Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Every living thing made from water. Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Author Message
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 12 November 2012 at 2:35am
Originally posted by Beebok

Muslims established not only memorization of the word, but proper readings such as where to pause to inhale. If someone memorized the Quran without this proper education, it would not be accepted by the scholarly community as a correct reading, even though the words were perfect.The fact that we have even deviant readings of the same words shows even more thoroughly how carefully and perfectly we preserved the Quran.Actually, a real example of what a real scholar says include:"And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places."and"...these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how many difference there are."and"there are more differences  among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."

But since there are deviant readings as you say, who decided which one was or is correct? It said that the Uthman script (there are no known copies) was unpointed and so rather that fix the reading would inevitably multiply the variants.

Of course there are differences between NT manuscripts but very few of these differences are significant. One should also note that if a word say was spelled differently 50 times it would be counted as 50 variants though no rational person would regard it as of serious significance. The point is there are about 25,000 manuscripts that contain portions or whole books and therefore with such a body of evidence the accuracy of the Greek NT can be assured. I would point out here that we don't need to invoke any supernatural intervention to have confidence in the text.

Finally, just because a text is known to be accurate does not mean you have to accept what it says be it the NT or the Quran or indeed any scripture - that is the point where faith convinces you but to come to that point you have to have read with some honesty the relevant texts for yourself not approach them in a unbiased manner.

Edited by bunter - 12 November 2012 at 6:39am
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 983
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 12 November 2012 at 2:53am
In the Bible it says this.
Genesis
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
 
So it's clear even in the Bible that water was created even before the earth. The significance of this is that this is only the second verse of Genesis, striking home the importance and meaning of this verse.
 
A believer should not have nay doubt at all because in the Holy Qur;an it says this.
 
Sahih International
 
Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. 24:25
 
Water is also pure and all living things depend on it, that in itself should say something to us.
 
Salman bin 'Amir (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
I heard the Prophet (sallallahu%20alaihi%20wa%20sallam) saying, "When one of you breaks his Saum (fasting), let him break it on dates; if he does not have any, break his fast with water for it is pure."
 
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 12 November 2012 at 6:57am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

In the Bible it says this. Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. So it's clear even in the Bible that water was created even before the earth. The significance of this is that this is only the second verse of Genesis, striking home the importance and meaning of this verse.

This is a mistake because you are assuming that the verses in Genesis 1 are strictly chronological and literal. In fact what I and many others believe is that Genesis 1 cannot be read literally and it seems to be structured so that is makes excellent logical sense but not necessarily chronological sense. Therefore, the correct way of reading it might be non-chronological, topical and theological. Consider, when the earth was first created it is said to be shapeless and empty: the first three days deal with its shape and the second three with filling it up with creatures suitable to its different parts.

Day 1 The separation of darkness and light
Day 4 The creation of the lights to rule the day and night

Day 2 The separation of the waters to form sea and sky
Day 5 The creation of birds and fish to fill the sea and sky

Day 3 The separation of the sea from dry land & creation of plants
Day 6 The creation of animals

The whole passage reflects and speaks of the harmony, order and beauty in God's creation. In short it is perfectly possible to find an interpretation that tells us what God is saying to us in this passage as long as we are willing to take some time and effort to do it with an open mind for we cannot demand God speaks to us in the way WE would like it to be.

With regard to 'everything being made from water' then you need to say what that might mean - does it mean everything is made out of water or everything needs water or what? Obviously we are not made entirely out of water and it is equally obviously we need water to survive so I don't see any scientific miracle here. Plus the Quran also says men are made out of 'sounding clay' in Q15:26, 'dust' in Q30:20 so are these verses mistake?
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 983
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 12 November 2012 at 11:32am
Originally posted by bunter


This is a mistake because you are assuming that the verses in Genesis 1 are strictly chronological and literal. In fact what I and many others believe is that Genesis 1 cannot be read literally and it seems to be structured so that is makes excellent logical sense but not necessarily chronological sense. Therefore, the correct way of reading it might be non-chronological, topical and theological. Consider, when the earth was first created it is said to be shapeless and empty: the first three days deal with its shape and the second three with filling it up with creatures suitable to its different parts.

Day 1 The separation of darkness and light
Day 4 The creation of the lights to rule the day and night

Day 2 The separation of the waters to form sea and sky
Day 5 The creation of birds and fish to fill the sea and sky

Day 3 The separation of the sea from dry land & creation of plants
Day 6 The creation of animals

The whole passage reflects and speaks of the harmony, order and beauty in God's creation. In short it is perfectly possible to find an interpretation that tells us what God is saying to us in this passage as long as we are willing to take some time and effort to do it with an open mind for we cannot demand God speaks to us in the way WE would like it to be.

With regard to 'everything being made from water' then you need to say what that might mean - does it mean everything is made out of water or everything needs water or what? Obviously we are not made entirely out of water and it is equally obviously we need water to survive so I don't see any scientific miracle here. Plus the Quran also says men are made out of 'sounding clay' in Q15:26, 'dust' in Q30:20 so are these verses mistake?
 
Are you serious? If you read Genesis 1:2 properly it says that the earth was without from and void, but there was already water created, not necessarily a sea or an ocean as you and I will know as.
 
In an attempt to accommodate the supposed evolutionary geological ages in Genesis, theorists postulate a long gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, in which it was hoped these ages could be pigeon-holed and forgott The real answer to the geological ages is not a pre-Adamic cataclysm, but the very real cataclysm of the Noahic Deluge (see comments on Genesis 6-9), which provides a much better explanation of the fossil beds and sedimentary rocks, eliminating all evidence of geological ages and confirming the Biblical doctrine of recent creation.

The verb "was" in Genesis 1:2 is the regular Hebrew verb of being (hayetha) and does not denote a change of state unless the context so requires. It only rarely is translated "became," as the gap theory postulates here. Neither does the phrase itohu waw bohu need to mean "ruined and desolated," as the gap theory requires. The King James translation "without form and void" is the proper meaning.

The universe as first called into existence by Elohim was in elemental existence, still "unformed" and unenergized, not yet ready for habitation, "void" (see notes on Psalm 33:6-9; Proverbs 8:22-31; Isaiah 45:18; 2 Peter 3:5). It would not be perfect (finished) until the end of creation week, when God would pronounce it "very good" and "finished" (Genesis 1:31-2:3). The "earth" material was suspended in a matrix of water (the "deep"), completely static and therefore in "darkness."
 

However, this condition prevailed only momentarily. Then, the "Spirit" (Hebrew ruach) of "God" (Elohim) proceeded to "move upon the face of the waters" (literally, "vibrate in the presence of the waters"). Waves of gravitational energy and waves of electro-magnetic energy began to pulse forth from the great "Breath" (another meaning of ruach) of God, the Prime Mover of the universe. The unformed "earth" material (Hebrew eretz), as well as the "waters" permeating it (Hebrew shamayim) quickly coalesced into spherical form under the new force of gravity, and the first material body (Planet Earth) had been formed at a point in space.

Source:

KJV Defenders Study Bible, by Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Publisher: Thomas Nelson
Language: English
DEF 10 ISBN 0-529-10444-x
DEF 10-1 ISBN 0-529-10445-8



Edited by Abu Loren - 12 November 2012 at 11:33am
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Online
Posts: 1613
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 12 November 2012 at 4:00pm

Originally posted by Beebok

Although some of the importance of water to life was known before the 1976 mission, it hadn’t sunk in enough for NASA scientists to look for water. It only struck them to do so after the Viking missions, according to this show.

[sigh] No, that's not it at all, but I can see how this documentary might give you that mistaken impression.

The Viking mission was designed to look for positive signs of life "as we know it", i.e. water-based life.  If the experiment had been successful, we would have had sufficient evidence to say that there was life on Mars.  Unfortunately, Viking failed to find such evidence; and in the process we learned just how difficult that is to do.

It was around the same time that science came to realize the amazing diversity of life "as we know it", in the deep ocean, deserts, etc.  We learned that on Earth at least, where there is water, there is probably life.  In fact, it's hard to find a place on our planet where there is water and there isn't life.

The failure of Viking, coupled with our new knowledge of just how adaptive life "as we know it" can be, convinced NASA scientists to change their approach.  Instead of looking for sufficient evidence, they decided to settle for finding the necessary conditions for life.  Finding those conditions would not prove that there is life on Mars, but at least it would give us reason to hope, and help us to know where to look for positive signs.

It wasn't that it never occurred to scientists to look for water.  In fact, the BBC documentary mentions Percival Lowell, whose interest over a hundred years ago in the supposed "canals" on Mars was because "he understood the importance of water, H2O, to living things."

It was rather that after Viking failed to answer the more ambitious question, "Does life exist on Mars?", NASA decided to ask the easier question, "Could life exist on Mars?"; and the easiest way to ask this second question was to look for water.

It is even more ludicrous to suppose that a desert-dwelling tribe (of all people!) would need divine inspiration to understand that water is essential to life.  For them this isn't even science -- it's basic survival.

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 13 November 2012 at 4:46am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Are you serious?

Absolutely. I am not familiar with the book you mentioned but in its notes it obviously has a creationist and literalist agenda. It clearly goes way beyond what one might learn from the text itself - there is no warrant at all for saying 'breath" equates to "Waves of gravitational energy and waves of electro-magnetic energy.... " I don't take a creationist and literal view, I am happy to accept that creation occured in much the way modern science portrays it - that is creation goes on because God made it so it could reproduce itself.

I cite two books, the first by Professor Andrew Parker, a non-believer, who wrote a book called "The Genesis Enigma" and concluded that the Genesis account matches perfectly with modern science. Similarly, Professor Earnest Lucas, a believer who has 2 Phd's, in his book "Can we believe Genesis today" apply science and find certainty there - does it not seem telling that two formidable experts in science agree?

'Can we believe Genesis Today' - ISBN 9781 84474 1205
'The Genesis Enigma' - ISBN 9780 55277 5281



Edited by bunter - 13 November 2012 at 4:52am
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 983
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 13 November 2012 at 10:10am
Originally posted by bunter


Absolutely. I am not familiar with the book you mentioned but in its notes it obviously has a creationist and literalist agenda. It clearly goes way beyond what one might learn from the text itself - there is no warrant at all for saying 'breath" equates to "Waves of gravitational energy and waves of electro-magnetic energy.... " I don't take a creationist and literal view, I am happy to accept that creation occured in much the way modern science portrays it - that is creation goes on because God made it so it could reproduce itself.

I cite two books, the first by Professor Andrew Parker, a non-believer, who wrote a book called "The Genesis Enigma" and concluded that the Genesis account matches perfectly with modern science. Similarly, Professor Earnest Lucas, a believer who has 2 Phd's, in his book "Can we believe Genesis today" apply science and find certainty there - does it not seem telling that two formidable experts in science agree?

'Can we believe Genesis Today' - ISBN 9781 84474 1205
'The Genesis Enigma' - ISBN 9780 55277 5281

 
OK then a straightforward question.
 
Do you believe in the 'gap theory'?
IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 13 November 2012 at 11:08am
Originally posted by Abu Loren


Originally posted by bunter


Absolutely. I am not familiar with the book you mentioned but in its notes it obviously has a creationist and literalist agenda. It clearly goes way beyond what one might learn from the text itself - there is no warrant at all for saying 'breath" equates to "Waves of gravitational energy and waves of electro-magnetic energy.... " I don't take a creationist and literal view, I am happy to accept that creation occured in much the way modern science portrays it - that is creation goes on because God made it so it could reproduce itself.

I cite two books, the first by Professor Andrew Parker, a non-believer, who wrote a book called "The Genesis Enigma" and concluded that the Genesis account matches perfectly with modern science. Similarly, Professor Earnest Lucas, a believer who has 2 Phd's, in his book "Can we believe Genesis today" apply science and find certainty there - does it not seem telling that two formidable experts in science agree?

'Can we believe Genesis Today' - ISBN 9781 84474 1205
'The Genesis Enigma' - ISBN 9780 55277 5281


 
OK then a straightforward question.
 
Do you believe in the 'gap theory'?


Well if you mean a God of the gaps then, no I don't accept it. In general it seems to me that what modern science says is the best explanatio we have, but of course like all science, it's results are always open to refutation or updating
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 36 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com