Quran and Modern Science - Conflict or Conciliation?

[kay_cee]

Yes ofcourse Kay_Cee, there were public libraries from which the Prophet took books and plagerised the theories of ancient philosophers

 

The problem with your 'theory' is that the Prophet(pbuh) was illiterate and didn't have access to the writings of Greek philosphers!

 

Yes ofcourse Arabs once they had expanded into an empire and developed the trappings of civilisation picked up on the ancient greek texts (and thats one of the main reasons why those texts didn't disappear from history).

 

 

 

However, at the time the Quraan was revealed that access just wasn't there!

 

Z

 

I think you need to go back and read my post Zafar.

 

I am quite aware that Muhammed was illiterate. I said it would have been 'widespread' knowledge, not that Muhammed read it in a library.

Word of mouth and story telling was the main way of communicating in Arabia at that time, (this is were Muhammed got his knowledge of Bible stories from, albeit inaccurate as they were mainly related to him from those belonging to the Nestorian sect - but thats another thread)

 

Anyway, the fact still stands, Muhammed said something in 610ad which had already been discovered in 150ad.

 

If you wish to see that as 'divine revelation' then thats your choice, but I would strongly urge you to not entrust the eternal state of your soul to someone who displayed the clear lack of morals which we have discussed in this thread.

And theres a lot more reason for concern, I assure you.

[kay_cee]

Which brings us to Oringinal Sin.

 

As if people don't have enough sins of their own now we have to atone for someone else’s?

 

Are new born babies also sinners? If they die do they go straight to hell? If no, then is there a time period allowed for then to accept Jesus as their savour? If so how long? Were does it say in the Bible?

You beleive in the Torah don't you Zafar??

God requiring a sacrifice for sin is nothing new.

[kay_cee]

Good points also to add to that

 

If Jesus is God, then who did He pray to?

If Jesus is God, why did He say the Father was greater than He?

(Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.) John 14.28

God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Jesus cannot be God.

God cannot die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

(Christians are forever saying Jesus died for our sins)

Jesus, when He came to earth 'emptied Himself of His Deity' that is why He is also referred to as 'The Son of Man' in one of the Gospels.

This was so He could fulfill His reason for being sent, and that is why He talked to God the Father, referred to God the Father as greater then He etc.

 

Do I fully understand and comprehend every aspect of Gods' character?

Of course not.

 

Do you?

[kay_cee]

And please, to all the Muslim posters on here who would seek to mock the crucifixtion of Jesus, I strongly urge you to take heed from what happened to Ahmed Deedat.

As Christians, we are forbidden unlike you, to take personal revenge for insults waged against us or God.

God promises to do that Himself. A point proved in the aforementioned person.

[discodown]

like this thread its very interesting but i'm confused about one thing.

 

if muhammed was indeed illiterate how did he write the quran:confused: :confused: :confused:

[LordChaverly]

like this thread its very interesting but i'm confused about one thing.

 

if muhammed was indeed illiterate how did he write the quran:confused: :confused: :confused:

 

He didn't write it. Its contents were supposedly 'revealed' to him by the angel Gabriel and scribes wrote it down - which (for non-muslims) is a polite way of saying that he made it all up as he went along. Other scholars have traced similarities between some of its contents and early Jewish and Christian texts. Others have said that there is no trace of a written version before 690, almost 60 years after Mohamad's death and that much of it was added by others. Ideally, scholars ought to scrutinise its origins in the same way they do the old and new testaments. However, this can be a dangerous undertaking, as a German professor, who traced its origins back to Aramaic texts, recently found out (he received death threats and had to go into hiding for a while).

[Jimbob1989]

Nicely put as always Lord C

[Phanerothyme]

What I meant by that was say for example it says in the Quran the world is flat or indicates the world is flat then this would prove to be in conflict with established science and such an error could not be attributed to God. We say (The Muslims) that the whole Quran is the word of God. The Bible may have the word of god in it but the whole thing is not the word of god (would not need new versions).

 

So a single factual inaccuracy in the Koran, would according to your logic, invalidate the presumption that it is the literal word of the deity?

 

And what I said is that by the time of writing, the erroneous assumptions of the ancient greeks would have easily been weeded out by simple experimentation over the intervening few centuries. So the Koran included established truths - it's not really worth writing home about.

 

The Byzantine empire and caliphate that dominated Mediterranean Europe at the time carried on the tradition of greek inquiry, informed by the science and maths of the persians, who were in turn informed by the indians and chinese. Standing on the shoulders of giants. There are many notable Islamic scholars of the time, but the driving force of Islamic science died out before the end of the 15th century, passing the torch of scientific 'progress' on to the Europeans, who had just about learned to scratch their own names out in the muck, and were about to invent movable type, revolutionising the dissemination of ideas.

 

What you say about the Koran is an interesting side note. It contains many scientific observations. Great. So do lots of other books.

 

I can recommend "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose. It's a little longer than the Koran though, and requires a reasonably deep understanding of maths and non-euclidean (those greeks again) geometry (which I am beginning to pick up).

 

As Holy Scriptures go, this one has the edge on all the others, as it is up to date.

 

The Koran teaches curiosity and inquiry, but it excludes the nature of God from those enquiries (as it must).

[magician]

He didn't write it. Its contents were supposedly 'revealed' to him by the angel Gabriel and scribes wrote it down - which (for non-muslims) is a polite way of saying that he made it all up as he went along. Other scholars have traced similarities between some of its contents and early Jewish and Christian texts. Others have said that there is no trace of a written version before 690, almost 60 years after Mohamad's death and that much of it was added by others. Ideally, scholars ought to scrutinise its origins in the same way they do the old and new testaments. However, this can be a dangerous undertaking, as a German professor, who traced its origins back to Aramaic texts, recently found out (he received death threats and had to go into hiding for a while).

 

I find your thread extremely useful. Im still confused tho, i just think in the back of my mind there has to be a creator, but then i think he must have a creator etc...

 

When i first posted this thread i thought Islam made more sense and was more reasonable than others (probabily biased as i grew up a muslim). now i have no idea

[Zafar]

He didn't write it. Its contents were supposedly 'revealed' to him by the angel Gabriel and scribes wrote it down - which (for non-muslims) is a polite way of saying that he made it all up as he went along. Other scholars have traced similarities between some of its contents and early Jewish and Christian texts. Others have said that there is no trace of a written version before 690, almost 60 years after Mohamad's death and that much of it was added by others. Ideally, scholars ought to scrutinise its origins in the same way they do the old and new testaments. However, this can be a dangerous undertaking, as a German professor, who traced its origins back to Aramaic texts, recently found out (he received death threats and had to go into hiding for a while).

 

In many cultures across the world (even today) there is a tradition of oral transmission.

 

The Quraan (as it was revealed, over a period of 23 years) was memorised by the Prophet and his followers.

 

After his death one of his successors ordered for the Quraan to be wrote down (Abu Bakr). There are those who believe that it was actually wrote down during the lifetime of the Prophet, however, most people believe that it was wrote down afterwards.

 

The fact that since it was wrote it has not been changed, and indeed you can pick up any 2 copies of the Quraan (in Arabic) across the whole planet and they will contain the exact same contents speaks volumes.

 

The same cannot be said of say the Bible. Which is chopped and changed every couple of years and has a list of versions longer than my street.

 

As for the comment about it has linkages to the old testament and the bible, well ofcourse it will have as its the last of 'editions' of the monothesic three.

 

Z