Church of England Synod member’s call to ban building of any new mosques. Is it ok ?

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

Was it not recently discovered the universe is expanding?

 

In order not to get in dispute with you about my sources, I am quoting the following from an Islamic web site who posts Koran translations:

http://www.submission.org/

51:47 is not talking about universe but about sky and earth which is based on excepted theory of that time of flat earth. The same idea is mentioned in old testament and since Mohammad learned from his Jewish friends, it is not surprising to see the ideas of old testament find their way in to the Koran. Jewish religion and Islam are very close in many aspects.

The other interesting thing is 51:49 which repeats the idea of Adam and Eve which is totally against all scientific discoveries of last 200 years. If this God of yours knew about universe then how did he miss the dinosaurs and evolution?

 

It's known as a forced translation. During translation a word is substituted with the intention of changing the meaning from the original to what the translator wants it to mean. In this case the forced translation was used to make it appear that a recent scientific discovery can be found in the quran.

Other, more accurate translations show the verse to say "we are the ones who enrich it".

It's not an example of science in the quran as much as it is an example of the dishonesty that is common in religion.

 

How do you know it is not accurate if you don't even know arabic?

If the best you can do is quote a different and unaccurate translation to discredit a verse then we might aswell just stop the discussion right here. the word universe didn't exist back then, sky/heavens was the word for anything up high.

 

It is not more dishonest than other examples from Christianity. Religion is a product which is marketed by religious leaders and I have seldom seen very truthful advertisements in marketing.

I quoted from an ISLAMIC web site and you still haven't answered about the same idea being mentioned in old testament and how this God who knows about universe, doesn't know about dinosaurs and evolution?

 

Because there are multiple versions that contain multiple translations. You don't need to know arabic to know they can't all be right.

 

Dinosours - http://www.answering-christianity.com/dinosaurs.htm

And ummm about the old testament, The Quran clearly states it sent the old testament and bible before it, but they got corrupted.

 

gworld , Do you belive that ppls were created from monkeys, when saying evolution ?

 

That doesn't mention dinosaurs, Or even anything that can be described as a dinosaur. it's vague and non-specific. It mentions only "beasts".

 

LOL. Some good BS but still doesn't explain this:

"[51:49] We created a pair (male and female) of everything, that you may take heed."

Which is clearly against science and theory of evolution.

Now in the same type of argument as your link, I am going to tell you the future of universe:

"sdsj cfsdfnsj jvjsdvbsdj fsdfsd ghhdcvsydc csdcs"

Don't you get it? it is because my words belong to the future and haven't been invented yet but I assure is a correct prediction of universe future.

 

Umm, the word dinosours is a modern term and did not exist then, beast is more accurate.

 

Depends what kind of evolution, if you mean tiny atom to now, then no, but if you mean from human to another form of human, it does mention that. Evolution is a scientific theory but it isn't 100% proved true.

 

Umm, it's a modern translation. If the translation is modern why not use a modern word? I know why, it's because the word only means "beasts" and does in no way imply dinosaurs or anything like it.

 

Is there anyone with excpetion of religious people who still thinks the human race started with Adam and Eve?

 

I don't think the Rosetta Stone is going to help with that one.

 

You seriously can't be this dumb, there is no such thing as a modern translation, the quran is the same as it was 1400 years ago, not one word changed, beasts is the most accurate word for a dinosour. Just as heavens is for universe. The difference in translations is just because arabic is a complex language, it is not to 'modernize' it but to give alternative words but with the same meanings, as arabic words can mean multiple things in english.

 

The beast in that line simply means animals to differentiated from human and as far as we know it simply means cows, camels, dogs, horses or any other kind of animal that Mohammad knew about.
If I say, I bought many beasts, it simply means that I bought some animals from the same kind or different kinds but it doesn't mean that I have bought every kind of animal that ever existed, even those kinds that I don't the name of it.

 

Please watch at this video Dinosaurs
Maybe it will somehow help you

 

It doesn't matter if dinosaur is a modern word. If the arabic word means the equivalent to dinosaur then dinosaur would be used in the translation. What is so hard to understand about that? translations are reflections of meanings, They aren't equivalent alternatives of words. I could invent a word now and if it has a similar meaning as an arabic word then it can be used in a translation from arabic.

 

I have an ocean front property in Wyoming and a very big bridge in NY that I can sell you for very cheap price if you like to buy. I will only ask for $500 dollars for Brooklyn bridge and it is a bargain.