femi4:
That wasn't the greatest miracle. The greatest miracle was that he died and rose on the third day.

He is not a man cos no man has power to forgive sins yet Jesus told the adulterous woman that her sins are forgiven

who talked about d greatest miracle? I said d first miracle. Among d 2 first miracles of d Bible and d Qur'an which 1 is d greatest? Correction please... The Bible also said dat He (Jesus pbuh) didn't die on d cross. Dat was wat luke said. My broda, Jesus is a Man, a Son of Man and a servant of God. Jesus (pbuh) never said I am God worship me. U only find ppl alluding dat to Him saying He is God or Son of God. But He never said dat in His own words. All dis hav their references in d Bible. As a christian I think u should hav seen dem and ignored. But if u havn't seen dem tell me so I can show dem to u in d Bible.

femi4:
Jesus was not created.

In [Jesus Christ] all things were created: . . . all things have been created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16)

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! " (Revelation 1:17

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossians 1:15

was not created but born by a woman called Mary. Agreed that he was born by holy spirit but big lie from that he was not created. You don't even know what u are saying. First born in bible was refer to as Israel. He's now image of invisible God not a god again. What a pity?

omokab:
was not created but born by a woman called Mary. Agreed that he was born by holy spirit but big lie from that he was not created. You don't even know what u are saying. First born in bible was refer to as Israel. He's now image of invisible God not a god again. What a pity?

So isreal is the firstborn over ALL CREATION? Does that make sense to you.

He is God the son and the image of the invisible God(God the father)

MarshalABS:
who talked about d greatest miracle? I said d first miracle. Among d 2 first miracles of d Bible and d Qur'an which 1 is d greatest? Correction please... The Bible also said dat He (Jesus pbuh) didn't die on d cross. Dat was wat luke said. My broda, Jesus is a Man, a Son of Man and a servant of God. Jesus (pbuh) never said I am God worship me. U only find ppl alluding dat to Him saying He is God or Son of God. But He never said dat in His own words. All dis hav their references in d Bible. As a christian I think u should hav seen dem and ignored. But if u havn't seen dem tell me so I can show dem to u in d Bible.

Well, can a man be alpha and Omega?

Jesus himself says in the book of revelation that:

Rev 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

MakeWeTalk:
Islam and their attempt to be like Christians.

Please show us meaningful miracles like raising the dead, that Jesus did.

Matthew 9
18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

24 He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.

25 But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.

26 And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.

Until a muslim can do this, I will follow Jesus that raises the dead.

I mean Jesus is alive and mohammed is dead, if allah cannot keep mohammed alive but Jesus is alive;
please explain why I should leave Jesus that is alive and even raises the dead to follow another islam that cannot raise the dead.

they can't even keep mohammed alive let alone raise the dead.

Jesus A.S. the Messiah is has the holy spirit in him because he's a word of God Jesus A.S. performed more miracles than any other prophet so that the Israelite will believe in the oneness of Allah and follow the religion of Abraham A.S. and all other prophets. Every prophet has his unique character and miracle that Allah sends him with. Take for example Job A.S. has great endurance for trails and tribulations, Abraham puts God before any other desires he has he just wants to see Allah happy and pleased with him, David A.S. was granted a very pleasant voice and that even the birds joined him when he was reciting the psalm, prophet Suleiman was granted Wisdom and God's decision when making a judgement between people and Allah also gave him a kingdom like no other kingdom that will ever exist again because he had authority over man, jinn and animals, prophet Muhammad S.A.W. was given the best of characters and a very forgiving heart. What annoys me about you Christians is that you can waste your data to research about celebrities and atheists (that are using the science that Islam) but will never search about the achievement of Prophet Muhammad and the good he has done. Do you know that the Arabs were the most barbaric people as at that time on the surface of the earth before the coming of Islam? do you know that it was when Islam came to Arabia that they stopped burying female children alive? but the agents of satan will say he married a girl of 8yrs old, now let them hit their chest and say that a girl at 18 could be considered a virgin as at then, thats not even the case was she the only wife he married a virgin? do you know the kind of useful hadiths scholars have recorded from her? all the wars that Muhammad S.A.W. fought all the 6 of them were caused by the enemy. Do you think muslims do not like prophet Jesus A.S. you will never see a muslim scholar insulting prophet Jesus A.S. And just one more thing Islam will never be like christiainty because we will always worship God alone and not associate any partner with or say he has a son that is his intermediary and I bear witness that there is no diety worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is his messenger and Isa is his prophet.

T

femi4:
So isreal is the firstborn over ALL CREATION? Does that make sense to you.

He is God the son and the image of the invisible God(God the father)

this is how you will know that you are dealing with a fake story book called bible. Your bible refer to Israel as the God first son. Is better for you to embrace islam. Or if you don't like islam join ifa or sango. Because the two are better than Christianity. But without islam and believing in one God your life is meaningless.

omokab:
Tthis is how you will know that you are dealing with a fake story book called bible. Your bible refer to Israel as the God first son. Is better for you to embrace islam. Or if you don't like islam join ifa or sango. Because the two are better than Christianity. But without islam and believing in one God your life is meaningless.

I can't embrace a dead God. Your Muhammad died and was no more

That's what you get when read out of context....for better understanding, read the whole passage

femi4:
Well, can a man be alpha and Omega?

Jesus himself says in the book of revelation that:

Rev 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Dat is greek. Please go and ask ur pastors and leanered christians 'DID JESUS (PBUH) SPOKE GREEK?

MarshalABS:
Dat is greek. Please go and ask ur pastors and leanered christians 'DID JESUS (PBUH) SPOKE GREEK?

lmao, so he spoke in other languages until he got to revelation and now decided to speak in greek? I am afraid, your reasoning is below par

For your information, the spoken languages among the jews of that period were

Hebrew
Aramaic and
Greek


Greek was the primary spoken language of the Roman Empire at the time and was the language in which the New Testament was originally written. During the trials of Jesus with Pilate and Herod, Jesus spoke in Greek. Both Pilate and Herod didn't use a translator.

In Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus spoke with a Roman centurion. The centurion would certainly spoken in Greek. No translator was used, meaning Jesus spoke in Greek with the centurion.

MakeWeTalk:


Jesus is not a man but God who came in the flesh.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus died for us to live unlike allah that demand muslims die for him.

Hadith 53:352
Allah's prophet said, "Allah guarantees him who strives in His Cause and whose motivation for going out is nothing BUT JIHAD IN HIS CAUSE and belief in His Word, that HE WILL ADMIT HIM INTO PARADISE (if martyred) or bring him back to his dwelling place, whence he has come out, with what he gains of reward and booty."

Surah 4:74
So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward.

.


The only book i read with the highest is the bible. Full of fabrication

jomoh:
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE


In the Qur'an, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago at a time when the science of astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described in the following terms:

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)

The word "heaven," as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Qur'an. It is referring to space and the wider universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe "expands." The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand." The prefix "la" emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of "to a great extent." This expression therefore means "We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent." This is the very conclusion that science has reached today. 1

OP, is there a conceptual distinction between the word "samaa" (heaven) as used in this verse, and "aard" (earth) as used in the subsequent one. If there is, then it is misleading to state that the word "samaa" refers to the universe; as the word "universe" consists of both the heavens and earth.

Until the dawn of the 20th century, the only view prevailing in the world of science was that "the universe has a constant nature and it has existed since infinite time." However, modern research, observations, and calculations carried out by means of modern technology have revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning and that it constantly "expands."

OP, it does appear there were no competent Muslim scientists to correct this erroneous notion of a static universe up until the dawn of the 20th century. This is rather curious since surely, it was blindingly obvious to them that according to the foremost scientific textbook, the Quran, the universe was indeed expanding. Can you comment on this OP?

...During these observations, Hubble established that the stars emit a light that turns redder according to their distance. That is because according to the known laws of physics, light heading towards a point of observation turns violet, and light moving away from that point assumes a more reddish hue.

The emboldened is patently false! Light of stars do NOT turn redder according to their distance. Their colours change based on the direction of their velocity vector with respect to the observer. Also, your description is way too simplistic; and only applies to light in the visible spectrum! Actually, the colour isn't that important, it's the wavelength/frequency that matters. When a light source, like any other wave, moves towards an observer, the observer witnesses a so-called blueshift, where the apparent frequency of the light seems to increase (or its apparent wavelength reduces). On the other hand, when the source is receding, the observer witnesses a so-called redshift, where its apparent wavelength increases/its apparent frequency reduces. Unfortunately, the terminologies are a misnomer which can easily mislead people who aren't aware of the definitions of these terms.

This fact was explained in the Qur'an in a time when telescopes and similar technological advancements were not even close to being invented. This is because the Qur'an is the Word of Allah: the Creator and Ruler of the entire universe.

The OP hasn't in any way demonstrated this claim. As I have pointed out, questions linger as to the real meaning of the word "heaven" in the verse upon which this claim is predicated. It seems desperate, and quite frankly, dubious to impose a misleading interpretation on a word just to give your holy book scientific credibility. Science is not built on ambiguity OP!

Though I'm not the author of this article, I will as much as possible 51st to explain as reasonable as I can.

AgentOfAllah:


OP, is there a conceptual distinction between the word "samaa" (heaven) as used in this verse, and "aard" (earth) as used in the subsequent one. If there is, then it is misleading to state that the word "samaa" refers to the universe; as the word "universe" consists of both the heavens and earth.

First you have to know the earth is like an object in the universe who in itself is a large space. The concept of heaven is directly the universe that we are talking about because heaven as it is know is the space/roof we see above us.

Simply put of we say Nigeria is expanding, it doesn't mean my house or your house will also expand. So also of we say it is shrinking it doesn't mean my house will shrink.

The earth itself is a defined object in the universe that has it's own weight and diameter.

It is erroneous to thing the earth is a material part of the Universe. It is only an Object like the Sun, the moon, the stars and other planets. If the universe expands, it doesn't mean the earth will expand it only means the space around it will expand. So also of the universe shrinks the space around the earth will shrink and of it shrinks to an extent, the hearth will definitely be consumed.

Also as the Universe expands, more objects(planets) are being added.

OP, it does appear there were no competent Muslim scientists to correct this erroneous notion of a static universe up until the dawn of the 20th century. This is rather curious since surely, it was blindingly obvious to them that according to the foremost scientific textbook, the Quran, the universe was indeed expanding. Can you comment on this OP?

Well that is something to take up with the real author.

The emboldened is patently false! Light of stars do NOT turn redder according to their distance. Their colours change based on the direction of their velocity vector with respect to the observer. Also, your description is way too simplistic; and only applies to light in the visible spectrum! Actually, the colour isn't that important, it's the wavelength/frequency that matters. When a light source, like any other wave, moves towards an observer, the observer witnesses a so-called blueshift, where the apparent frequency of the light seems to increase (or its apparent wavelength reduces). On the other hand, when the source is receding, the observer witnesses a so-called redshift, where its apparent wavelength increases/its apparent frequency reduces. Unfortunately, the terminologies are a misnomer which can easily mislead people who aren't aware of the definitions of these terms.

Another thing to take up with the real author.

The OP hasn't in any way demonstrated this claim. As I have pointed out, questions linger as to the real meaning of the word "heaven" in the verse upon which this claim is predicated. It seems desperate, and quite frankly, dubious to impose a misleading interpretation on a word just to give your holy book scientific credibility. Science is not built on ambiguity OP!

I have explained this earlier I think it should now be clear that there is no ambiguity in the word let alone "dubious" motive to mislead anyone. It is only a matter of you not properly understanding the concept of the universe.

femi4:
Well, can a man be alpha and Omega?

Jesus himself says in the book of revelation that:

Rev 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

As long as their is contention as to the compilation of the Bible (canon of scriptures) you read, every verse is subject to either being true or false.

femi4:
lmao, so he spoke in other languages until he got to revelation and now decided to speak in greek? I am afraid, your reasoning is below par

For your information, the spoken languages among the jews of that period were

Hebrew
Aramaic and
Greek


Greek was the primary spoken language of the Roman Empire at the time and was the language in which the New Testament was originally written. During the trials of Jesus with Pilate and Herod, Jesus spoke in Greek. Both Pilate and Herod didn't use a translator.

In Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus spoke with a Roman centurion. The centurion would certainly spoken in Greek. No translator was used, meaning Jesus spoke in Greek with the centurion.

Let me tell u smth of importance, NOT EVRYTIN SAID IN D BIBLE SHOULD B TAKEN LITERALLY. Jesus (pbuh) cannot be d begining like d bible said. Jesus is a created being
because only someone who
had a beginning in time can
be "begotten." Dat means d bible contradicts Itself. Becos if it says Jesus is d Alpha, dat means d bigining, den y was He beggotten? Again ma broda do u knw wat d meaning of d word "beggotten" is? D word "beggotten" is an Human Animalistic Act. Functions carried out by animals, in oda words "sex". Can u beliv dat! Subhanallah!

D Qur'an says God do not beget and neither was He beggotton.

Allah Almighty Said:
“Do they not ponder on the Qur’an? Had it been from
other than Allah, they would surely have found therein
much discrepancy. (The Noble Quran, 4:82)”

D contradictions in d bible is enof 4 any reasonable Human to knw dat d bible is not all from God. Only a few potion of d bible remains God's words. which is far far different from d Qur'an. D Qur'an has remained intact for over 14 hundred years ago. Notin like a revise standard Qur'an. If dat is d only miracle performed by prophet Muhammad (SAW) den it is a great miracle indeed.

jomoh:
Though I'm not the author of this article, I will as much as possible 51st to explain as reasonable as I can.

Thanks for your time

First you have to know the earth is like an object in the universe who in itself is a large space. The concept of heaven is directly the universe that we are talking about because heaven as it is know is the space/roof we see above us.

Simply put of we say Nigeria is expanding, it doesn't mean my house or your house will also expand. So also of we say it is shrinking it doesn't mean my house will shrink.

The earth itself is a defined object in the universe that has it's own weight and diameter.

OP, this explanation isn't at all relevant to my petition. Besides, I know how expansion works.

It is erroneous to thing the earth is a material part of the Universe. It is only an Object like the Sun, the moon, the stars and other planets. If the universe expands, it doesn't mean the earth will expand it only means the space around it will expand. So also of the universe shrinks the space around the earth will shrink and of it shrinks to an extent, the hearth will definitely be consumed.

It is not clear why the OP believes earth is not a material part of the universe, however, this is an incorrect assertion. Expansion isn't the only force acting upon the universe. There are other forces too, for example gravity, in particular, which is mostly responsible for keeping the earth together. If universal expansion isn't acting on objects within the universe, then how would scientists be able to detect that distant galaxies are receding, thus inferring the expansion of the universe? OP has wrongly imposed a conceptual distinction between the earth as a unit of the universe and the universe as the sum total of everything in the physical world. There is no physicist worth the title who holds this misguided opinion, nor in fact, is there any scientific support for this Viewpoint.

Also as the Universe expands, more objects(planets) are being added.

It is not clear what OP is implying here. Does OP mean to say emergent planets in the universe are a result of expansion? I hope not, but if so, may I suggest OP should do a little reading on evolution of the solar system. Important clues as to how stars and planets come about will be found there. As a bonus, this information is readily available on Wikipedia, and may be accessed by typing the emboldened term in Google.

Well that is something to take up with the real author.

Another thing to take up with the real author.

I took the first thing up with you OP, because you seem to agree with the real author on the points made. It seems unusual that such an important scientific fact would be stated in the Quran, yet no Muslim scientist corrected mainstream science on its erroneous belief. Don't you find this absurd? Maybe the more accurate explanation is that the original author and yourself (by association) are trying desperately to take advantage of the Quran's ambiguity to reinterpret it so as to conform to current scientific viewpoints.

I have explained this earlier I think it should now be clear that there is no ambiguity in the word let alone "dubious" motive to mislead anyone. It is only a matter of you not properly understanding the concept of the universe.

No! You have made nothing clear, you have only attempted to dubiously redefine the word "universe" to exclude the earth, and it is not clear what gives your redefinition any flesh, except perhaps, the need to persist in the erroneous understanding of the word "heaven" as used in the verse the original Author referenced. I believe with your explanation, I definitely have a more proper understanding of that word than you do.

farouk0403:
Aslm my brothers and sisters in islam, I have a question, according to islam it is believe that there are 7 sky the 8th one is where Al'arsh is, I dont't know whether I get it right or not, I stand to be corrected.
I have seen it so many times in discovery channel and Nat geo the space is just a black space with just the solar system around it, and if move further there is nothing except old aged sun erupting like volcano, it is belief that the sun is there over billions of years according to NASA. I have so many things in my mind but I will stop here, my question is please I need more enlightenment to this controversies to clear my mind.

Thanks in anticipation.

the sun is not the only object in space, there are billions if not trillions of planets , stars and galaxies that are yet to be discovered because of the monstrous amount of distance that is btwn our own milky way galaxy to oda solar systems. distance in space is not measured in km or metres, its measured in light years i.e the equivalent distance that light travels in one juluan year. light travels at approx 300 million meters per second, do the math for a julian year. galaxies that exist can be as far as a thousand light years or less, we do not have telescopes that can view such distances, even if we can view some galaxies, the effects of distance can sometimes distort the images of the objects in space.in essence there r many solar systems, the ones i know, milky way, andromeda galaxy to mention a few, nasa has nit discovered every object in space and i dont think they would. no one knows what the heavens look like, and we dont have d means to travel such huge distances dat exist in space. N.b the sun is not the only erupting star in space, there are oda erupting stars that r over 500 tymes bigger dan d sun.

AgentOfAllah:
Thanks for your time

You are welcome.

OP, this explanation isn't at all relevant to my petition. Besides, I know how expansion works.

If that it is not relevant then you have to make your petition clearer cos the expanation I have is from what I deduce from your petition.

It is not clear why the OP believes earth is not a material part of the universe, however, this is an incorrect assertion. Expansion isn't the only force acting upon the universe. There are other forces too, for example gravity, in particular, which is mostly responsible for keeping the earth together. If universal expansion isn't acting on objects within the universe, then how would scientists be able to detect that distant galaxies are receding, thus inferring the expansion of the universe? OP has wrongly imposed a conceptual distinction between the earth as a unit of the universe and the universe as the sum total of everything in the physical world. There is no physicist worth the title who holds this misguided opinion, nor in fact, is there any scientific support for this Viewpoint.

I will repeat my stand. The earth is an essential/important part of the Universe but not a material part of the Universe as regards to it's expantion. I don't care if their is no physicists with such view point. It could be that no one has presented them with argument from that angle. That doesn't mean it is not a fact.

Galaxies(stars) are material part of the universe' expansion by the virtue of their positions and placements.

It is not clear what OP is implying here. Does OP mean to say emergent planets in the universe are a result of expansion? I hope not, but if so, may I suggest OP should do a little reading on evolution of the solar system. Important clues as to how stars and planets come about will be found there. As a bonus, this information is readily available on Wikipedia, and may be accessed by typing the emboldened term in Google.

It is a known fact that every planet in the universe does not have the same age. Meaning that are older than each other and when I talk about age I am not talking about when they were discovered.

So If scientists agree that all planets were not created or come into existence at the same time and they all agree that the universe keeps expanding then is it not simple and common sense that those younger planets were added as the expansion grew?

NASA recently discovered at least six new planets. My question is this what has been hiding those planets all these years that has made them not discoverable or visible to NASA. I should probably note that NASA discovered these planets with same telescope they have been using all this while cos they never announced the use of a new or advanced telescope.

By your assertion you're simply but indirectly implying that the universe is static. Because by expansion their is bound to be addition no matter the angle you view things from.

If by your assertion that the expansion of the universe affects the earth and other planets, then the earth should have left it's orbit a long time ago or even the distance between the earth and the Sun should have increased.

let me go back to my submission. The earth and other planets are essential, important part of the Universe but they are not material part of the Universe' expansion. Meaning the earth and the other planets and objects in the universe are simply startic Objects in the ever expanding universe.

I took the first thing up with you OP, because you seem to agree with the real author on the points made. It seems unusual that such an important scientific fact would be stated in the Quran, yet no Muslim scientist corrected mainstream science on its erroneous belief. Don't you find this absurd? Maybe the more accurate explanation is that the original author and yourself (by association) are trying desperately to take advantage of the Quran's ambiguity to reinterpret it so as to conform to current scientific viewpoints.

There is no ambiguity in the Quran. It is your understanding that is limited. The fact is that God stated unequivocally in The Quran that he is the one ever expanding the universe. In the verse that you read in clear English above (Quran 51:47) is there a anything that looks ambiguous. If you are still not certisfied or you do not trust the author, you can as well Google the transliteration of the Arabic text and research on the meaning of the words used yourself.

No! You have made nothing clear, you have only attempted to dubiously redefine the word "universe" to exclude the earth, and it is not clear what gives your redefinition any flesh, except perhaps, the need to persist in the erroneous understanding of the word "heaven" as used in the verse the original Author referenced. I believe with your explanation, I definitely have a more proper understanding of that word than you do.

You appear to be the one trying to bubiously question the authenticity of the Quran. while hiding under the guise of science.

You don't have to always accept everything at the face value. You should also try to consider the critical meaning of every word used. The evolution of the word heaven that you seem to have problem with does not have a scientific background because obviously science does not believe in the concept of heaven.

If you are to go by the religious definition of heaven, It is the place that starts from large expanse of sky above us to an invisible destination beyond the sky. So If the material part of the Universe that keeps expanding is the sky above us and not the objects below it (the earth, moon, mars and all the planets) then it is safe to say the heaven is the same thing as the expanding Universe.


BTW you should also consider getting to understand the meaning of the phrases "Material part", "essential part", "important part". If you can't get it online maybe you should consult a lawyer to give you a better explanation of them.

On the issue of the erroneous believe that the universe is startic stated in the article, you should really consider contacting the original author because it is Obvious it was a misnomer on the part of the author and does not take anything away from the FACT stated in the Quran. That is why the link is provided.

Ciao.

ibtz:

the sun is not the only object in space, there are billions if not trillions of planets , stars and galaxies that are yet to be discovered because of the monstrous amount of distance that is btwn our own milky way galaxy to oda solar systems. distance in space is not measured in km or metres, its measured in light years i.e the equivalent distance that light travels in one juluan year. light travels at approx 300 million meters per second, do the math for a julian year. galaxies that exist can be as far as a thousand light years or less, we do not have telescopes that can view such distances, even if we can view some galaxies, the effects of distance can sometimes distort the images of the objects in space.in essence there r many solar systems, the ones i know, milky way, andromeda galaxy to mention a few, nasa has nit discovered every object in space and i dont think they would. no one knows what the heavens look like, and we dont have d means to travel such huge distances dat exist in space. N.b the sun is not the only erupting star in space, there are oda erupting stars that r over 500 tymes bigger dan d sun.

cool, now I know thanks

ibtz:

the sun is not the only object in space, there are billions if not trillions of planets , stars and galaxies that are yet to be discovered because of the monstrous amount of distance that is btwn our own milky way galaxy to oda solar systems. distance in space is not measured in km or metres, its measured in light years i.e the equivalent distance that light travels in one juluan year. light travels at approx 300 million meters per second, do the math for a julian year. galaxies that exist can be as far as a thousand light years or less, we do not have telescopes that can view such distances, even if we can view some galaxies, the effects of distance can sometimes distort the images of the objects in space.in essence there r many solar systems, the ones i know, milky way, andromeda galaxy to mention a few, nasa has nit discovered every object in space and i dont think they would. no one knows what the heavens look like, and we dont have d means to travel such huge distances dat exist in space. N.b the sun is not the only erupting star in space, there are oda erupting stars that r over 500 tymes bigger dan d sun.

cool, now I know thanks

jomoh:

I will repeat my stand. The earth is an essential/important part of the Universe but not a material part of the Universe as regards to it's expantion. I don't care if their is no physicists with such view point. It could be that no one has presented them with argument from that angle. That doesn't mean it is not a fact.

Facts are statements that inhabit a universal reality OP. You cannot simply wish your whims to be fact, and claim you don't care about the scientific position on them; especially when in the first place, you were trying to use science to validate your claim.

Galaxies(stars) are material part of the universe' expansion by the virtue of their positions and placements.

Is the earth part of a galaxy, OP?

It is a known fact that every planet in the universe does not have the same age. Meaning that are older than each other and when I talk about age I am not talking about when they were discovered.

So If scientists agree that all planets were not created or come into existence at the same time and they all agree that the universe keeps expanding then is it not simple and common sense that those younger planets were added as the expansion grew?

It is neither that simple, nor is it helpful to subject science to the primitive rules of common sense OP. As far as we know, there is no evidence that the processes that bring planets into existence are the same processes the cause the universe to expand. This is an unsubstantiated claim. Planets come into existence during the formation of new stars; which themselves, come into existence due to gravitational collapse of molecular clouds. The heavier elements in these clouds are what eventually form planets, not the expansion of space OP. Like I said, read in the evolution of the solar system.

NASA recently discovered at least six new planets. My question is this what has been hiding those planets all these years that has made them not discoverable or visible to NASA. I should probably note that NASA discovered these planets with same telescope they have been using all this while cos they never announced the use of a new or advanced telescope.

OP, these are NOT new planets. These are newly discovered planets. There is a huge difference! That these planets weren't discovered before doesn't mean they never existed. New planets have very peculiar disk-like shapes; and are anything but fully formed spheres! Your question erroneously assumes NASA has looked everywhere in space for planets. This is an absurd proposition, given the vastness of space. It also betrays your staggering ignorance as to how telescopes work. A telescope is basically just a camera that can see distant things. Just like your camera, a telescope can only see things it is pointed at. Making the kind of claim you are making is the same as saying because humans have cameras, everything on earth has been photographed; therefore, if you see something new in a photograph, it is newly created and didn't exist before. (I hope you can now appreciate the absurdity of your suggestion).

By your assertion you're simply but indirectly implying that the universe is static. Because by expansion their is bound to be addition no matter the angle you view things from.

I have implied no such thing, either directly or indirectly. And no, expansion doesn't impose the need for material addition to anything. This is a misguided assumption! When you expand an elastic material (such as a rubber band/balloon), would you say you have added something to that material?

If by your assertion that the expansion of the universe affects the earth and other planets, then the earth should have left it's orbit a long time ago or even the distance between the earth and the Sun should have increased.

Of course expansion does affect the earth, but there is a counteractive force known as gravity which bounds the earth to the sun; hence the reason it remains in orbit.

let me go back to my submission. The earth and other planets are essential, important part of the Universe but they are not material part of the Universe' expansion. Meaning the earth and the other planets and objects in the universe are simply startic Objects in the ever expanding universe.

Please don't go back to that erroneous proposition. I have demonstrated how absurd and inaccurate it is. To be ignorant is excusable; but to be obstinately ignorant isn't.

There is no ambiguity in the Quran. It is your understanding that is limited. The fact is that God stated unequivocally in The Quran that he is the one ever expanding the universe. In the verse that you read in clear English above (Quran 51:47) is there a anything that looks ambiguous. If you are still not certisfied or you do not trust the author, you can as well Google the transliteration of the Arabic text and research on the meaning of the words used yourself.

I know the words that were used in the Quran, and I am sure that word "samaa" doesn't translate to "Universe". It simply translates to "heaven", which is why the following verse referenced "earth" as a conceptually distinct entity. The word "universe, as I have said before, does not distinguish between "heavens" (assuming this means everything contained outside of earth) and "earth". It looks like you're the one who should be doing the googling, not me.

You appear to be the one trying to bubiously question the authenticity of the Quran. while hiding under the guise of science.

You don't have to always accept everything at the face value. You should also try to consider the critical meaning of every word used. The evolution of the word heaven that you seem to have problem with does not have a scientific background because obviously science does not believe in the concept of heaven.

I think I know enough of science to know what scientists mean when they mention the word "universe", and it does not distinguish between heaven and earth. You may try to brush this off as a linguistic problem, but this is just applying band aid to an infected cut. The Quran clearly imposes a conceptual distinction between heaven and earth; something the scientific discovery of universal expansion doesn't!

If you are to go by the religious definition of heaven, It is the place that starts from large expanse of sky above us to an invisible destination beyond the sky. So If the material part of the Universe that keeps expanding is the sky above us and not the objects below it (the earth, moon, mars and all the planets) then it is safe to say the heaven is the same thing as the expanding Universe.

You still don't get it, do you, OP? There is no sky above us or below us. There's just the universe, and all that there is in it; and make no mistake, we ARE a material part of this universe. Expansion applies to everything in the universe, although, other forces can counteract it. Gravity makes you stick to earth, this unfortunately skews your perception and makes you believe there are things above you. There is no objective direction in the universe, there are just relative directions from fixed points. You may want to add Newtonian inertial frames of reference to the list of things to study. You don't quite understand relative positions, it seems.

BTW you should also consider getting to understand the meaning of the phrases "Material part", "essential part", "important part". If you can't get it online maybe you should consult a lawyer to give you a better explanation of them.

On the issue of the erroneous believe that the universe is startic stated in the article, you should really consider contacting the original author because it is Obvious it was a misnomer on the part of the author and does not take anything away from the FACT stated in the Quran. That is why the link is provided.

OP, I am a material physicist. I think it should be clear to you that I know precisely what is meant by the word "material". As for "essential" and "important". It seems you don't even realise that those words are synonymous. At any rate, I doubt either you or a person whose sole expertise is law, is competent enough to teach me the meaning of words that are used so banally like components of an anthem in my field. Choose your advice carefully!

AgentOfAllah:
Facts are statements that inhabit a universal reality OP. You cannot simply wish your whims to be fact, and claim you don't care about the scientific position on them; especially when in the first place, you were trying to use science to validate your claim.

By your definition of fact, the planet earth was generally believed to be flat and as at that time, due to the absence of equipment it was believed to be the reality (Universal reality right?) so what happened to the fact when the earth was later discovered to be spherical? Learn the meaning of "material part" until you do so, we will keep on going back and forth and arguing from a parallel view.

Is the earth part of a galaxy, OP?

I dont see the relevance of this question with the part you quoted except youre trying to make a mockery of yourself and not me. You wont ask me if the earth is part of a galaxy.

It is neither that simple, nor is it helpful to subject science to the primitive rules of common sense OP. As far as we know, there is no evidence that the processes that bring planets into existence are the same processes the cause the universe to expand. This is an unsubstantiated claim. Planets come into existence during the formation of new stars; which themselves, come into existence due to gravitational collapse of molecular clouds. The heavier elements in these clouds are what eventually form planets, not the expansion of space OP. Like I said, read in the evolution of the solar system.

If i deduce anything from you comment it is that expansion of the universe has no effect on the formation of planets. Right? ("ok. accepted". Now answer this questions for me.

1. What has been occupying the spaces been created due to the ever expanding universe (If I'm right, this expansion has been happening for billions of years)?

2. Where do these Molecular clouds come from?

OP, these are NOT new planets. These are newly discovered planets. There is a huge difference! That these planets weren't discovered before doesn't mean they never existed. New planets have very peculiar disk-like shapes; and are anything but fully formed spheres! Your question erroneously assumes NASA has looked everywhere in space for planets. This is an absurd proposition, given the vastness of space. It also betrays your staggering ignorance as to how telescopes work. A telescope is basically just a camera that can see distant things. Just like your camera, a telescope can only see things it is pointed at. Making the kind of claim you are making is the same as saying because humans have cameras, everything on earth has been photographed; therefore, if you see something new in a photograph, it is newly created and didn't exist before. (I hope you can now appreciate the absurdity of your suggestion).

Correction accepted. But still answer this question. If these are not new planets, then what do you think would have been the distance between the Sun earth and this planet on Day zero of the creation of the Universe?

I have implied no such thing, either directly or indirectly. And no, expansion doesn't impose the need for material addition to anything. This is a misguided assumption! When you expand an elastic material (such as a rubber band/balloon), would you say you have added something to that material?

Your example it flawed. Why? because a balloon does not have a floating Object in it neither does it have molecular clouds that breaks into stars and planets.

If the earth is a material part of the universe but it is not expanding(static) with the universe due to gravity, is it still material. If it is, and there is no distinction between the static earth and the Universe then does that not imply that the universe is also static?

Of course expansion does affect the earth, but there is a counteractive force known as gravity which bounds the earth to the sun; hence the reason it remains in orbit.

If gravity bounds the earth to the sun, does it bound the other planets too to the sun? If it bounds the other planets to the Sun, Then again what occupies the space being created by the ever expanding universe.

Please don't go back to that erroneous proposition. I have demonstrated how absurd and inaccurate it is. To be ignorant is excusable; but to be obstinately ignorant isn't.

My proposition about new planets not been seen may be wrong but you have yet to demonstrate anything else that is material to this argument that appeals to common sense(No offence).

I know the words that were used in the Quran, and I am sure that word "samaa" doesn't translate to "Universe". It simply translates to "heaven", which is why the following verse referenced "earth" as a conceptually distinct entity. The word "universe, as I have said before, does not distinguish between "heavens" (assuming this means everything contained outside of earth) and "earth". It looks like you're the one who should be doing the googling, not me.

Again here is where you keep confusing yourself. Like you earlier said with reference to the bold above, You cannot simply wish your whims to be fact. In fact there is no scientific definition of Heaven(Because science does not believe in the word as it originates from religion). The fact that scientist has not been able to distinguish between the Heavens and earth does not mean it is not the reality. So it not only dubious to attempt to adduce what science never implied in its definition to it, it is in fact criminal minded to do so. This brings me to this question. (For example, the Quran spoke extensively about the 3 stages of conception of pregnancy from sperm level to foetus level something science only came to confirm over 1400years later.) So does it mean it was not the reality because Science didnt confirm it?

If the Universe is been expanded according to science but the earth (and other planets) is been held down by gravity then what is the material part of the universe that is been physically expanded called?

If the following verse of the Quran refers to the earth as a separate entity from the expanding heaven, Is it not common sense that the material part of the universe that is physically expanding is the heaven Knowing fully well that the earth is been held down from expanding by the gravity.

I think I know enough of science to know what scientists mean when they mention the word "universe", and it does not distinguish between heaven and earth. You may try to brush this off as a linguistic problem, but this is just applying band aid to an infected cut. The Quran clearly imposes a conceptual distinction between heaven and earth; something the scientific discovery of universal expansion doesn't!

No you don't know or maybe you know enough but not being critical of your knowledge enough. The bolded is evidence for you. You just contradicted yourself. If the scientific discovery of universal expansion doesn't distinguish between the word heaven and earth then how are you so sure that the heaven is not the universe?

So because science does not distinguish between heaven and earth does that make it final the there is nothing like heaven?
If you believe there is heaven then why take everything science says as final?
If you believe there is heaven then what is your definition of heaven? Where is Heaven?

You still don't get it, do you, OP? There is no sky above us or below us. There's just the universe, and all that there is in it; and make no mistake, we ARE a material part of this universe. Expansion applies to everything in the universe, although, other forces can counteract it. Gravity makes you stick to earth, this unfortunately skews your perception and makes you believe there are things above you. There is no objective direction in the universe, there are just relative directions from fixed points. You may want to add Newtonian inertial frames of reference to the list of things to study. You don't quite understand relative positions, it seems.

I get it perfectly and you're the one confusing yourself by not been able to distinguish between science and Religion. Not knowing where to draw the line between science and religion. Science and Religion are not at war only that Science is too young to understand somethings.

And the bold is another of your confusions. If we are all material part of the universe, then why is the the Universe and all that is in it a separate entity. You should have just said that all there is, is the universe. Simple.

OP, I am a material physicist. I think it should be clear to you that I know precisely what is meant by the word "material". As for "essential" and "important". It seems you don't even realise that those words are synonymous. At any rate, I doubt either you or a person whose sole expertise is law, is competent enough to teach me the meaning of words that are used so banally like components of an anthem in my field. Choose your advice carefully!

At the first bold: is exactly where your confusion lies. You are defining Material from a scientist and physicist point of view but you fail to view it from the Importance/relevance point of view.

1. How material is the earth to the expansion process?
2. If the Universe expands, does the earth expand too?
3. If the earth doesn't expand will it stop the expansion of the universe? All those gravity BS are immaterial to this argument. As long has the earth does not physically expand when the universe does, then it is immaterial to the universe' expansion.

4. Also, if the earth is not there does it mean the end of the universe as it is?
5. BUT if the heaven/sky as you and I know it is not there, will there still be what you call the Universe?

These are questions to ask yourself to determine if the earth is material to the universe.

So if the Quran says "it is we who constantly expand the heaven but use gravity to hold down the earth" will you believe it then?


At second Bold: Synonymous you say? Good luck telling that to a judge in a court of law. You know why I brought the definition of law? because this is a contentious issue and if i am to challenge all your scientific beliefs officially, it will be in a court of law.

Try reading and arguing outside your profession it helps to see things from different angels. I'm an accountant and and those two words are not legally synonymous. Those are sometimes the deciding words that wins you cases in law. Ask a lawyer.

jomoh:

By your definition of fact, the planet earth was generally believed to be flat and as at that time, due to the absence of equipment it was believed to be the reality (Universal reality right?) so what happened to the fact when the earth was later discovered to be spherical? Learn the meaning of "material part" until you do so, we will keep on going back and forth and arguing from a parallel view.

Apparently, you also don't know the meaning of "reality". It has nothing to do with what is generally believed! Besides the claim that the earth was "generally believed" to be flat at the time (I assume you mean 1400 years ago) is an ignorant myth. There are RECORDS dating as far back as 600 B.C. which indicate that the notion of a spherical earth was already taking roots within philosophical and academic cycles. You'd know this if only you explored a little further than your nose OP.

I dont see the relevance of this question with the part you quoted except youre trying to make a mockery of yourself and not me. You wont ask me if the earth is part of a galaxy.

Why have you dodged the question? Allow me to remind you of your claim:

jomoh:
It is erroneous to thing the earth is a material part of the Universe. It is only an Object like the Sun, the moon, the stars and other planets.

Besides, I don't know if your inconsistent treatment of stars is because you don't realise that the sun is also a star/or you're just too deep into your bullshitting, that you forgot what you said earlier on. Let me remind you, you claimed the earth is not a material part of the universe, it's just an object like the sun, stars and moon, then in another place you claim galaxies(stars) are material parts of the universe. So are stars a material part of the universe or not?

If i deduce anything from you comment it is that expansion of the universe has no effect on the formation of planets. Right? ("ok. accepted". Now answer this questions for me.

1. What has been occupying the spaces been created due to the ever expanding universe (If I'm right, this expansion has been happening for billions of years)?

2. Where do these Molecular clouds come from?

I have not said expansion of the universe has no effect on the formation of new planets, I have said there is no evidence that it does. Get used to scientific language man! Now, back to your questions:

1. As far as we know, nothing but vacuum is occupying the space created by this expansion. It is well-known that the material density of the universe is decreasing with the continual expansion, which implies that no new matter is being added to the expanding universe.

2. Molecular clouds that exist are as old as the universe itself. They either came from the deionisation of protons at the beginning of the big bang, or from the remnants of stellar nucleosyhtesis of dead stars. They are NOT new additions to the universe!

Correction accepted. But still answer this question. If these are not new planets, then what do you think would have been the distance between the Sun earth and this planet on Day zero of the creation of the Universe?

There was neither an earth nor a even a sun when the universe came into being. The universe is ~13 billion years old, by comparison, our solar system is just about 4.5 billion years old.

Your example it flawed. Why? because a balloon does not have a floating Object in it neither does it have molecular clouds that breaks into stars and planets.

Every material, yourself included, have objects floating inside of them. They are called atoms! Most of your spatial make up is actually vacuum. If we were to shrink you into just your constituent electrons and protons, you wouldn't occupy up to half the space occupied by the nucleus of a bacterium!

If the earth is a material part of the universe but it is not expanding(static) with the universe due to gravity, is it still material. If it is, and there is no distinction between the static earth and the Universe then does that not imply that the universe is also static?

Mate, the earth is not static! it is moving, along with the sun, around the center of the milky way galaxy, at a dizzying speed of ~830,000 KM/h, because the sun is gravitationally bound to the milky way. The milky way is also being pulled away from, or moving towards other galaxies, depending on which force between universal expansion or gravitational attraction is stronger.
Invoking my previous example of rubber band/balloon, when you stretch these objects, you don't necessarily rip the atoms into their individual protons/quarks, instead, you stretch the interatomic bonds until they reach a breaking point. This doesn't mean the stretching isn't acting on the atoms. It's acting on their external interactions, not their internal ones. Similarly, if earth's relative position changes with respect to other galaxies, then expansion has acted on it! Expansion affects the earth and everything within the galaxy. Stop doubling down on ignorant assumptions.

If gravity bounds the earth to the sun, does it bound the other planets too to the sun? If it bounds the other planets to the Sun, Then again what occupies the space being created by the ever expanding universe.

Yes, it binds all the planets in the solar system to the sun. This is well-known! As for your follow up question, refer to my answer about density above.

My proposition about new planets not been seen may be wrong but you have yet to demonstrate anything else that is material to this argument that appeals to common sense(No offence).

I don't wish to appeal to common sense. I'm appealing to science, and science doesn't deal in common sense because common sense is crude, therefore, overrated.

Again here is where you keep confusing yourself. Like you earlier said with reference to the bold above, You cannot simply wish your whims to be fact. In fact there is no scientific definition of Heaven(Because science does not believe in the word as it originates from religion). The fact that scientist has not been able to distinguish between the Heavens and earth does not mean it is not the reality. So it not only dubious to attempt to adduce what science never implied in its definition to it, it is in fact criminal minded to do so. This brings me to this question. (For example, the Quran spoke extensively about the 3 stages of conception of pregnancy from sperm level to foetus level something science only came to confirm over 1400years later.) So does it mean it was not the reality because Science didnt confirm it?

Mate, I agree that there is no scientific definition for heaven. I'm not trying to claim that there is one. It is you and the author whose work you disseminated who have tried to validate the Quran with science, by imposing the scientific concept of "universe" on a conceptually distinct word, "heaven". I only tried to show how flawed you are by doing that; unfortunately, you're now projecting your flaws on me. Anyway, thanks for correcting your initial mischaracterisation of heaven as the universe by stating that "there is no scientific definition of heaven". That's what I've been trying to point out all along.

And please don't get me started on the catastrophically erroneous description of the stages of conception in the Quran...you'd better picked up a proper biology textbook before you get yourself into another mess!

No you don't know or maybe you know enough but not being critical of your knowledge enough. The bolded is evidence for you. You just contradicted yourself. If the scientific discovery of universal expansion doesn't distinguish between the word heaven and earth then how are you so sure that the heaven is not the universe?

I am sure because in the scientific definition, the universe includes everything in it! There is no conceptual distinction between heaven and earth. If you were on the moon or on Mars or Jupiter, earth will be part of your heaven!

So because science does not distinguish between heaven and earth does that make it final the there is nothing like heaven?
If you believe there is heaven then why take everything science says as final?
If you believe there is heaven then what is your definition of heaven? Where is Heaven?

It's not just that science doesn't distinguish, it is that such a distinction is conceptually absurd!

I get it perfectly and you're the one confusing yourself by not been able to distinguish between science and Religion. Not knowing where to draw the line between science and religion. Science and Religion are not at war only that Science is too young to understand somethings.

We've heard that one before. "Science is too young", yet has achieved in just a few centuries, things religion couldn't for millennia! There must be something wrong with religion! Besides, it is you who tried to validate your religion with science. I'm merely arguing that you should refrain from doing so if you don't want to be embarrassed!

At the first bold: is exactly where your confusion lies. You are defining Material from a scientist and physicist point of view but you fail to view it from the Importance/relevance point of view.

1. How material is the earth to the expansion process?
2. If the Universe expands, does the earth expand too?
3. If the earth doesn't expand will it stop the expansion of the universe? All those gravity BS are immaterial to this argument. As long has the earth does not physically expand when the universe does, then it is immaterial to the universe' expansion.

4. Also, if the earth is not there does it mean the end of the universe as it is?
5. BUT if the heaven/sky as you and I know it is not there, will there still be what you call the Universe?

Gravity is NOT BS, don't persist in ignorance! The earth has an infinitesimally small but non-zero contribution to the expansion of the universe. If the earth should suddenly cease to exist, then the universe will expand a little bit faster than it currently is because the gravitational force of the earth which counteracts this expansion will also cease to be.

At second Bold: Synonymous you say? Good luck telling that to a judge in a court of law. You know why I brought the definition of law? because this is a contentious issue and if i am to challenge all your scientific beliefs officially, it will be in a court of law.

Aside from insisting that those words are synonymous, I'll not bother responding to this underwhelmingly juvenile remark!

Try reading and arguing outside your profession it helps to see things from different angels. I'm an accountant and and those two words are not legally synonymous. Those are sometimes the deciding words that wins you cases in law. Ask a lawyer.

I dare you to pull up any legal thesaurus of repute in which "essential" isn't synonymous with "important". Pick up a thesaurus some day, before embarrassing yourself with childish posturings.

did he also discover child porn
abi you forget that one

farouk0403:
Aslm my brothers and sisters in islam, I have a question, according to islam it is believe that there are 7 sky the 8th one is where Al'arsh is, I dont't know whether I get it right or not, I stand to be corrected.
I have seen it so many times in discovery channel and Nat geo the space is just a black space with just the solar system around it, and if move further there is nothing except old aged sun erupting like volcano, it is belief that the sun is there over billions of years according to NASA. I have so many things in my mind but I will stop here, my question is please I need more enlightenment to this controversies to clear my mind.

Thanks in anticipation.

There are seven heavens and also seven skies(earths atmosphere) the dark space you're seeing is the first heaven there are other heavens beyond the one we know, Nasa recently just discovered that it's a multiverse not a universe because of the discovery of trillions of galaxies in other soak bubbles(heavens or region containing galaxies and others things) instead of the billions that were thought to be in the universe. Allah knows best read more hadiths you'll find more answers and also the Qur'an it seems like the devils are building doubts in your heart.

najib632:
There are seven heavens and also seven skies(earths atmosphere) the dark space you're seeing is the first heaven there are other heavens beyond the one we know, Nasa recently just discovered that it's a multiverse not a universe because of the discovery of trillions of galaxies in other soak bubbles(heavens or region containing galaxies and others things) instead of the billions that were thought to be in the universe. Allah knows best read more hadiths you'll find more answers and also the Qur'an it seems like the devils are building doubts in your heart.

It is not like devils are building doubt in my heart, there are some questions that need to be asked for the sake of clarification.

[quote author=goingape1 post=54014927]see them forming lie!
most theory and if not many discovery was base on the bible and not Qur'an!

the Qur'an was just a counterfeited copy of the bible, nothing much and nothing less.
the only thing I know the Quran is legitimately unique is that verse which talk about jihad (killing of other people)[/quote

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 New American
Standard Bible (NASB)
“If your brother, your mother’s son, or your
son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or
your friend who is as your own soul, entice
you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve
other gods’ (whom neither you nor your
fathers have known, of the gods of the
peoples who are around you, near you or far
from you, from one end of the earth to the
other end), you shall not yield to him or
listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him,
nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you
shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first
against him to put him to death, and
afterwards the hand of all the people.

Jesus also preach jihad in d bible.