When HEAVEN doesn't mean "space" or "universe"

[gnostic]

Its not about what smoke means, what i stated is that the Koran Quran 41:11 & Quran Verse 41:10 states that the earth was created before the universe, it speaks as if the universe is separate from the earth.

Which is more reason why those verses in the Qur'an, when it speak of "heaven", actually means the Earth's sky or firmament, and not of the entire galaxy (Milky Way) or universe. The Earth is only 4.6 billion years old. The Earth is far too young to be part of the Big Bang (or the initial expansion of the Universe).

This is what the Muslims here don't understand about the accepted modern cosmology. They think they can snip a incoherent verse here, or a vague passage there, twisted the meaning of those passages, and then *poof*, "Allah created the universe" fits neatly with modern scientific/astronomical cosmology.

Verse 21:30 doesn't in any way - shape or form - describe the Big Bang cosmology. Especially if you're going by just one tiny passage of Arabic text.

It doesn't fit. And science really don't work that way.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

It took about 9-10 billion years for that to be true.

I agree, I don't doubt that theoretical fact.

I wonder why Muslims still call these verses as the about the big bang.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

gnostic;2907278]Which is more reason why those verses in the Qur'an, when it speak of "heaven", actually means the Earth's sky or firmament, and not of the entire galaxy (Milky Way) or universe. The Earth is only 4.6 billion years old. The Earth is far too young to be part of the Big Bang (or the initial expansion of the Universe).

This is what the Muslims here don't understand about the accepted modern cosmology. They think they can snip a incoherent verse here, or a vague passage there, twisted the meaning of those passages, and then *poof*, "Allah created the universe" fits neatly with modern scientific/astronomical cosmology.

It doesn't fit. And science really don't work that way.

True, True.

I'm waiting for a intelligible explanation from our Muslim friends on this topic, still.

 

[gnostic]

Hello, no disrespect but I do not see where keroghee said that it is not the earth rotating on its axis that gives us night and day. Maybe he said it in the other thread but I didn't read it fully so I dunno.

All I know is that the sun is traveling towards the solar apex.

No, he didn't mention anything about the Earth rotating.

What he did say that the Sun was rotating on the fixed orbit:

how can an illiterate in the 7th century in the desert knows that the sun rotates in a fixed orbit?

What is this Sun's orbit?

Nothing in verse (36:38) mention anything about the Sun ROTATING. I don't see the word "rotating" anywhere, "revolving".

All the verse say, is just the Sun move in fixed course. The most likely explanation that the verse was trying to describe, is the Sun's movement, as seen from the ground, from sunrise to sunset.

Clearly, keroghee was using the Yusuf Ali's translation (1934):

And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.

But in the other translations, like the Pickthall (1938):

And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.

...and the Sahih International (don't know when this translation was published)...

And the sun runs [on course] toward its stopping point. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.

Both of these translations say the Sun moving until its "resting place" or "stopping place". So clearly the context of all 3 translations, when read together, indicate the Sun's course in the sky during the day, until it reached the "resting place", hence sunset.

Does not my explanation make far more sense than keroghee's brief interpretation?

In any case, the idea of the Sun's seemingly movement across the sky till sunset, indicate it was talking about daylight, which is really not very insightful, when you considered just every other cultures and civilizations during Muhammad's time and before his time, already knew of the course of the sun.

Even an illiterate, living in the desert, as keroghee would know this.

Had the Qur'an's author (whether it be Allah or Muhammad) explained in its verse, the actual rotational movement of the Earth, on its axis, depending on which side of the Earth's surface would face the Sun, hence experiencing the "day", while the other side would experience the "night", then I would have been more impress by the Qur'an, or the knowledge of the author.

I am not impress by this verse (36:38) or its author, or by keroghee' interpretation of this verse.

Maybe he said it in the other thread but I didn't read it fully so I dunno.

You can read his post, here. This link will allow you to read his full post.

 

[gnostic]

@ Muslims.

Can we please not just throw statements around. If you don't want to discuss this or any other topic on other threads, don't bother posting just 'anything'. Show a little respect, Gnostic isn't just any member with a hidden agenda. I respect his questions and he too is respectful towards Muslims and our faith even though he doesn't agree with us.

We are going to be held accountable for anything rude we say to those who are respectful to us. Be nice. Not just to Gnostic but all members. Even if you have to reply to an offensive post do it gently, our Prophet did so, so do what he did.

I don't really care if anyone is rude to me or not.

I would prefer if any Muslim could clarify either the verse being used by keroghee, or clarify keroghee's own interpretation of those.

Is keroghee's interpretation (for each verse) right or wrong? Why?

If either keroghee or any of you could explain to me fully his interpretation that make sense, and astronomically or scientifically correct, then I will concede that I am wrong about his interpretation for this verse or that verse.

 

[gnostic]

The solution to this is easy, if only gnostic did a little more research about the origin of the word and its translation. The word that is written in Qur’an in Arabic is el-samawat (السماوا&#1578 if you put it in Google translate it will translate to you as skies but why in the Qur’an translation it’s written Heavens?? Because simply Heavens means also skies. Heavens with its other meaning (Paradise) is called in Arabic Jannah (الجن&#1577 . So when in Arabic, el-samawat is mentioned it means only skies or the similar meaning in the word heavens and the word Jannah is mentioned it only means paradise or heavens with its similar meaning. El-samawat also in Arabic doesn't mean the surrounding atmosphere only, but it extends to the outer space. In fact, sky in Arabic is basically from the outer atmosphere to the edges of outer space.

I thought I made myself clear in the OP, that I am not interested in heaven, as in Paradise.

I am only interested in the Earth's sky, hence, the solar system or the galaxy or universe, depending on which verses we are debating about.

This one is my mistake, I was typing fast.

What I meant is that sun moves in a fixed path. But regardless of my explanation, the verse is clear and declaring that the sun is moving in space in a fixed course. Actually the sun with the entire solar system moves throughout the space and orbits the galactic center with a speed of 220 km\s in a period of 230 million years which is known as the cosmic year. And it doesn’t describe the day and night at all. other verses however, Do describe it.

I know that the whole solar system move in its GALACTIC ORBIT, and I would agree with you if that's what this verse mean. But I don't think this verse is talking about the Sun movement in relationship to the whole galaxy.

Apparently, you have not read my response (post 24) to LaaIlahaIllAllah (his reply in post 7).

In post 24, I posted 2 other translations: Pickthall's and the Sahih International's. I will post them again, below:

And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.

And the sun runs [on course] toward its stopping point. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.

Both say the Sun moves, till the Sun reaches its "resting-place" (in Pickthall's) and "stopping point" (in Sahih International's).

To me, it is quite apparent, that this verse (no matter which translation you choose) relate to the Sun course, through the Earth's sky, and not the Sun's galactic orbit in the Milky Way. This "resting-place" or "stopping point", clearly indicate SUNSET. Hence, the verse is talking about day and night, even though night is never mention in this verse, but it is implied with this "resting-place" or "stopping point". Sunset is more logical identity to that mystery "resting-place".

There is no "resting-place" or "stopping point" in the Sun's orbit in the Milky Way, so your explanation actually doesn't make sense, when you are considering the context of verse 36:38.

Do you think the Sun "rests" in the Milky Way?

I don't think so, unless you're referring to the day our Sun dies.

Our Sun will not be destroyed by a supernova, because it is not massive enough. Nor will the Sun be massive enough to become a black hole. It will become a Red Giant, engulfing the Earth, before finally running completely out of fuel (hydrogen).

 

[gnostic]

I don’t understand how “a joined entity that was separated to be the universe” doesn’t have to do anything with big bang. Didn’t big bang was a “thing” that expanded rapidly and then cooled to form the universe??

If you read my response to satyamavejayanti, in post 14, you will see that I have given a short description (well, as short as I can make it) about the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory explained how the universe was made, from singularity to the appearance of the first stars (0.5 billion years ago). The current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

The Earth itself (and our solar system) wasn't formed by the Big Bang, in the early part of the young universe. The formation of our solar system was made from the death of earlier star than our own, most likely from supernova. The thing you don't understand, is that the Earth is not really that old. It is only about 4.6 billion year.

I think the verse (21:30), which you splitting of heaven and earth, is actually relating to the separation of the sky from the Earth. Sky as in the Earth's atmosphere.

This is nothing new, because the Bible (Genesis 1:6-8), which I have already quoted from post 2. But for your benefit, I will repost those quotes.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the second day.

Before land was created (on the 3rd day), the Earth had no land, just water. So God created the sky (firmament, or heaven) on the 2nd day, to separate the "water above" (sky), from the water below (the Earth's ocean).

Qur'an 21:30 and Genesis 1:6-8 is saying the same thing.

Does that make more sense?

Anyway, the Hebrew scripture (Genesis) is not the 1st to mention separating the Earth from heaven (sky). I have already quote the Sumerian poem of Gilgamesh, so I am not going to re-post this.

 

[FearGod]

"Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?..." (Quran, 21:30)

"...We have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.... " (Quran 51:47)


So again that depend on your faith,you dont believe on the quran,so whatever
science on it,still you will be in doubt because of lack of faith.

"Say - For Allah's is the final argument - Had He willed He could indeed have guided all of you" (Quran 6:149)

it is personal conviction,in other words,for me and other muslims we trust the quran
more than we trust science,and we may only confirm the science by the quran and
never we even try to confirm the quran by science.

God only have such verses,so there will be no excuses for anyone to fool,but himself.

[Hence,] O you who are bent on denying the truth, make no [empty] excuses today: [in the life to come] you shall be but recompensed for what you were doing [in this world]. (66:7)

[We sent all these] apostles as heralds of glad tidings and as warners, so that men might have no excuse before God after [the coming of] these apostles: and God is indeed almighty, wise. (4:165)

 

[gnostic]

So again that depend on your faith,you dont believe on the quran,so whatever
science on it,still you will be in doubt because of lack of faith.

It is about analysing the verses and interpretations, and the comparison to the astronomical. Nothing to do with faith...well, in my case, it has nothing to do with faith.

I don't doubt the science, but I do doubt your interpretation of the verses when you try to mix science with religion.

it is personal conviction,in other words,for me and other muslims we trust the quran
more than we trust science,and we may only confirm the science by the quran and
never we even try to confirm the quran by science.

And there lies the problem.

You say that you use the Qur'an to confirm science.

But the reality is that no scientists used the Qur'an to confirm the science. What they do use is evidences - lots of evidences - to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Scientists have to leave behind their religious belief behind, when they observe, investigate, experiment, discover or gather evidences; scientific method. Otherwise they (scientists) are not being objective and unbiased. and clouded by preconception.

When people want to design a sky-rise building, bridge, plane or car, do Muslims look at the Qur'an to confirm if the design are acceptable? No.

When people make medication, say for example, to relief back pain, do Muslims look to see if the right pharmaceutical chemical are used to? No.

 

[Gharib]

I don't really care if anyone is rude to me or not.

I would prefer if any Muslim could clarify either the verse being used by keroghee, or clarify keroghee's own interpretation of those.

Is keroghee's interpretation (for each verse) right or wrong? Why?

If either keroghee or any of you could explain to me fully his interpretation that make sense, and astronomically or scientifically correct, then I will concede that I am wrong about his interpretation for this verse or that verse.

OK, am a little busy but when I get time I will post what you ask for.

 

[gnostic]

OK, am a little busy but when I get time I will post what you ask for.

If you're working or studying or have to be with family, friends or love ones, or deal with religious matter, then I'll understand. There's more to life than this thread or forum.

Don't rush. I'd prefer that you were thinking straight when you reply. Take your time.

 

[Gharib]

If you're working or studying or have to be with family, friends or love ones, or deal with religious matter, then I'll understand. There's more to life than this thread or forum.

Don't rush. I'd prefer that you were thinking straight when you reply. Take your time.

Thanks Gnostic.

I will reply by discussing one verse at a time as I don't have much time to mention all.

The first verse from your post is #38 of chapter 36.

In the link below you can go to page 39 of the commentary where that verse and those in relation are mentioned and read the commentary which begins in the next page.

If you look at the last verse in that group it mentions how both the sun and moon are in an orbit and the commentator, Ibn Kathir, explains what that means.

The 'course' of the sun is also mentioned, there are 2 views regarding it, personally the second makes more sense to me but they could both be right nonetheless.

http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsir Ibn Kathir/PDF/036 Yasin.pdf

If anything is still unclear please let me know and I will try to explain further.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks, Eselam.

I actually understand keroghee's interpretations from the other topic. Keroghee is trying to make verses match with modern astronomy. It doesn't work, because in the end, he is taking the verses out of context, with circular reasoning and mental gymnastic so that it would mean something it is not.

And I even understand the interpetations from this Ibn Kathir fellow.

I just think that both of them are making the verses over-complicated, when a far simpler and more logical explanation can be found in the text.

The linked PDF had just reminded me that verse 36:38 often have other verses related that would make more sense if you take all those related verses into consideration.

When you take in verses 39 (about the moon) & 40 (about the sun & moon) into consideration with 36:38, then it actually further validated my point that they are all talking about the course of the sun and moon FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEONE ON EARTH (or how we view these 2 bodies in the sky), not from this heavenly THRONE (1st view) or DAY OF RESURRECTION (2nd view) that Ibn Kathir speak of it.

Then "course" and "resting place" of the sun (36:38) seem to indicate movement of the sun as we see it, in our sky, ending with sunset (hence resting place). Then follow by phases of the moon (in verse 39:

And the moon - We have determined for it phases, until it returns [appearing] like the old date stalk.

And (as for) the moon, We have ordained for it stages till it becomes again as an old dry palm branch.

The "phases" or "stages" of the moon (eg. full moon, new moon, half moon, etc) would only make sense from how WE VIEW the moon. Those moon's phases are caused by the Sun, when the Earth cast its shadow on the moon (except for cases of the full moon.

As to verse 40 about the sun & moon, and day & night:

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).

Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not, it is alike for them, for they believe not.

It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.

I think the older translation from Palmer (1880), actually make more sense than Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Sahih:

Neither is it proper for it to catch up the moon, nor for the night to outstrip the day, but each one floats on in its sky.

...it make more sense, because it use the word "sky", instead of the word "orbit(s)": "but each one floats on in its sky."

But at the same verse 40 is not entirely accurate. The sun and moon each has it own courses in the sky. The verse don't take into the account of the solar eclipse, when the moon do catch up with the sun, casting a huge shadow over some part of the Earth, and day turns into night (hence night outstrips day), for a short period (just over 7 minutes for Total Eclipse),

As all the 3 verses (38, 39 and 40), to me, they related or describe how we would view the sun or moon (or both), if you were to stand outside, and look up.

I often read Muslims telling us, non-Muslims should read the Qur'an in its original language, because the original meanings are lost when we read the translation. But I feel the same is true, when Muslims, like keroghee and others here, tried to interpret the verses with modern context and subtext, especially that of modern science; the original meaning are lost because of these modern scientific contexts/interpretations are being push into those verses.

So let us you, these important questions:

Do you believe EVERY Muslims agree with the modern "scientific" interpretations of the suras?

Do Muslims not make mistake with their "modern" interpretations?

Do you think modern "scientific" context are always compatible with ancient context?

And do you think using modern context changes the original message in the verses? (eg. making the original context "obsolete"?)
​

 

[gnostic]

Here is another thread - Quran & Science, started by FearGod, in which another (Muslim) member (FearGod, of course) believe that a SINGLE VERSE (51:47) think that the heaven is referring to the "universe", and believe the verse referred to the Big Bang.

Here is the quote FearGod used:

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."

And here, is the quote for the OP of Quran & Science:

i can understand from the verse that god is speaking about the universe that he constructed it and steadily expanding it.

That fact was first known in the 20th century and of course it has no meaning before 1400 years for the believers because saying expanding universe got no evidence to be confirmed at that specific time,but only nowadays the verse is very well understood according to modern science.

My question here,can anyone interpret the verse in other way to show that it doesn't mean the expanding universe,such to mean a simpler thing that can be known to anyone on that previous times,do the verse mean anything other than the universe,do the verse mean anything other than expanding.

Please i want explanation and not just words like saying that make no sense ,forer effect .......etc

Like the other Muslims who have posted topics about the Qur'an and Science, FearGod tried to connect a single verse to some sorts of modern science. And like the other Muslims in this forum, FearGod completely ignore the context of the verse.

Like the other verses on this topic (my topic), I believe that the heaven only referred to the SKY (that is the Earth's sky), and not the universe as FearGod believes.

The sky has many different names, which include "heaven". Other names that could be used is FIRMAMENT, DOME, VAULT, and the most important of all, EXPANSE.

FIRMAMENT has been used for the sky in the Bible, like in KJV translations of Genesis 1:6-8 (2nd day of creation) & 1:14-18 (4th day), while the EXPANSE was used for the NIV translations.

And this 51:47 from the Qur'an, there is also Yusuf Ali' translation, which also used the word FIRMAMENT to denote the sky.

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

Here is the definition of FIRMAMENT:

1: the vault or arch of the sky : heavens

And for the EXPANSE:

1: firmament

2: great extent of something spread out <an expanse of calm ocean>

The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 for this heaven or firmament or sky, is raqia or raqija. They saw the sky as a dome or vault. And raqia is very similar to another word raqa, "to spread out", hence "to expand" expanse.

And these are not only explanation to refute FearGod's heaven-universe & supposed Big Bang in verse 51:47.

Regardless, if we use the word "heaven", "firmament" or "expanse", to refer to the SKY, the fact of matter is that there are no other evidences to support FearGod's claim of the UNIVERSE.

If heaven means the UNIVERSE, then why doesn't this verse (47) say anything about the STARS?

If FearGod actually understood the Big Bang, (which I find "highly doubtful"), he would know that the Big Bang would be the formation from the singularity to expansion of universe, which would include the formation of the first element - hydrogen, and to the 1st formation of the earliest stars in our universe.

Verse 47 says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the stars, so how can it (that verse) be referring to the UNIVERSE.

In fact, I don't see anywhere, where STARS are mentioned in this chapter 51 - Adh-Dhariyat, which you would all no doubt know that it is translated into English as "The Winnowing Wind".

All literary evidences, or direct references to "heavens" (in chapter 51), point to the SKY, not to the UNIVERSE. In the beginning of chapter 51, the Qur'an speaks of the WIND (verse 1), cloud & rain (2), sailing (3, you can't sail without wind), thunderbolt (44), and Flood that destroyed people in Noah's time (46).

Our scientific knowledge with weather patterns and predictions with the help of technology (eg satellites) are pretty accurate. We know how it rain, and how atmospheric pressures affect the wind, that we can make prediction or forecast of what the weather would be like. And the universe have absolutely NO BEARING on the wind and rain.

If you read FearGod's, you can see he only concentrate on that SINGLE VERSE (47), and completely ignored all other implied evidences to the SKY, in those other verses that I've mentioned (about the wind, rain, etc).

If there are no references to the stars, but there are to cloud, rain and wind, then it is quite obvious that heaven means Earth's sky in chapter 51. His argument and points are weak.

Why are some Muslims so desperate to make a single verse more than what they actually are? Why twist verse to suit their religious agenda?

And there is clearly religious agenda coming from FearGod, and from what I can see in FearGod's argument it is deceive others. I don't trust his interpretation. And if he is not lying deliberately, then is lying to himself and fooling himself.

I don't blame the Qur'an, but some Muslims' interpretations of some verses. And I know that I'm not wrong in my interpretation of the chapter (51) and verses (47 & others).

 

[paarsurrey]

The Qur'an is not science book.

Quran is not a text book of science; it does not claim to be.

 

[gnostic]

Quran is not a text book of science; it does not claim to be.

And that's true, paarsurrey.

Wow! I believe that this is the only statement of yours that I agree with, since you've joined us.

I've never thought the Qur'an (Bible, Torah or any other scriptures for that matter) is or was a book of science, but some Muslims believe that the Qur'an has some scientific significances - like scientific signs, scientific miracles or scientific facts.

These Muslims (some of them, I must remind you, not all of them) tried to fit a single verse (or two) in a chapter and tried to turn the verse(s) into something that it is not; meaning, they are taking the verse(s) OUT OF CONTEXT.

Especially, when they are trying "to fit" the verse in with known theory of modern science.

Although, I can agree with Muslims that the word heaven mean "outer space" or "universe", in any ancient scripture (so not just the Qur'an), it mean the Earth's SKY, if it does not mean "Paradise" or God's spiritual kingdom.

Before the invention of the telescope, all ancient & medieval people (even the astronomers) thought that they'll the stars (including the Sun), planets and moon were within the dome or vault of the sky (hence within the Earth's atmosphere, like the clouds. They didn't know that there were anything outside of the Earth's atmosphere (out in space).

I am not against that verse (51:47); no, I'm just against feargod's interpretations of that verse.

I would give you a frubal if I could, but my iPod Touch doesn't work with the FRUBAL button. you would have to wait until I get on my PC @ home.