Alleged Contradictions

[Electra]

You'll have to explain this. If what you are telling me is that there are alleged contradictions similar to this in the Bible that can be cleared up, then yes. But I fail to see why this is such a big deal.

I didn't just make up random things in order to clear this alleged contradiction. I took what is there and explained and also took some information regarding the actual meanings of some of the key words. Is there a problem with this?

Never said you did make up things - Im only saying that if we applied the way in which you go about explaining the allaged contradictions in Quran, we can apply the same principle in explaining contradictions in Bible or anywhere else for that matter, and thus argue that there are no contradictions in either books.

I guess my point is that there should not be such thing as ''interpretation'' in a book everyone claims is a book which is from god telling us how to live - a handbook of rules should not hold a metaphore of any kind if it is to be followed properly, no?

 

[humblemuslim]

i've always found the description of mountains and what they do to be completely contradictory to our understanding of mountains.

The description given in the Qur'an? Any specific verses? If not I'll just make a post about this topic specificly.

 

[humblemuslim]

Never said you did make up things - Im only saying that if we applied the way in which you go about explaining the allaged contradictions in Quran, we can apply the same principle in explaining contradictions in Bible or anywhere else for that matter, and thus argue that there are no contradictions in either books.

Well there is one problem with this statement. You are assuming every contradiction in both Books are explainable by the method I've been using. Letme finish my Pi argument last post, answer the mountain question, along with other questions then I'll present an argument that is not explainable using any method I've used up till now.

I guess my point is that there should not be such thing as ''interpretation'' in a book everyone claims is a book which is from god telling us how to live - a handbook of rules should not hold a metaphore of any kind if it is to be followed properly, no?

Interpertations arise often times because of translations. Take something out of the original lanaguage and you're bound to misunderstand something. As for other instances when people disagree on the meaning even in the original language, well at this point you must consider a fact: Humans don't know everything. Since we aren't all knowledgable on the topics, we might begin to argue points that are true just as stated simply because the times calls it incorrect (i.e. External Contradictions). This is exactly why I don't usually even mention external contradictions when discussing the Bible with someone. I mean they might be worth mentioning once as an observation, but past that you'll find external contradictions are based on weak grounds and can easily be skewed to seem correct for the times. For instance, the Bible has a passage that says the earth is a circle. If people thought the earth was flat they could easily interpert this to mean the earth is indeed flat. People of modern times take this same verse and explain there is no word for sphere, therefore circle most the most appropiate word and that the Bible was not calling the earth flat. The Bible didn't change, only the people's interpertations of the text in this fictional situtation.

 

[humblemuslim]

For the sake of wrapping up the Pi argument I'm going to undertake the final situtation that is possible:

Cubit - 17 to 22 inches

Handbreadth - 2[size=-1].5[/size] to 4 inches

(All Measurements will be in inches until Pi is finally calculated)

All Cases are where the Diamter is measured from Outter brim to Outter brim and circumference is the Inner circumference:


The first thing that needs to be established is a range where Pi is close to being valid (Because under this circumstance a close value will be achieved).

There are two variables : The Converison factor used and the Handbreadth used. First lets consider the following observation:

As the conversion factor increases with a constant Handbreadth Pi very slowly decreases, Example:

CC = 17
HB = 2.5

Pi = 3.0909090909090909090909090909091

CC = 22
HB = 2.5

Pi = 3.0697674418604651162790697674419

This shows that it indeed drops, and not by much.

So what about HB?

CC = 17
HB = 4

Pi = 3.1481481481481481481481481481481

A nice increase by increasing the HB. (Pretty close value to PI)

Now this is where the problem arises. Notice the minimum CC with the Maximum HB yields a close value to PI. Therefore all CC values can yield close values with varying HB (Therefore I'll do two things):

First I'll fix the value of Pi to be exactly Pi and find out exactly the HB needed for each varying CC

CC = 17

HB = 3.83097902313

Fix HB = 4.00000

CC = 17.7500319342

CC = 18

HB = 4.05633073038 (Over the maximum HB Value)

CC = 19

HB = 4.28168243762 (Over the maximum HB Value)

CC = 20

HB = 4.50703414486 (Over the Maximum HB Value)

CC = 21

HB = Over the Value if pattern continues increasing, and it does. Check it.

CC = 22

HB = Over again. Check if you want.

After this only 17 passes the test, and maybe even 18 because it was so close.


Now I'll Vary HB and calculate the most favorable CC based on the true value of Pi:

HB = 2.5

CC = 11.0937699589 (Under the range of CC Values)

HB = 3.0

CC = 13.3125239507 (Still Under but increasing)

HB = 3.5

CC = 15.5312779425 (Still Under but closer)

(Now for alittle jump to where the CC value is exactly 17)

HB = 3.83097902313

CC = 17.000000000000


Any CC value In the range 17 - 17.7500319342 Will yield a HB within the acceptable range.

Any HB value above 3.83097902313 - 4.000 Will yield a CC within the acceptable range


Therefore without doing any further calculations it is POSSIBLE to get the exact value of PI using these ranges in conjunction. It is only possible under the circumstance listed above.


Now one must ask : "Is this circumstance even supported by the context of the verse?"


Kings I 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other; it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about

and

Chronicles II 4:2
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass ,and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

The key words that make me question whether the inner circumference situtation could even hold true are the following : "a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

When you measure "ABOUT" something do you measure the inside? This seems to imply the circumference was measured as an OUTSIDE CIRCUMFERNCE. If this is indeed true, which I'd be glad to hear proof otherwise, then there is one of two things possible:

The Diameter was also an outter to outter measurement meaning that the value of Pi would infact come right back to where we start : Pi = 3

OR

The diameter is an inner diameter, in which case it is IMPOSSIBLE for Pi to be even greater than or equal to 3.


So one must consider the following : "Would the uncertainty of the converison factors of a cubit effect the Pi result even if both are measured outside?" Answer: No, they mathetical cancel out. Pi will remain exactly 3 under this circumstance.

Which brings me to the final point: "Could the uncertainty effect the Pi result under the Outer Circumference Inner Diameter situtation?" Answer: Yes and that is the final thing I'll look at.


In the first two posts I found that:

1. Lowest HB yields value nearest PI
2. Higher CC yields value nearest PI


So one can ask "Just how far outside the accepted range must we go to reach a reasonable value of PI?"

Good question lets find out:

By simple algebra and setting the PI value to an exact value of PI we find that the HB must equal exactly(Without accounting for converison factors):

HB = -.225351707243

You can't have a negative HB length.....therefore altering the HB range to satisfy the value of PI isn't a valid method.


Now doing the same for CC(Assuming HB = 2.5):

CC = -11.0937699589

Now assuming HB is 1.0

CC = -4.43750798356

Now assuming HB is 0.5

CC = =2.21875399178

Now assuming HB is .025

CC = -0.110937699589

Now assuming HB is .000000000000000000001

CC = -4.43750798356 E -21

Point? No matter how small you make HB CC will always be NEGATIVE (i.e. It is imposible for HB to work out)

So we must look to a combined effect. The closest that I got last time was:

(Cases relating to a constant value of 22 Cubits with varying Handbreathen)

HB = 2.5

Pi = 2.9333333333333333333333333333333

Therefore lets say 23 is the next factor

Pi = 2.9361702127659574468085106382979

Still very low!!!


Now lets jump to say 40

Pi = 2.962962962962962962962962962963

STILL VERY LOW!!!!!!


Lets try 150 now

Pi = 2.9900332225913621262458471760797


WE AREN'T EVEN AT 3 YET AND THE CUBIT CONVERISON HAS ALREADY SKYROCKETED TO 150!!! This is where it is pretty safe to say it isn't going to work out. The defintion of a cubit makes even 40 sound unreasonable, not to mention 150 Inches....

 

[humblemuslim]

With all this stated I'd like to rise an internal contradiction. I'll be glad to listen to any feedback on the Pi argument I've laid out.

Alleged Internal Contradiction #1

This ironically is the same object the entire PI argument was about, but now it is also involved in an alleged internal contradiction

2 Chronicles 4:5
And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

1 Kings 7:26
And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.


What exactly is a "Bath"?

Bath - An ancient Hebrew unit of liquid measure, equal to about 38 liters (10 U.S. gallons).


So why is there a difference of 1000 baths, which is 10,000 Gallons of liquid?

Unless I'm mistaken both verses speak of the same object with the same dimenisions and same desigin, etc. yet they have different volumes of liquids?

I look forward to an explaination

Thanks

Peace

Good night

 

[tdcharles]

The Targum has this to say: "It received 3000 baths of dry measure and received 2000 baths of liquid measure."

 

[humblemuslim]

The Targum has this to say: "It received 3000 baths of dry measure and received 2000 baths of liquid measure."

I don't understand how this can be an explaination when the very unit which is describing the volume of the object is the bath, which by definition is a certain liquid volume.

Bath - An ancient Hebrew unit of liquid measure


Unless this definition is flawed, then dry measure isn't a possiblity.

So is this explaination flawed?

Or is the definition flawed?

 

[tdcharles]

3000 baths is the capacity, 2000 is how much it held. 1 Kings 7 mentioned the latter, 2 Chronicles 4 mentioned the former, do you understand now?

 

[vajradhara]

Salaam HM,

sure thing...

The description given in the Qur'an? Any specific verses? If not I'll just make a post about this topic specificly.

Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs? (Quran, 78:6-7)

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... (Quran, 16:15)

 

[humblemuslim]

3000 baths is the capacity, 2000 is how much it held. 1 Kings 7 didn't mention this, 2 Chronicles 4 did, do you understand now?

So you are suggesting that 3000 was the maximum and that 2000 was the amount of liquid present?

If this is the case could you please explain the following:

"and it received and held three thousand baths."

If 3000 is ONLY the capacity, then why is something being received? If instead the verse said "and it held three thousand baths." then the explaination offered would seem plausible. But the very fact that something is being received, and not only received, but also held does infact suggest the capacity is at least 3000 baths (Maybe even more), but that doesn't explain where 1000 baths went.

Meaning: This thing Received 3000 Baths and then it only contains 2000 Baths???

If it wasn't for "And held" then you could argue that some spilt. So what happened to the 1000 Baths?


------------------------------------------------------------

I'd also like to look at something. The object being referred to in the verse has the measurements as follows:

Outter circumference = 30 Cubits
Height = 5 Cubits
Diameter = 10 Cubits or 10 Cubits - 2 Head breadths

Volume = Height * Pi * Radius Squared (Assuming that it is a cyclinder, which would yield the maximum volume.)

Now let's maximize Volume:

Diameter = Maximum = 10 Cubits


PI * 25 Cubits Squared * 5 Cubits = 392.69908169872415480783042290994 Cubic Cubits (Lets even use the maximum Cubit converison factor)

392.699 Cubic Cubits * (22)^3 Cubic Inches/ Cubic Cubit = 4181459.821928014800393778343145 Cubic Inches


This is the maximum volume, which techniquely isn't even possible. Now A Bath is what?

38 liters (10 U.S. gallons)

Lets just do liters. So you claim 3000 is the capacity. 3000 Baths * 38Liters/Bath = 114,000 Liters

Now lets convert Cubic Inches into Liters as follows:


4181459.821928 Cubic Inches * (2.54^3 Cubic Cm/ 1 Cubic Inch) * (1 mL / 1 Cubic Cm) * ( 1 L / 1000 mL) = 68,521.849715362981927000070910931 Liters

Impossible Theoritical Maximum = 68,521.8497 Liters

Suggested Maximum of 3000 Baths = 114,000 Liters

Notice a problem? The Suggested 3000 Baths is over 45,000 Liters over even the maximum theoritical (Which the actual maximum would be lower than)

Even 2000 Baths = 76,000 Liters....

Is there some flawed in the calcuations I've performed? Might very well be so....I look forward to a response on this issue as well.

Therefore this alleged internal contradiction has become two fold:

1. If 3000, or even 2000 are the capacity, then why is the theoritical maximum volume extremely lower than these suggested amounts???

2. Both objects received a certain amount of liquid and they vary in that amount....Why??

Kings 7:26 states "it contained two thousand baths"
Chronicles 4:5 states "and it received and held three thousand baths."

Contained suggests that it was already present. Received and held suggests that it was poured into it and remained inside it.

 

[humblemuslim]

Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs? (Quran, 78:6-7)

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... (Quran, 16:15)

Thanks

The only thing I can really do for this is present information regarding Mountains from sources other than the Qur'an and some interpertations. Since I'm hardly knowledgable on mountains I'll cite some sources:

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm

"Plate tectonics is a relatively new theory that has revolutionized the way geologists think about the Earth. According to the theory, the surface of the Earth is broken into large plates. The size and position of these plates change over time. The edges of these plates, where they move against each other, are sites of intense geologic activity, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and mountain building."

Quoted from : http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/introduction.html

Also look at this for a nice illustration of the "Mountain Peg"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/crush.html

As for shaking, this is where interpertations differ. Here is one explaination:

"regarding earthquke and its relation to these verses of quran
i have to say that, for the thousandth time, this misunderstanding
of quran happened to you (and some others) because of reading
translations in english instead of the arabic text!
when quran says montains are there to prevent from shaking, the
"surface" is not meant, but the "whole sphere earth" is the
matter here! without mountains the revolutional movement of
earth around its axis would'nt be "smoth", and it would "shake"
as n the case of a nonhomogeneous roulette. when earth was in
its original liquid state, these mountains appeared in exactly
right places (according to laws of physics, fluid dynamics, if
we want to be accurate) to prevent it "shaking" (as described
above). so these mountains are there to make the earth an overall
"homogeneous" object to be able to have a smoth (non "shaky")
revoloution around its axis. this is an undisputeable "fact",
scientifical fact, now, and i can provide you with exact mathematical
and physical explanations in this regard.
as a further explanation, one can observe the revoloutional movement
of asteroids. they have never been in liquid state so the "mountains"
on their surface do not adjust this rotational movement and
therefore thier spinning is "shaky". that would cause very strong
and wild, at the same time periodical, "tides" that makes living or
even sticking to the ground on them so hard, if not impossible!
this fact has nothing to do with earthquakes!"

This specific alleged external contradiction has alot of theory based around it, making it very difficult to verify or reject.

 

[MachineGod]

A muslim who wishes to prove contradiction in the bible, but inerrency in the quran. Interesting.

You mentioned the "bath" as a measurement of equal to 10 gallons (38 liters), while there are available, and reliable sources that say it is equal to 5 gallons (19 liters). (So doing your calculations, would come to approx. 57,000 liters, which is well within the estimations of the structures capacity that you calculated as theoretical maximum, even using 3000 baths) Contradiction solved.

Now, considering the possibility of a different standard of measurement, even within the time frame the two books were written, especially since there was no National Standards commity to ensure consistency of what the measurement of a "bath" is...your talking about a variance in the standard of measurement of a "bath" by approx. 1.667 gallons (6.3 liters) between the 3000 bath estimate and the 2000 bath estimate. Not unreasonable considering the time span between the two books (which can be anywhere from 1 to 500 years) would allow variance of measurement of a bath...and is even evident by your claims of bath=10 gallons while others claim bath=5 gallons. This is also likely since everything was more or less "eye-balled" for measurement as we see with a "cubit" being equal to someones body parts which varies from person to person. In this light, a 1.63 gallon variance is not un likely. At the given times each book was written the bath measurement would be truthful. In other words...it all hangs in the balance of what one considers a "bath" which is not relevent to the actual amount of liquid that the structure held. Contradiction solved.

(i.e. 10,000 gallons divided by 5 gallons (measurement of a bath) = 2000 baths OR 10,000 gallons divided by 3.333 gallons (varied measurment of a bath) = 3000 baths). (conversion.... 38,000 liters divided by 19 liters (measurment of a bath) = 2000 baths ect....)




Now, I have one for you...

The Muslim claim of the corruption of the Bible leads to a contradiction between S. 2:24 and 17:88 on the one hand, and 28:49 and 46:10 on the other in the quran. The contradiction is in your belief that the bible is with error while the quran doesn not.

2:21 O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness;
2:22 Who has made the earth your couch, and the heavens your canopy; and sent down rain from the heavens; and brought forth therewith Fruits for your sustenance; then set not up rivals unto Allah when ye know (the truth).
2:23 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
2:24 But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject faith.

17:88 Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

28:48 But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!"
28:49 Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"

46:10 Say: "See ye? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) truly, Allah guides not a people unjust."

Hypocrite.

 

[Green Man]

Thanks

The only thing I can really do for this is present information regarding Mountains from sources other than the Qur'an and some interpertations. Since I'm hardly knowledgable on mountains I'll cite some sources:

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm



Quoted from : http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/introduction.html

Also look at this for a nice illustration of the "Mountain Peg"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/crush.html

As for shaking, this is where interpertations differ. Here is one explaination:




This specific alleged external contradiction has alot of theory based around it, making it very difficult to verify or reject.

Your attempted explanation for this one is a valiant,though in the end,a rather lame one.

 

[vajradhara]

Salaam HM,

thank you for the post.

by the by.. let me also extend my thanks for your patient efforts in this regard. whilst i may not agree with your conclusions, i most certainly agree with the presentation!

often, it's the presentation, rather than the message, which sets people at odds.

The only thing I can really do for this is present information regarding Mountains from sources other than the Qur'an and some interpertations.

fair enough. i am not a geologist either, but i play one on T.V.

Since I'm hardly knowledgable on mountains I'll cite some sources:

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm

this is the link where i found the surah numbers.

Quoted from : http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/introduction.html

ok.. so that is the source link for their information on plate tectonics. however, this site does not support the conclusions that the Islam-guide site reaches.

Also look at this for a nice illustration of the "Mountain Peg"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/tectonics/crush.html

i could find nothing at this site that was a mountain peg. this site had an animated gif showing an example of contiental crush.

perhaps.. it would be of some value to define what a "peg" is.

according to Websters, a peg is:

Main Entry: 1peg
Pronunciation: 'peg
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pegge, probably from Middle Dutch
1 a : a small usually cylindrical pointed or tapered piece (as of wood) used to pin down or fasten things or to fit into or close holes : [size=-1]PIN[/size], [size=-1]PLUG[/size] b British : [size=-1]CLOTHESPIN[/size] c : a predetermined level at which something (as a price) is fixed
2 a : a projecting piece used as a support or boundary marker b : something (as a fact or opinion) used as a support, pretext, or reason
3 a : one of the movable wooden pegs set in the head of a stringed instrument (as a violin) that are turned to regulate the pitch of the strings -- see [size=-1]VIOLIN [/size]illustration b : a step or degree especially in estimation

well... mountains are not small and cylindrical nor do the pin something down nor fasten something to something else, nor do they close holes. mountains aren't "predetermined", they don't support anything, though they can be used as a boundary marker (perhaps this is the meaning of the term?)

As for shaking, this is where interpertations differ. Here is one explaination:

goodness. in this explanation, the author demonstrates that he has no idea what science is and does with this statement:

this is an undisputeable "fact", scientifical fact, now, and i can provide you with exact mathematical and physical explanations in this regard

This specific alleged external contradiction has alot of theory based around it, making it very difficult to verify or reject.

i disagree. in any sense of the term "shaking" mountians do not prevent the shaking of any sort. the "shaking" that the author is trying to make us believe is actually a wobble, and it is happening as we speak. we can measure this wobble of the earths rotation by a process called precession and we do it on a continual basis.

of course... Al Qur'an is not a science book... so why would we expect to learn science from it?

 

[humblemuslim]

You mentioned the "bath" as a measurement of equal to 10 gallons (38 liters), while there are available, and reliable sources that say it is equal to 5 gallons (19 liters). (So doing your calculations, would come to approx. 57,000 liters, which is well within the estimations of the structures capacity that you calculated as theoretical maximum, even using 3000 baths) Contradiction solved.

If that standard is used, it will certainly solve one problem. But there remains another.

Now, considering the possibility of a different standard of measurement, even within the time frame the two books were written, especially since there was no National Standards commity to ensure consistency of what the measurement of a "bath" is...your talking about a variance in the standard of measurement of a "bath" by approx. 1.667 gallons (6.3 liters) between the 3000 bath estimate and the 2000 bath estimate. Not unreasonable considering the time span between the two books (which can be anywhere from 1 to 500 years) would allow variance of measurement of a bath...and is even evident by your claims of bath=10 gallons while others claim bath=5 gallons.

Which is an interesting point. If God is the source of both Texts, why isn't God consistent in what He considers a Bath? Seems alittle strange for God to just change standards between Books, even between great lengths of time. Regardless, I don't wish to continue discussing this issue any further. All the arguments have been laid on the table it seems, no point in pressing on. But I will say that I personally am not entirely convienced, only partly.

The Muslim claim of the corruption of the Bible leads to a contradiction between S. 2:24 and 17:88 on the one hand, and 28:49 and 46:10 on the other in the quran. The contradiction is in your belief that the bible is with error while the quran doesn not.

002.024
YUSUFALI: But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.
SHAKIR: But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

017.088
YUSUFALI: Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
PICKTHAL: Say: Verily, though mankind and the jinn should assemble to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof though they were helpers one of another.
SHAKIR: Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others.

028.049
YUSUFALI: Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"
PICKTHAL: Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Then bring a scripture from the presence of Allah that giveth clearer guidance than these two (that) I may follow it, if ye are truthful.
SHAKIR: Say: Then bring some (other) book from Allah which is a better guide than both of them, (that) I may follow it, if you are truthful.



046.010
YUSUFALI: Say: "See ye? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) truly, Allah guides not a people unjust."
PICKTHAL: Bethink you: If it is from Allah and ye disbelieve therein, and a witness of the Children of Israel hath already testified to the like thereof and hath believed, and ye are too proud (what plight is yours)? Lo! Allah guideth not wrong-doing folk.
SHAKIR: Say: Have you considered if it is from Allah, and you disbelieve in it, and a witness from among the children of Israel has borne witness of one like it, so he believed, while you are big with pride; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.




Contradiction??? Ummm, You'll need to provide an explaination.

Hypocrite.

There is no need for name calling. You are going to have to explain yourself as you aren't making much sense from my point of view.

 

[humblemuslim]

Your attempted explanation for this one is a valiant,though in the end,a rather lame one.

Lame? Not much more can be expected when there is a number of uncertainies revolving the issue at hand. I can't be expected to know everything, although I can't see any contradiction with what is stated. Really on that issue I didn't intend to sway opinions, because there is a lack of information to conclude or reject the very concept.

 

[humblemuslim]

i could find nothing at this site that was a mountain peg. this site had an animated gif showing an example of contiental crush.

This website stated: "Instead, the two crush together at what is known as a collisional boundary. They crumple and fold. Some pieces of land are thrust over or under other pieces. The result is a mountain range."

If you look at the given animated picture you notice that the risen land also has a part under it going on into the earth (i.e. You could think of it as a peg). At least this is what I gathered from it.

well... mountains are not small and cylindrical nor do the pin something down nor fasten something to something else, nor do they close holes.

The defintion stated "usually cylindrical". So being in this shape isn't the key issue. Also it can be argued that the underground portion (peg) of the mountain does infact close/fill a hole. Honestly I''m reading up on this specifically in detail. I'll have to get back to it in more detail. I figured I would compose something to show that I am intend thinking about it and looking into it.

mountains aren't "predetermined", they don't support anything, though they can be used as a boundary marker (perhaps this is the meaning of the term?)

Possiblily. I'm reading up on Mountains in specific. I'll get back to you later wit ha post composed by me rather then solely other sources once I've learened enough to lay out something useful.

i disagree. in any sense of the term "shaking" mountians do not prevent the shaking of any sort. the "shaking" that the author is trying to make us believe is actually a wobble, and it is happening as we speak. we can measure this wobble of the earths rotation by a process called precession and we do it on a continual basis.

That author might very well be incorrect in his interpertation. Let me look at the verses, ask some family and friends what they think about it and study up on mountains and get back to you on this. Really this is one of these problems I've never heard before because this verse is commonly used to prove a scientific miracle (Whether incorrectly or correctly). Therefore I have no past experience with this specific issue.

of course... Al Qur'an is not a science book... so why would we expect to learn science from it?

You are correct that it isn't a Book of science, but if God is telling us something scientific in a factual form we need to see if modern day science verifies it. (Meaning it isn't a figure of speech/ metaphor/ parable)

 

[vajradhara]

Salaam HM,

please.. take your time... it's an internet chat forum, after all

though we may disagree with each other on occasion, we can conduct ourselves with decorum
just two comments on what you've posted thus far, if i may.

Really this is one of these problems I've never heard before because this verse is commonly used to prove a scientific miracle (Whether incorrectly or correctly). Therefore I have no past experience with this specific issue.

if something is *scientific* it is not a miracle and if something is a *miracle* it is not scientific. as such, it would be more correct to say to "prove a scientific theory" since science doesn't have "proof" or "Laws" (though it is often mistaken to have these things). when we talk about the *law* of Gravity.. we are really talking about the Theory of Gravity. however, as this theory has been demonstrated so consistently, we simply refer to it as a law... keep in mind, though, that science still views it as a theory. and this is exactly why Einsteins theory of Gravity replaced Newtons theory of Gravity, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome

You are correct that it isn't a Book of science, but if God is telling us something scientific in a factual form we need to see if modern day science verifies it. (Meaning it isn't a figure of speech/ metaphor/ parable)

i just don't really know what the value of that is.

let me say it like this. If, as it is said, Al Qur'an is clear in its communication, why were none of these scientific "miracles" able to be discovered before? more to the point, perhaps, if Al Qur'an contains such scientific information, how is it that only Western scientists are able to verify these things? clearly, the Muslims had Al Qur'an prior to the European scientists.

i suppose that some beings will require this sort of gestalt and i cannot begrude them this method.

 

[MachineGod]

Which is an interesting point. If God is the source of both Texts, why isn't God consistent in what He considers a Bath?

Makes me wonder why God would have to repeat himself.
Nontheless, one should argue why God didn't have a better, more acurate measuring system for the primitive man, than the variance of a cubit for instance. Why not give them the metric system then?
The measuring system is from man, but that wouldn't take away from any truth of the matter the book is discussing.

And before you make any assumptions...I think both the Bible and the Quran are merely man written, with no divine influence.

You are going to have to explain yourself as you aren't making much sense from my point of view.

I figured I would have to.

In several places the Quran challenges the unbelievers to produce something similar to the Quran.

And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it (min mithlihi) and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers. S. 2:23-24

Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this (mithlihi) and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. S. 10:38

Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it (mithlihi) and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. S. 11:13

Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran (bimithlihi hatha al-Qurani), they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others. S. 17:88

Or do they say: He has forged it. Nay! they do not believe. Then let them bring an announcement like it (mithlihi) if they are truthful. S. 52:33-34

Based on these verses, Muslims are convinced that the Quran is absolutely unique and unparalleled. For many it is an important element in their belief in the divine origin of the Quran that nobody was ever able to meet this particular challenge. I want to focus on the amazing fact that there are statements in the Quran which acknowledge that this challenge has already been met! The Quran asserts that the revelation given to Moses is similar and equal to the Quran. Consider the following passage:

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 Malik

Muhammad challenges the unbelievers to bring a book which is not only a better guide than the Quran, but also better than the book of Moses!

When performing a careful analysis of all statements found in the Quran in regard to the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the conclusion can only be that the Quran teaches that these scriptures are genuinely the Word of God and upholds their integrity and authority. The widely propagated Muslim polemic that the Bible (including the Torah) has been corrupted and is no longer the original divinely inspired text, leads to several problems and absurdities. It places the Quran itself on the level of a corrupted text, since the Quran claims to be like the Torah, it turns the challenge of the Quran into a farce since in that case it has been met before it was issued, and it creates an internal contradiction in the Quran as the Quran then states both, that the challenge cannot be met, but also admits that there is a book (the Torah) which fulfills the challenge.

By making the charge of Bible corruption, Muslims are denying the clear message of the Quran. They have to reject several statements of the Quran to uphold this polemic. On the other hand, if Muslims were to follow the genuine teaching of the Quran that the Torah is truly the word of God, and accept the reasoning of the Quran, which seeks to derive its authority from "being like the Torah" and the Torah's divine authority, then they would have to denounce Islam as false, since the Quran irreconcilably contradicts the Torah on many essential teachings. The Quran only claims to be in confirmation of the Torah and the Gospel, but actually is in sharp contradiction to both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures that it appeals to.

In short, Muslims are forced to denouce the Bible as corrupt, since many of it's teachings are in condradiction to the Quran...otherwise they must denouce the Quran. Yet, by denoucing the Bible, they denounce the Quran which specifically upholds the integrity and authority of the Bible. In fact, many of the teachings in the Quran CAME FROM the Bible, as the Quran was written MUCH later, at which time any alleged curruption had already taken place. Therefore to say the Bible is corrupt is to say the Quran is corrupt.

I look forward to an explaination.

 

[tdcharles]

So you are suggesting that 3000 was the maximum and that 2000 was the amount of liquid present?

If this is the case could you please explain the following:

"and it received and held three thousand baths."

If 3000 is ONLY the capacity, then why is something being received? If instead the verse said "and it held three thousand baths." then the explaination offered would seem plausible. But the very fact that something is being received, and not only received, but also held does infact suggest the capacity is at least 3000 baths (Maybe even more), but that doesn't explain where 1000 baths went.

Meaning: This thing Received 3000 Baths and then it only contains 2000 Baths???

If it wasn't for "And held" then you could argue that some spilt. So what happened to the 1000 Baths?

Aside from the Targum quote I gave to you earlier...
Let's look at the NAB translation: "It had a capacity of three thousand measures."
NASB: "It could hold three thousand baths".
DBY: "In capacity it held three thousand baths".

When the wording of literal translations confuse you, especially the KJV, it's good to read a less literal translation, such as the NAB.

Baths of what? "Before I broke it, the coffee cup I made received and held exactly 8 fluid ounces. In the cup there was coffee." "Before I broke it, the coffee cup I made received and held exactly 8 fluid ounces of coffee." There is a difference, the former, which is analagous to 2 Ch 4:5,6, defines capacity while not stating how much coffee it contained, the latter defines a specific amount of coffee. "Before I broke it, the coffee cup I made contained 8 fluid ounces." It does not say what it contained, but it did contain a liquid. This is analagous to 1 Ki 7:26.

I can also concede that it was a copyist error, as the Hebrew wording could easily be copied incorrectly.

I'll answer your other questions some time later.