Creation of Universe according to Bible & Quran

[Ali Ansari]

It all boils down to this: Science answers the "how" questions; religion and philosophy answer the "who" questions.

but here religion answering "how" Question wrongly!

 

[Defij]

Well, that is a different debate, I would just say, there are not 2 different creation stories, it is written twice as was the style, but it is the same creation. God specifically sets up each day as a 24 hour day:

Now the "2nd" part of the story...its the same story, recapped to give the details of the creation of man, and a verse or 2 later, woman:

With all due respect, I must disagree with you here. Let me preface all I am about to write with this: I am a Christian, a Bible believing Christian at that. One who takes everything in the Bible very seriously. Do I take everything “literal”? No. That’s like walking into the public library in your city and declaring “I take everything in this place literally!” How asinine would that be?! Doing that with the Bible is the same thing. I take the Bible literally when it’s a literal genre. But we have many different genres in the Bible, not just historical narrative to be taken literal. You have fallen victim to post-modernism in your thinking my friend. Why do you value historical narrative truth above any other kind of truth?! For instance, I love my wife. I think she has the face of an angel. I think she is the most beautiful woman in the world. If I tell her that, and she is thinking the way you are about the Bible, that everything must be historical/factual truth, she’ll look at me and say “Well now, darling husband, you don’t KNOW 100% empirically that I am the most beautiful woman in the world, therefore it’s not actual fact, and I can not listen to what you say.” How ridiculous! Poetic truth can be just as powerful as historical truth at getting points across.

So to this story in Genesis. If indeed, it is just one story, being “retold” then how do you account for the painfully obvious errors in the order of things?! And using literary critisim (which is NOT some “anti-Christian” propaganda, criticism of all kinds are used to think “critically” about all types of literature) how do you explain the fact that there are two completely separate names for God used in both accounts? The “J account” ( or Yahwehistic account found in Genesis Chapter 2) uses the divine name for God, YHWH (even though in the “narrative” of the story of Genesis is isn’t until thousands of years later when Moses encounters God at the burning bush. That is when for the first time God reveals his divine name of Yahweh.) and in the “P account” (or Priestly account found in Genesis chapter 1) we have the word Eloheim being used for God. So you see, we have two different names of God being used, two different stories being told, but for good reason! One shows the power and omnipotence of God (Genesis 1) and the other shows the eminence and closeness of God, giving Him a more human personality (Genesis 2). I personally love both these points of views of God, and wouldn’t want either of them to be taken out or reconciled to each other. When you start trying to do that, meshing them together in some false hermeneutical way, and literalizing everything, then you lose the real purpose and power of what Genesis 1 and 2 is all about. It’s about showing us the power and personage of God. What it is NOT about is making some pseudo-science out of it.

Note here that it HAD NOT RAINED, before the creation of ADAM, it was a SHORT time. Note that everything was VERY GOOD, that the beasts had the herb of the field for meat, THERE WAS NO DEATH, no millions of years of 'survival of the fittest', sin had not entered, so neither had death.

Again, it’s not a literal story. It has no relevance in comparing it to “ survival of the fittest”. Just like Darwin’s theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Christianity or religion at all! They can not be used to prove or disprove each other! They are two different fields of study, answering two different questions that have nothing to do with each other, science and religion that is. To use science to disprove religion, or vice versa would be like using Algebra to disprove American Government. It makes no sense!

Now, let me say this, Jesus mentions Adam and Eve, they were REAL PEOPLE. But here is the big thing, Paul says in Romans 5 that by ADAM's sin, death came upon all men. Now he repeats this SEVERAL times, to show that by ONE MAN, ADAM, sin and death came upon ALL MEN, and by ONE MAN, JESUS, came righteousness. If one does not believe in what the Bible says in Genesis, they may as well not believe Romans. And vice-versa.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong! This makes me sick. Just because I do not the creation story of Genesis “literal” doesn’t mean it doesn’t have truth to it! Truth that Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gives us, that death (spiritual death of course) has come into the world, and all men are in need of a Savior (Jesus Christ). It is the most horrible logic ever to say that one MUST accept Genesis as “historical narrative truth” or else they can not take Romans and Paul’s writings or even the words of Jesus as truth.

Let me ask you this then. Jesus said that if your right eye or right hand makes you sin, cut it off! For it is better to enter heaven lame then to go to hell. Well I know your right eye and right hand have made you sin before, so if you are taking Jesus literally, how the heck are you even typing on this forum with one hand?! Because of course, taking Jesus “literally” you must have cut off your right hand and plucked out your right eye…

Genesis sets up the creation days as 24 hour literal days, and Adam as a real, literal man from whom we all descended. Jesus being the Creator, and the Saviour of the world. I would say too, that science is more in agreement with the stories of the creation and the great flood, then for the tom-foolery that is called the theory of evolution.

Again, Science (evolution) and religion have nothing to do with each other! Science doesn’t affect my faith, as it should not affect yours. Who says God can’t use evolution or any other kind of method of creating humans? You do. So now you are telling God what He can and must do. I don’t care how old the earth is, what evolved from what, what came first the chicken or the egg. None of it has anything to do with religion and my faith in Jesus Christ and the truth of Him and the gospel. The only reason why it WOULD affect me or anyone else is if we foolishly try and make the Bible and Genesis literal scientific historical narratives. If you are doing that, well then you are in for a huge crisis of faith.

 

[joeboonda]

I enjoyed the comments, I cant answer them all, but I will just say there are numerous very intelligent, well written books, even organizations, that offer good evidence of what i have claimed in my above posts and I stand by what I said 100%, take it or leave it.

Now for those who want to know the TRUTH, and know God, go to this awesome website and spend some time, it teaches about Genesis, The Creation, The Flood of Noah, The Age of the Earth, Dinosaours, Carbon 14 Dating, and much much more!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

 

[joeboonda]

Back this baby up

Read this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

 

[joeboonda]

Then why is that Chapter 1 has animals being formed the day before Humans, and then male and female people being formed at the same time, yet Chapter 2 has Adam being made first, then animals, then Eve?

That's a pretty big difference if they are the same account.

No, the animals and Adam were made on the 6th day. The animals were made male and female. At a later point God made Eve for Adam. It is not contradictory, unless you are just trying to make it that way yourself. It is the Word of God.

 

[joeboonda]

You are say that Bible says that Abraham was going to offer Isaac, and Quran says He was going to offer Ishmael. That is why Quran is wrong.
Supposedly you are say that Bible is always right.
Both the the scripture are claiming to be word of God, so Bible saying this and Quran saying that. It is possible that Quran is right and Bible is wrong, it is possible that Bible is right and Quran is wrong, it is possible that both are wrong. So how can you say Bible is right?
The Bible which you have in your hands and in your PC, it is the translation of translations, you don’t have the Ingeel in the language in which it was revealed.
And you may know that the translation can never be the same.

What I am saying is that the oldest copy of the Old Testament (OT) was from around the 11th century, so we could not prove the Koran to be wrong on the point. THEN, we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were older than both the Koran and the oldest copies we had of the OT, they were from around the time of Christ. THEY HAD ISAAC BEING OFFERED. This shows that Mohammad CHANGED Holy Scripture. Just like he lied and said Jesus did not die on the cross, which is EXACTLY what Jesus said He came here to do, to die to pay for our sins as a free gift, because He loves us.

 

[Defij]

I enjoyed the comments, I cant answer them all, but I will just say there are numerous very intelligent, well written books, even organizations, that offer good evidence of what i have claimed in my above posts and I stand by what I said 100%, take it or leave it.

Now for those who want to know the TRUTH, and know God, go to this awesome website and spend some time, it teaches about Genesis, The Creation, The Flood of Noah, The Age of the Earth, Dinosaours, Carbon 14 Dating, and much much more!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Joe, believe me brotha, I used to believe even more fervently then you do about this issue. I know about "answers". I've read almost all of Ken Hams books. I know all that stuff bro. But once you "critically" read both accounts, by the way, the J account and the P account go all the way through the entire book of Genesis, they are two paralell stories, you'd find it interesting to go through it some time. Anyways, once you start reading it for what it was actually written, and not trying to "force" some scientific theories into, you'll be much better off. I'm not telling you "what" to believe or "how" your faith should be, I'm simply telling you from experence how my faith has grown leaps and bounds. Science should play no part in your faith, because the Bible is not a Science book. Evolution has happened! It's happening today. It's a fact, just get over it. Don't get into the whole "micro" evolution vs. "macro" evolution. It's all nonsense. Who says God can't use evolution?! It's His world, He created it; My advice to you is to let God be God.

 

[Ody]

I'm going with the .org on radiocarbon dating and how it pertains to the earth and its age :yes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

[Ali Ansari]

What I am saying is that the oldest copy of the Old Testament (OT) was from around the 11th century, so we could not prove the Koran to be wrong on the point. THEN, we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were older than both the Koran and the oldest copies we had of the OT, they were from around the time of Christ. THEY HAD ISAAC BEING OFFERED. This shows that Mohammad CHANGED Holy Scripture. Just like he lied and said Jesus did not die on the cross, which is EXACTLY what Jesus said He came here to do, to die to pay for our sins as a free gift, because He loves us.

well can you give me the overview of dead sea scroll cause I don't know exactly.

This shows that Mohammad CHANGED Holy Scripture. Just like he lied and said Jesus did not die on the cross,

are you saying that Muhammad copied from bible every thing and change it as he wanted.
The accusation you put on him.
He was also accused in his life time that Prophet learned the Quran from a Roman Blacksmith, who was a Christian staying at the outskirts of Makkah. The Prophet very often used to go and watch him do his work. A revelation of the Quran was sufficient to dismiss this charge -
the Quran says in Surah An-Nahl chapter 16 verse 103:
"We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him,’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear."
[Al-Qur’an 16:103]

How could a person whose mother tongue was foreign and could hardly speak little but of poor broken Arabic be the source of the Quran which is pure, eloquent, fine Arabic? To believe that the blacksmith taught the Prophet the Quran is some what similar to believing that a Chinese immigrant to England, who did not know proper English, taught Shakespeare.

It is true that the Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Madinah more than 13 years after the revelation of the Qur’an had started. The allegation that these Jews and Christians were the source is perverse, since in these discussions Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was performing the roles of a teacher and of a preacher while inviting them to embrace Islam and pointing out that they had deviated from their true teachings of Monotheism. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam.

All historical records available show that Muhummad (pbuh) had made only three trips outside Makkah before his Prophethood:

At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Madinah.

Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria.

At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria.

It is highly imaginary to assume that the Quran resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips.

The day-to-day life of the Prophet was an open book for all to see. In fact a revelation came asking people to give the Prophet (pbuh) privacy in his own home.
If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long.

The extremely prominent Quraish nobles who followed the Prophet and accepted Islam were wise and intelligent men who would have easily noticed anything suspicious about the way in which the Prophet brought the revelations to them - more so since the Prophetic mission lasted 23 years.

The enemies of the Prophet kept a close watch on him in order to find proof for their claim that he was a liar - they could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews and Christians.

It is inconceivable that any human author of the Qur’an would have accepted a situation in which he received no credit whatsoever for originating the Qur’an.

Thus, historically and logically it cannot be established that there was a human source for the Qur’an.

The theory that Muhummad (pbuh) authored the Qur’an or copied from other sources can be disproved by the single historical fact that he was illiterate.
Allah testifies Himself in the Qur’an

In Surah Al-Ankabut chapter no.29 verse 48
"And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted."
[Al-Qur’an 29:48]

Allah (swt) knew that many would doubt the authenticity of the Qur’an and would ascribe it to Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). Therefore Allah in His Divine Wisdom chose the last and final Messenger to be an ‘Ummi’, i.e. unlettered, so that the talkers of vanity would not then have the slightest justification to doubt the Prophet. The accusation of his enemies that he had copied the Qur’an from other sources and rehashed it all in a beautiful language might have carried some weight, but even this flimsy pretence has been deprived to the unbeliever and the cynic.

The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.

It is true that there are some similar parallels between the Qur’an and the Bible but this is not sufficient to accuse Muhummad (pbuh) of compiling or copying from the Bible. The same logic would then also be applicable to teachings of Christianity and Judaism and thus one could wrongly claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not a genuine Prophet (God forbid) and that he simply copied from the Old Testament.

 

[joeboonda]

Defij, I am very surprised that ANYONE believes in evolution anymore, but to each their own. As long as you trust in Christ as your personal Saviour, then I can call you a brother.

Alan, on the carbon-dating thing, it does not measure that precicely and that is just a fact. I looked at the site, and it was not about carbon-dating, but I understand there are opposing sides to young/old earth theories. Many Christians believe in an old earth, I am not one of them, but they are still my brothers.

Ali, I am not saying Mohammad copied the Bible, I am just saying that I have learned that He believed in the Old Testament, but He believed or said or wrote that it was Ishmael and not Isaac. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fairly new discovery (last half of last century), and they are older than both the Quran and the oldest OT manuscripts we have, and they said it was Isaac. That is all I am saying. As far as having help with the Quran, I have only read that some people thought his wife may have had some influence as she had been a devout catholic at one time, but I am not saying anything about that.

I gotta say, I am carrying on 3 conversations, and my wife and kids are always bugging me for the computer, but I will try to check back on this. I think we all probably believe what we believe and just have to agree to disagree on some of this, but I have been enjoying the posts.

 

[Tiberius]

I am very surprised that ANYONE believes in evolution anymore

Given that the nature of scientific though is designed to get rid of the ideas that are just plain stupid (like the idea of an invisible, non-compressible liquid that the Earth moves through with no resistance at all), I think that there would be a very good reason why evolution is still around. Evolution may sound dumb to you, but I'm sure you'll agree that there are many scientists out there who understand it a lot better than you, or me, or anyone else in this forum. So I'm sure that you can understand that even if you think the idea of Evolution is dumb, there's a very good reason why it's still around.

Plus, you can always go up to a scientist who is an expert in evolution and ask him for answers to your questions.

 

[Ali Ansari]

Evolution may sound dumb to you, but I'm sure you'll agree that there are many scientists out there who understand it a lot better than you, or me.

who understand the the best? charles Darwin! he was the originator of the theory of evolution. was he himself understand it fully? read his book ‘The Origin of Species’ - It says that… “Charles Darwin went on an island by the name of ‘Keletropist’ on a ship named as ‘HMS Beagel’ and there he found birds pecking at niches. Depending upon the Ecological niches they peck, the beaks kept on becoming long and short. This observation was made in the same species - not in different species”. Charles Darwin wrote a letter to his friend Thomas Thomtan, in 1861 saying ‘I do not believe in ‘Natural Selection’- the word that you use - I don’t believe in ‘Theory of Evolution’ because I haven’t got any proof. I only believe in it because it helps me in classification of Embryology, in Morphology, in rudimentary organs’. Charles Darwin himself said that , there were missing links. He did not agree with it - He himself said that there were missing links. Therefore , if I have to insult someone that if you were present at Darwin’s time this theory would been proved right, trying to insinuate that he looks like an Ape. It is a joke we make. The reason that this theory in most parts of the world - it is taught as good as fact - You know why?
The reason is because, if you analyse, the Church was against Science previously - and you know the incidence that they sentenced Galileo to death. They sentenced Galileo to death - Why? Because he said certain statements in the Astronomy, etc., which went against the Bible - So they sentenced him to death , for which the Pope apologized now. So when Charles Darwin came up with a theory which goes against the Bible, they did not… they did not want any sufficient proof - An enemy of my enemy is my friend. So all the Scientists… most of them - they supported the theory, because it went against the Bible - not because it was true. They only supported it because it went against the Bible`.

According to P. P. Grasse in 1971 who held the Chair of Evolutionary Studies in Paris, in Sojerion University. He said… ‘It is absurd - We cannot say who were our ancestors based on fossils’. I can give you a list of hundreds of scientists and Noble Prize winners who speak against Darwin’s theory… Hundreds. If you know of Sir Albert George who got the Noble prize for inventing… for inventing the Vitamin ‘C’ - He wrote the book ‘The Can’t Ape and Man’, against Darwin’s Theory. Again if you read, Sir Fred Hoyle’s work - he wrote several works against Darwin’s Theory. If you know about Ruperts Albert, this person wrote a new theory of evolution against Darwin’s Theory. Its unthinkable… you cannot think that we are created from the Apes. If you know of Sir Frank Salosbury… he was a biologist. He said… ‘It is illogical to believe in Darwin’s theory’. If you know about Whitmeat… Sir Whitemeat, he wrote a book against Darwin’s Theory - He was also a Biologist. Several ! you can give a list of hundreds.

 

[joeboonda]

If you want to believe in evolution, be my guest, but, even though I am not a 'scientist', I have a brain, and I have books, and the world, etc. and I won't let someone who 'says' he is an expert tell me how or what to think. I think it is absurd and that is all there is to it. That is my opinion from my research, anyone else is welcome to theirs, I don't care.

 

[Tiberius]

Charles Darwin didn't know about Genetics or DNA. You're setting up a strawman argument by saying he understood it the best. Today we have many decades more information than Darwin did. We understand it today much better than Darwin could ever have.

If you want to believe in evolution, be my guest, but, even though I am not a 'scientist', I have a brain, and I have books, and the world, etc. and I won't let someone who 'says' he is an expert tell me how or what to think. I think it is absurd and that is all there is to it.

So, let me get this straight...

You freely admit that you haven't done the in depth study that scientists have, and yet somehow your layman's knowledge is enough to tell you that the scientists who have studied for years about this with the knowledge of generations before them are just plain wrong. And you refuse to let any person who has studied the matter give you additional information because you've already decided that their information will be wrong, even though you've got no idea what that information is?

You're right, that is absurd. :faint:

 

[Ali Ansari]

Charles Darwin didn't know about Genetics or DNA. You're setting up a strawman argument by saying he understood it the best. Today we have many decades more information than Darwin did. We understand it today much better than Darwin could ever have

I think you did not understand what I said.
when you said that

Evolution may sound dumb to you, but I'm sure you'll agree that there are many scientists out there who understand it a lot better than you

then I asked you who understand the best is it charles darwin because as I said he was the originator of that theory.
and I had given you the reasons why some people like you and others are still stick to this theory.there may be other reasons also which I do not know.

Charles Darwin didn't know about Genetics or DNA

if he knows he would never invented that theory.
cause today's science have proved it totaly wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Today's science has proved that DNA and Genetics are wrong? Can you provide support for this claim?

Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution - the idea was around long before him. Darwin proposed a theory of natural selection, the way by which evolution takes place.

And in any case, Charles Darwin did not understand it as well as we do today. I can't give you the name of a particular scientist, because I doubt there is one single person who knows more about it than anyone else.

 

[joeboonda]

Charles Darwin didn't know about Genetics or DNA. You're setting up a strawman argument by saying he understood it the best. Today we have many decades more information than Darwin did. We understand it today much better than Darwin could ever have.



So, let me get this straight...

You freely admit that you haven't done the in depth study that scientists have, and yet somehow your layman's knowledge is enough to tell you that the scientists who have studied for years about this with the knowledge of generations before them are just plain wrong. And you refuse to let any person who has studied the matter give you additional information because you've already decided that their information will be wrong, even though you've got no idea what that information is?

You're right, that is absurd. :faint:

No, no, no, I have studied about scientists through history, who WERE good scientists, BECAUSE they believe in the statements relating to science in the BIBLE. I have on my shelf many books and videos about creationism, I have been to seminars and seen presentations by highly educated scientists, I am almost 41 years old, and have studied on these things throughout my life. Not only do I have and still read and collect scientific information, I also have the Bible, and I have become quite convinced of what is the truth of the matter, and what is not.

In the end you either believe in God, and therefore, creation, or you do not believe in God, and will only accept evolution. Well, when I studied and saw the errors and gaps in the theory of evolution, I came to a profound, deeper belief in God than ever before in my life. As years of brainwashing in the public schools had left me with confusion and doubt, learning the facts brought me into light and peace with God like never before. It is through science, and, also my experience with evil that I know there is a God, and it is through my study of the Bible, its historical statements, archaelogical discoveries, its scientific statements, medical statements, and most of all its prophecies fulfilled, too, that I have become absoluteley rooted and grounded in my faith.

 

[Tiberius]

Can you give me some examples of modern day scientists who have used information from the Bible to make significant discoveries in their fields of study?

BTW, I know quite a few people who believe in God and still accept evolution.

 

[Ali Ansari]

Today's science has proved that DNA and Genetics are wrong? Can you provide support for this claim?

Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution - the idea was around long before him. Darwin proposed a theory of natural selection, the way by which evolution takes place.

And in any case, Charles Darwin did not understand it as well as we do today. I can't give you the name of a particular scientist, because I doubt there is one single person who knows more about it than anyone else.

Today's science has proved that DNA and Genetics are wrong? Can you provide support for this claim?

I don't understand?

Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution - the idea was around long before him. Darwin proposed a theory of natural selection, the way by which evolution takes place.

well you may be right but the name of that theory is darwin's theory of evolution

And in any case, Charles Darwin did not understand it as well as we do today. I can't give you the name of a particular scientist, because I doubt there is one single person who knows more about it than anyone else.

what I understand the theory is a mistake which has been done delibrately by the scientist who says There is no God.
we Muslims also say There is no godbut we also say But Allah.

 

[Defij]

BTW, I know quite a few people who believe in God and still accept evolution.

That's because evolution (or science in general) has nothing to do (or should have nothing to do) with a belief in God or more specific Christianity and/or the Bible.