Bible and Science

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Discuss here.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Anyone?

[Yahya Sulaiman]

It should also be noted that the Koran uses the same term ("lamp") to be a poetic nomenclature for both the sun and the stars, thus indicating that the sun is a star.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Good point!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

you know... there is only a certain type of Christian that has an issues reconciling the two creation accounts in Genesis, these are know as Biblical Fundamentalists and they are characterized, in one way, by the belief that the Bible should be taken literally.

this actually represents an minority position within the Christian tradition. for those that hold that the Bible is a spiritual guide meant to impart spiritual lessons, this is not a problem, or even really a consideration.

in point of fact, it was a group of Christian scientists that were attempting to prove the 6,000 year old, YEC version of the Bible, when they actually ended up disproving it! they falsified their own theory and subsequently dropped it. it is unfortunate, that the majority of the Christian Fundamentalist laiety are unaware of this fact.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

So do they believe that God doesn't know his own scientific laws?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Or do they believe that man can write something and attribute it to God?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ansar,

you'd have to ask them :)

i can report my observations to you, however.

i observe that Christians whom are scientists have dispoved a Young Earth CreationISM theory predicated on either Biblical account of creation.

however, i know that those observations hold little weight with my Muslim friends, nevertheless, it should be clear that there are different views regarding the Bible and what it is.

Fundamentalists are very alike, the world over, regardless of religious affiliation or cultural bias, in my experience. they stand in contrast to the Liberals of their faith. we could use the words Orthodox and Heterodox, if it would be more clear.

the Orthodoxy has, in this case, been proven to be incorrect by the Heterodoxy.

[mule]

I am a young earth creationist.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

So do you reject science?

What is your opinion on the scientific miracles in Islam?

[hawk]

I myself think, if you must argue about science, it is far more interesting to talk about evolution.

Evolution is a very very sound theory.
It is apparent in us today.
there are numerous fossils found of other hominids
I certainly dont deny evolution.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Pardon me hawk, but what's that got to do with anything here??


I certainly dont deny evolution.
I do. Or at least what evoloutinists call macro-evoloution. And the reson I deny it is not because Islam is incompatible or anything, because there are many Muslim evoloutinists who show that Islam is compatible with evoloution.
Rather, I deny it on a logical basis.

there are numerous fossils found of other hominids
To me, half of these 'hominids' are clearly human and the others are clearly ape.

Homo Erectus= human
Homo Neanderthalis = human
Homo Habilis= ape

After studying the inner ear structure of these hominids, some of them were proven to not be able to walk upright at all.

Also, the differences that evoloutinists try to pull out between skeletal remains of 'hominids' are no greater than differences we find between different ethnicities.

You guys can try to convince me about evoloution. I doubt it will happen.
;)
Peace

[mule]

Ansar,


So do you reject science?

No. I reject some parts of the theory of evolution. I don't believe in Millions of years. I was designed not evolved for the most part. My uncle is not a monkey. I also believe God created everything in 6 days.


What is your opinion on the scientific miracles in Islam?

Why don't you give me some verses so that I can look at them. I know I have seen them before.


To me, half of these 'hominids' are clearly human and the others are clearly ape.

Homo Erectus= human
Homo Neanderthalis = human
Homo Habilis= ape

After studying the inner ear structure of these hominids, some of them were proven to not be able to walk upright at all.

Also, the differences that evoloutinists try to pull out between skeletal remains of 'hominids' are no greater than differences we find between different ethnicities.

You guys can try to convince me about evoloution. I doubt it will happen.

What's this you don't believe in evolution? Good for you.

mule

[Ratatosk]

Salam,



My uncle is not a monkey.

Humans did indeed not evolve from monkeys. Rather, monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.

Regards,

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Salaam Mule,
I have no issue if you reject parts of the theory of evoloution. But the creation of the universe in 6 days is impossible. That is a fact.

So what is your opinion on the issues I mentioned at the start of the thread?

Plants before Sun, etc.

Don't you find it difficult to believe in a religion that denies established science?


Why don't you give me some verses so that I can look at them. I know I have seen them before.

Oh boy. There's a ton.
Here's a big list:
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

I will start with a few:

God supported His last Prophet Muhammad* with many miracles and much evidence which proved that he is a true Prophet sent by God.* Also, God supported His last revealed book, the Holy Quran, with many miracles that prove that this Quran is the literal word of God, revealed by Him, and that it was not authored by any human being. This chapter discusses some of this evidence.


(1) The Scientific Miracles
in the Holy Quran


The Quran is the literal word of God, which He revealed to His Prophet Muhammad* through the Angel Gabriel.* It was memorized by Muhammad*, who then dictated it to his Companions.* They, in turn, memorized it, wrote it down, and reviewed it with the Prophet Muhammad*.* Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad* reviewed the Quran with the Angel Gabriel once each year and twice in the last year of his life.* From the time the Quran was revealed, until this day, there has always been a huge number of Muslims who have memorized all of the Quran, letter by letter.* Some of them have even been able to memorize all of the Quran by the age of ten.* Not one letter of the Quran has been changed over the centuries.


The Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists.* This proves without doubt that the Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him to the Prophet Muhammad*, and that the Quran was not authored by Muhammad* or by any other human being.* This also proves that Muhammad* is truly a prophet sent by God.* It is beyond reason that anyone fourteen hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophisticated scientific methods.* Some examples follow.


The Quran on the Origin of the Universe:



The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).1* This is one of the undisputed principles of standard modern cosmology.* Scientists now can observe new stars forming out of the remnants of that ‘smoke’ (see figures 10 and 11).
*









Figure 10: A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula), which is one of the remnants of the ‘smoke’ that was the origin of the whole universe. (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest, p. 50.)











Figure 11: The Lagoon nebula is a cloud of gas and dust, about 60 light years in diameter.* It is excited by the ultraviolet radiation of the hot stars that have recently formed within its bulk. (Horizons, Exploring the Universe, Seeds, plate 9, from Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.)* (Click on the image to enlarge it.)



The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that ‘smoke’ material.* God has said in the Quran:


*Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke...* (Quran, 41:11)


Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity.* Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from each other. God has said in the Quran:


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


Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists.* He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.* He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.”2* (To view the RealPlayer video of this comment click here ).* Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”3* (View the RealPlayer video of this comment ).



The Quran on the Cerebrum:



God has said in the Quran about one of the evil unbelievers who forbade the Prophet Muhammad* from praying at the Kaaba:



*No!* If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)!* (Quran, 96:15-16)


Why did the Quran describe the front of the head as being lying and sinful?* Why didn’t the Quran say that the person was lying and sinful?* What is the relationship between the front of the head and lying and sinfulness?


If we look into the skull at the front of the head, we will find the prefrontal area of the cerebrum (see figure 12).* What does physiology tell us about the function of this area?* A book entitled Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology says about this area, “The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex...”1* Also the book says, “In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression....”2








Figure 12: Functional regions of the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex.* The prefrontal area is located at the front of the cerebral cortex. (Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, Seeley and others, p. 210.)* (Click on the image to enlarge it.)



So, this area of the cerebrum is responsible for planning, motivating, and initiating good and sinful behavior and is responsible for the telling of lies and the speaking of truth.* Thus, it is proper to describe the front of the head as lying and sinful when someone lies or commits a sin, as the Quran has said, “...A lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)!”


Scientists have only discovered these functions of the prefrontal area in the last sixty years, according to Professor Keith L. Moore.3



E) The Quran on Seas and Rivers:



Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them.* This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.1* For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water.* When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics.* The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth2 (see figure 13).
*









Figure 13: The Mediterranean sea water as it enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics, because of the barrier that distinguishes between them.* Temperatures are in degrees Celsius (C°). (Marine Geology, Kuenen, p. 43, with a slight enhancement.)* (Click on the image to enlarge it.)



Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.


The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet and that they do not transgress.* God has said:


*He has set free the two seas meeting together.* There is a barrier between them.* They do not transgress.* (Quran, 55:19-20)


But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier.* God has said in the Quran:


*He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter.* And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition.* (Quran, 25:53)


One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?


Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet.* It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.”3* This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water4 (see figure 14).








Figure 14: Longitudinal section showing salinity (parts per thousand ‰) in an estuary.* We can see here the partition (zone of separation) between the fresh and the salt water. (Introductory Oceanography, Thurman, p. 301, with a slight enhancement.)* (Click on the image to enlarge it.)



This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc.* The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea.* Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).


Peace

[mule]

Ratatosk,


Humans did indeed not evolve from monkeys. Rather, monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.

Ok you got me Ratatosk... maybe I should have said that a monkey is not my cousin. :monkey:

:smiley:

mule

[Osman]

Ratatosk,



Ok you got me Ratatosk... maybe I should have said that a monkey is not my cousin. :monkey:

:smiley:

mule

:lol: :lolwhack: How many fruitcakes are there on this forum? eh? eh? eh? eh? eh? eh?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

hmmm... let's seee.. one right above me. :D

[mule]

Science has PROVEN that the account of the Bible on the universe is false.

If you have spare time can you please explain what you mean.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

mule, let me ask you this: what would convince you that evolution is true? What would it take? I'd just like to know.

EDIT: And just so you know, according to evolutionary theory we evolved from an extinct species of great ape, as did the chimpanzees, branching off two ways from the common ancestor, and that's why chimps look more like humans than any other animal on earth.

[hawk]

mule, let me ask you this: what would convince you that evolution is true? What would it take? I'd just like to know.

EDIT: And just so you know, according to evolutionary theory we evolved from an extinct species of great ape, as did the chimpanzees, branching off two ways from the common ancestor, and that's why chimps look more like humans than any other animal on earth.

Hey Yahya, how does evolution fit with your understanding of Islam?

[mule]

Hello Yahya. I hope you are having happy holidays. I hope your schooling is going well.


mule, let me ask you this: what would convince you that evolution is true? What would it take? I'd just like to know.

Show me from the bible that God evolved people from animals.


EDIT: And just so you know, according to evolutionary theory we evolved from an extinct species of great ape, as did the chimpanzees, branching off two ways from the common ancestor, and that's why chimps look more like humans than any other animal on earth.

I believe that they had a common designer and that's why we look sorta alike.

I know a person that looks like a turtle yet I don't believe that this person is related to one.

Merry Christmas,
mule

[Osman]

hmmm... let's seee.. one right above me. :D

Thou fool of an Ansar :mad: :grrr:

[mule]

Osman I think you have a very funny way of showing affection.

[Osman]

Is that:

A. A compliment

B. An insult

C. Neither

D. You don't know :)

[mule]

c. an observation.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

If you have spare time can you please explain what you mean.

I thought I did at the start of the thread.

Anyway, plants could NOT have existed before the the formation of the sun!!

You might as well beliieve that the earth is flat!

I have no problem if you reject evoloution though. In my opinion it is not established.

hawk,
Many evoloutinists support their belief with Qur'anic verses. It is not against evoloution in anyway.

But I am. ;)

Perhaps we could start a thread on evoloution? (again)

peace

[mule]

I thought I did at the start of the thread.

Anyway, plants could NOT have existed before the the formation of the sun!!

Plants can exist with out the sun. My Mom used to grow house plants in the basement. The bible says that there was light before the Sun and really if you really think about I'm sure that plants won't die if they sit in the dark a day or two. Its when you start adding time to the bible when things get a bit harry.


You might as well beliieve that the earth is flat!

I wouldn't believe that the earth is flat because my bible says its circular.

[hawk]

hawk,
Many evoloutinists support their belief with Qur'anic verses. It is not against evoloution in anyway.

But I am. ;)

Perhaps we could start a thread on evoloution? (again)

peace

Im sorry Ansar,
I dont follow: how do you then account for Adam and Eve?
The first man and woman?

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Assalamu Alaykum,

Hawk,
there are many theories. You could ask the evoloutinist muslims here what they believe. The one I have heard is that Adam and Eve's souls were transferred to the first Homo Sapiens.

I don't recall how the other theories go. I dislike them.

mule,


Plants can exist with out the sun. My Mom used to grow house plants in the basement. The bible says that there was light before the Sun and really if you really think about I'm sure that plants won't die if they sit in the dark a day or two. Its when you start adding time to the bible when things get a bit harry.

You're right. If you say that the 6 days refer to 6 24-hour periods then you can solve that problem. but you are left with the problem that the earth was not possibly created in 6 days. Besides, it took 100 million years for it to settle down before any life could form at all.

I think you are embarassing hawk with your unscientific notions. :D


I wouldn't believe that the earth is flat because my bible says its circular.

Hmmm...


The Bible says:* The Earth is flat!


The sections of this article are:


-* The Bible says:* The Earth is flat!
-* The flat Earth is established and can never move?!* The Sun hurries back to where
*** it rises?!
-* The Earth has pillars?!
-* The Earth has Edges?!* The wicked might get shaken off of it and fall off in
*** space?!
-* Does Isaiah 40:22 really say that Earth is Round?* The Earth is a flat circle?!
-* Christian Theologians' Commentaries that further suggest that the Earth
*** is flat.
-* The light of the Universe and the flat earth's dimensions in the Bible.
-* Conclusion.


When it comes to scientific claims, the Bible has the dumbest claims, with all due respect to Jews and Christians.* The Bible claims that Earth has four ends and four corners.* Nobody can ever think a ball or a cycle to have corners and ends!* Only flat items can have corners and ends, and this is exactly what the bible is trying to express regarding the shape of the earth.* The earth is not flat, as once thought and it has no corners or ends at all. * If Magnetic Poles can be taken as ends or corners of earth, then this definitely opposed to the axis of rotation.*


Isaiah 11:12*
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)


Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)*


Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)*


Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)*


Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)*


Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)*


Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.*


*


The flat Earth is established and can never move?!* The Sun hurries back to where it rises?!


The Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 verses from the Bible in this section were sent to me by Abdullah Bisyir; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.


"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. * (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"


"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength.* The world [The deceiving translators should've said "earth", not "world"] is firmly established; it cannot be moved. * (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 93:1)"


"Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." * The world [Again, the deceiving translators should've said "earth", not "world"] is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.* (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)"


"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.* (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"


Well, I don't think there is any need for much explanation to the nonsense above! * It is crystal clear that the Bible is full of man-made corruptions and alterations. * Since when the Earth is flat and can never move?!* We all know that the Earth and the other planets rotate and move in space around the Sun.* Since when the Sun hurries back to where it rises, like if there is some hole it rises from and another hole it sets through on Earth?!


For those Jews and Christians who would like to see where in the Noble Quran does Allah Almighty say that the planets in space rotate and move, read the following Noble Verse:


"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. *(The Noble Quran, 21:33)"


For more information and other Noble Verses, please visit:


Science in the Noble Quran and Islam.


The Earth is round according to Islam.


*


The Earth has pillars?!


"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.* (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"


"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.* (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:4)"


*


The Earth has Edges?!


"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?* (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"


"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.* (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"


"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.* (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)"


"Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea.* (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)"


*


Does Isaiah 40:22 really say that Earth is Round?


It is quite clear that the above Biblical Verses suggest and claim that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations.* No unbiased person would deny the straight forward quotes above.* Only the desperate biased Jews and Christians would.


Some desperate Christians have gone as far as presenting Isaiah 40:22 to try to prove that the Bible claims that the earth is round.


Let us look at what the Verse says:


"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.* He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.* (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"


First of all, a circle is not a ball or sphere or an egg-shaped object.* A circle is a flat round surface, similar to flat rectangular, or square, or triangular surfaces. * So if the Bible claims that the Earth is a circle, then this is still bogus because the earth is obviously not a flat surface.


We have two conditions here:


1- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth is a flat circle.


2- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth has a circle above it.


If we were to take condition #1, then we are left with a clear and irrefutable contradiction between Isaiah 40:22 and some of the Bible's verses that I mentioned above in the article, because a flat circle doesn't have "four corners", and ironically in either case, we still have a scientifically false claim about the Earth's shape.


IF we were to take condition #2, then it doesn't prove that the Earth is an egg-shaped figure, and Isaiah 40:22 surely becomes irrelevant to this subject.


One thing is for sure clear, and that is Isaiah 40:22 is obviously ambiguous and not clear if we wish to prove from it that the Earth is not flat and is egg-shaped.* If we look at what the entire Bible says (as presented above by all the Verses) about the shape of the Earth as the Roman Catholic Church did in the past, then we would reach the same conclusion they reached, and that is:* The Earth is Flat!


Certainly, when Christopher Columbus thought that he could reach India by going west in the Atlantic ocean instead of east as it was traditionally done, the Church in Europe was afraid that he will eventually reach the "end of the earth" and the "Edges of the earth" as the Bible clearly says above, and fall off into the space and die.


After he was able to convince the Queen that the adventure was worth the try, Christopher Columbus had survived several assassination attempts while he and his people were sailing in the ocean, because his Christian Church-believing mates were afraid and wanted to go back.*


When he finally found America, he thought he reached India.* That's why the North American Continent was called "India", and the Native Americans were called "Red Indians".


This is at least what I learned from my "US History" class when I was in High School.


*


Christian Theologians' Commentaries that further suggest that the Earth is flat:


The following is an email I received from brother Mohammed; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.


Subj:*** (no subject)
Date:*** 4/24/02 8:22:58 AM Central Daylight Time
From:*** MOHAMMEDALTAFK@aol.com
To:*** ISLM4EVR1@aol.com


Assalamu alaikum Dear brother


Look at this Pre-scientific view: Ancient Pagan religions in the Mediterranean area and Middle East taught that the universe was quite tiny.* Earth is more or less flat, like a dinner plate.* Mountains around the edges held up a rigid dome which formed the sky.* The sun, moon, planets and stars traveled across the underside of the dome of the sky on a daily basis.* God sits on his throne in Heaven, which lies above the canopy.* This applies to Isaiah 40:22.


The site that is talking about this is at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl.htm


Further on we now have refuted those layman scholars who say the word in Isaiah means a Globe: EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN scholars who agree that Isaiah 40:22 does NOT speak of a spherical earth.* There are even Evangelical publishers of books and Bible commentaries who do NOT teach that Isaiah 40:22 speaks of a spherical earth.* BAKER BOOKS and evangelical publisher published the following book about Isaiah 40:22:


What You Know Might Not Be So: 220 Misinterpretations of Bible Texts Explained by David C. Downing Paperback (September 1987) Baker Book House; ISBN: 0801029759.


And EVANGELICALS now have a commentary on Genesis available which takes the ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis seriously.* It is Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary by John H. Walton (past professor of OT at Moody Bible Institute, and now at Wheaton),published by Zondervan, 2001.**


Although it is not a technical commentary like Gordon Wenham's, it is a solid scholarly piece of work.* 759 pages, nearly half of which deal with Genesis 1-11.* Paul Seely, an Evangelical scholar, has even written a paper that was published in the WESTMINSTER REVIEW (an EVANGELICAL college), in which he says the following:


The Geographical Meaning of Earth Seas in Genesis 1:10
by Paul Seely:


"There is one verse in the OT, however, which has often been cited at least by laymen as a proof that the earth was understood to be a globe.* I refer to Isaiah 40:22 which speaks of God as the One sitting above the circle of the earth. * This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which necessarily implies anything more than the circularity of the flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of.* If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.' "


For as E. J. Young noted, Isaiah 40:22 describes God as seated on the zenith, the highest point directly overhead.* Thus the verse implies that earth's dwellers, all mankind according to Psalm 33:13, 14, are clearly visible from a very high point directly overhead.* This imagery fits most naturally the conception of the earth below as a flat disc, not a globe.* For if the earth were a globe, part of all mankind namely earth's dwellers in Australia, Argentina, South Africa, etc... could not be seen from a point directly overhead.* One could force the issue by appealing to God's omniscience, but Isaiah 40:22 (as well as the other verses which mention God looking down) is focused on God's height above the earth; and his seeing all mankind is derived from that height. * That phrase "the circle of the earth" in no way implies sphericity is confirmed by the fact that in Egypt this phrase was used to refer to the earth as a flat circular disc.* So when interpreted within its historical and biblical context Isaiah 40:22 implies indeed that the earth is circular in shape but also that it is flat.*


*


The light of the Universe and the flat earth's dimensions in the Bible:


The following is an email I received from brother Mohammed Riaz M; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.


Here is excellent proof that the author of the corrupted bible thought that the earth was a flat one.


1. Job 37:33 He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.


Riaz : Lighting doesn't travel around the earth the biblical god thought his earth was a small, flat one.


2. Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?


Riaz : If the author of the bible thought of a globe earth then the last question in job 38: 44 should of read "Who stretched a measuring line around it?"


Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?


Riaz : Does a sphere have ends, and how can you grab the ends of a sphere? Only a flat disc or square could be grabbed and shaken in this way.


*


Conclusion:


The Bible not only failed to claim that the Earth was egg-shaped, but it also claimed in numerous verses as shown above that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations.* As I said above, no unbiased person would deny the obvious and embarrassing quotes above.* Only the desperate biased Jews and Christians would.


it appears as though the Bible does say the Earth is flat. :D

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Hey Yahya, how does evolution fit with your understanding of Islam?

Surah 71 refers to the human race having been made through various grades. That sure sounds like evolution to me.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Hello Yahya. I hope you are having happy holidays. I hope your schooling is going well.

The holidays are fine over here. My sister, brother-in-law and niece have flown here from Maryland for Christmas, and it's good to have them around.


Show me from the bible that God evolved people from animals.

It indeed says no such thing, but I don't think it necessarily rules out evolution either. We've discussed this before, on the Christianity board you used to moderate. Do you want to go through it again? I'm game if you are.


I believe that they had a common designer and that's why we look sorta alike.

The Mona Lisa and the Last Supper had a common designer, but they don't look a thing like each other, now do they?


I know a person that looks like a turtle yet I don't believe that this person is related to one.

While that person's facial attributes may resemble a turtle somewhat, they will still look much more like a chimpanzee than like a turtle. Even the shape of their body should give that away. Incredible as it may seem, the DNA of chimpanzees and the DNA of humans are 99% the same.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

Incorrect.


THE "99 %" MYTH IS DEAD
Evolutionists Admit That Humans and Chimps Are Not Genetically Similar



For a very long time, the evolutionist choir has been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature, you could read sentences like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human". Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.


A recent study shows that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought", they report the following:



There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.


Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.


The biologist based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.


This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent. i



New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":



We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. ii



The researcher and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of the evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design".



Common Design, not Common Ancestory


But what does the genetic similarity between man and chimps - even as 95 % - mean? To answer that question, one has to look at the whole picture.


When we look at genetic comparisons in general, we find surprising similarities which do not fit within the alleged evolutionary relationships between species. For example a genetic analysis has revealed a surprising 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.iii According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were unrelated to each other even 530 million years ago. Thus, the % 70 similarity - a very high figure for humans and nematode worms, completely different and dissimilar life forms - does not imply any evolutionary relationship.


On the other hand, the analyses carried on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of terrestrial vertebrates were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. iv


These results, along with many others, shows that genetic similarities between man and animals, and animals themselves, do not fit in any evolutionary pattern. In other words, the reason of similarity can not be "common ancestory" as the theory of evolution suggests.


Then what is the reason? When we rethink the subject, we can see that the similarities stem from the fact that all life forms have similar functions and thus similar necessities. As we have explained in one of our previous articles, "Darwinists Misrepresentations About the Human Genome Project", it is surely reasonable for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.


But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given for similar structures and genes in living things? The answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these structures as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately to perform a particular function.


Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities in living things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is not valid, and that the only rational explanation for such similarities is "common design," i.e. Creation.




(i) http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/24/humans.chimps.ap/index.html
(ii) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833
(iii) New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27
(iv) New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19




In fact, none of the genetic similarities between different species point to an evolutionary relationship. In recent years, scientific discoveries have refuted many evolutionist assumptions. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:



…[S]cientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone. 1



Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, admits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way:



No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. 2



The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, but rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999. This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that" new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":



A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.... 3





1. James Lake, Ravi Jain ve Maria Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, vol. 283, 1999, p. 2027
2. Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854
3. Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305

Source: http://www.DARWINISM-WATCH.com
by our beloved Harun Yahya

[Ansar Al-Haq]

I agree with mule on this one. ( :eek: surprising eh?)

[mule]

Ansar,


you are left with the problem that the earth was not possibly created in 6 days. Besides, it took 100 million years for it to settle down before any life could form at all.

It may be solved 2 different ways. I'm just going to give you one way. Adam and Eve were created fully grown as were the animals and the plants why wouldn't God have created the earth to be "fully developed" or adult. Why do you assume that God created adult people and animals and plants and put them on a planet that was not mature enough to hold life?

You forget I think how extraordinary the creation was.

Mule

[mule]

I agree with mule on this one. ( surprising eh?)

I am most impressed that you don't believe in evolution. That's not a popular thing. I am impressed that there are muslims that dont believe in evolution.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

It may be solved 2 different ways. I'm just going to give you one way. Adam and Eve were created fully grown as were the animals and the plants why wouldn't God have created the earth to be "fully developed" or adult. Why do you assume that God created adult people and animals and plants and put them on a planet that was not mature enough to hold life?


I believe Science has shown that the Earth was not created fully developed. We know that it took 100 million years for the Earth to settle down. You would have to admit that the Bible favours an unscientific notion.


I am most impressed that you don't believe in evolution. That's not a popular thing. I am impressed that there are muslims that dont believe in evolution.

I am equally surprised to find Christians who don't believe in the theory as well. :)

[mule]

It indeed says no such thing, but I don't think it necessarily rules out evolution either. We've discussed this before, on the Christianity board you used to moderate. Do you want to go through it again? I'm game if you are.
Yahya Sulaiman,

No. because you get mad at me. I am just visiting anyways. Please have a safe Christmas.

mule

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Yahya Sulaiman,

No. because you get mad at me.

I'm getting very weary of explaining to you over and over again that I'm not the grouch you think I am. I suppose you have annoyed me somewhat on certain occasions, but I've never been mad at you.


I am just visiting anyways.

You've been on the board for an awfully long time for someone who's just visiting, if I understand you correctly.


Please have a safe Christmas.

I will, of course, do my best.

[Paulpablo]

No it doesnt, if a human is evolved from a species of ape that is now extinct like i think you said then that makes the ape it came from not human, just as if birds came from dinosaurs the dinosaurs arent considered to be a different grade of bird.

[beloved]

Oh dear, this looks like another bible bashing

Right bible and science take your pick here, faster than speed of light, holographs, space being ripped and warped, 9 dimensions on string theory, smart weapons. Cloning, all mentioned in the bible.

[beloved]

I believe Science has shown that the Earth was not created fully developed. We know that it took 100 million years for the Earth to settle down. You would have to admit that the Bible favours an unscientific notion.



I am equally surprised to find Christians who don't believe in the theory as well. :)

How would the bible favor uan unscientific notion when science has proven that the speed if light was never been constant

Why would we favor evolution, when the very nature of it flawed, as we are just made up of carbon, therefore thought is just a by product of our evolution, if thought is just a by product how can one trust it? Therefore how can one trust human mind

[Ryans_Nuts]

How would the bible favor uan unscientific notion when science has proven that the speed if light was never been constant

Why would we favor evolution, when the very nature of it flawed, as we are just made up of carbon, therefore thought is just a by product of our evolution, if thought is just a by product how can one trust it? Therefore how can one trust human mind

You could be scepticle about it. After all the big bang theory - the long process. In some sense dosen't make sense at all. If you were to belive one massive explosion started this chain reaction - this chain reaction would then cause new life to be born form one dying star. Kinda odd if you ask me? Black holes them selfs can be created fairly easy once a massive star emplodes then explodes on itself. There would be more than enough energy for a black hole to be created - thus making the explosion/after math - confusing. The black hole itself should have devoured pretty much everything. Mabe a ultra massive black hole was made once the big bang started. Are we that far away from that ultra massive black hole? We already know black holes have insane ammounts of gravitational pulls. But because its so big - its gravitational pull should be more than enough to make the current ultra massive black holes we've discoverd to seem insignificant. Maybe its so big we cant see it? Maybe it was never created. But when you look on the god side of things. How do you expect for someone like me - to just "Go with it" as most religous people would tell me. I can't just GO with it. I wan't proof.

[mclinkin94]

[