We will repeat it – a promise upon US. Indeed WE shall do it.

The verse proposes us :

01- The universe is flat like a page. (WMAP Data !?)

02- It will bounce back like rolling back of a page.

03- The first creation started not with a Bang rather a Bounce.

04- The same process will be repeated again to the creation of another new universe.

Science didn’t reach to the established conclusions to some of the facts /theories/hypothesizes pertaining Big Bang and Big Bounce still but it is quite refreshing to notice that Qur’an has discussed them boldly 1400 years back .

Ruh .

The Qur'an was written by those who followed Mohammed - an Arab warlord.
The book essentially takes the bible and rewrites it. It is an incredibly violent
and intolerant text. I see it as having no authority whatsoever.

 

[danieldemol]

What is the point of making a word that is not known to the contemporary audience ? The concept of the words Universe , Galaxy , Milky way , Black hole were far fetched in 7th century so what is point of the making a dictionary for those vocabulary ?

Allah could easily have explained to the Arabs these concepts and explained the necessary tools and observations to make. You are limiting the power of not only Allah here, but the abilities of the seventh century Arab peoples to follow instructions.

As I showed you from the Lexicon of Hans-Wehr , Samaa denotes 'celestial' , hence technically if the solar system is included in this , the earth would come automatically . Hasn't it ?

Google defines celestial as follows;
celestial
/sɪˈlɛstɪəl/

adjective

1. positioned in or relating to the sky, or outer space as observed in astronomy.
   "a celestial body"
   
   Similar:
   (in) space
   heavenly
   
   astronomical
   
   extraterrestrial
   
   stellar
   
   planetary
   
   in the sky
   in the heavens
   superterrestrial
   
   Opposite:
   terrestrial
   
   earthly
2. belonging or relating to heaven.
   • "the celestial city"
     
     Similar:
     heavenly
     
     holy
     
     saintly
     
     divine
     
     godly
     
     godlike
     
     ethereal
     
     paradisical
     
     Elysian
     
     spiritual
     
     empyrean
     
     superlunary
     
     immortal
     
     angelic
     
     seraphic
     
     cherubic
     
     blessed
     
     beatific
     
     blissful
     
     sublime
     
     
     Opposite:
     hellish
     
     mundane

As you will note even in English celestial is the opposite of earthly. Celestial simply does not include earth. In the context of the Quran even less so.

 

[Shad]

View attachment 39303
View attachment 39304

So? Now you stated the universe and Earth are separate which they are not.. You also just used a definition that thinks the universe is higher up (altitude) when it really surrounds us as in encompassing. More so you are changing and picking the definition to fit science without evidence. Try again. Maybe think about what is said instead of more copy/pasting. More so you are changing and picking the definition to fit science without evidence.

Remember I said make an effort. Do so.

 

[IbnAbdallah]

Which dictionary is this from?