Hubble's Law in the Quran long before Hubble's own discovery

[Minimalist]

That wouldn't even slow down a true believer.  They are all assholes.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The verse says:

Sura 51, The Quran:
( 47 )   And the heaven We constructed with hands, and indeed, We are expanding.

Sura 42, The Quran:
( 1 )   Ha, Meem.
( 2 )   'Ayn, Seen, Qaf.
( 3 )   Thus has He revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and to those before you - Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
( 4 )   To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and He is the Most High, the Most Great.
( 5 )   The heavens almost break from above them, and the angels exalt [Allah] with praise of their Lord and ask forgiveness for those on earth. Unquestionably, it is Allah who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.
( 6 )   And those who take as allies other than Him - Allah is [yet] Guardian over them; and you, [O Muhammad], are not over them a manager.

Things "break" when they are "expanded"?

How did Mohammed know that heaven was expanding?
If we assumed ignorance and lying of the author of the Quran; why would they refer explicitly to such a fact?
Even a nomad Muslim in the desert 1400 years ago, would know that the skies (universe) is expanding. Not just that; actually saying otherwise defies the verse above.
The universe is expanding, by the direct statement of verse 47 of Sura 51 in the Quran, and the implicit referring by verse 5 of Sura 42

Long before Hubble's discovery. 1400 years approximately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe

The verse in Arabic:

والسماء بنيناها بأيد وإنا لموسعون

That's a phony translation, which makes the whole thing is phony because the word "manager" didn't exist until 1580 A.D.  https://www.etymonline.com/word/manager

[vulcanlogician]

Could you elaborate Wyrd? I don't follow. Couldn't there have been a word that meant the same thing in Arabic?

[Nay_Sayer]

Snipped gibberish

Once again wrong. Your book shamelessly took the teaching of the first Sumerian Collander scrolls.



"This is from the great epic known as gemellimesh; Translated reads;   'The skies doth expand forever farther than we can ever reach.  It doth expand from a point so small the eye cannot see, smaller than a single grain within a plank of wood. Search the skies my students with not just your eyes but your minds."

This was written somewhere between 2030 and 2056 BCE and it confirmes the following;  Plank time, Expanding space, and the big bang.

Sorry your late to the party Atlas.

RAmen.

[Brian37]

Snipped gibberish

Once again wrong. Your book shamelessly took the teaching of the first Sumerian Collander scrolls.



"This is from the great epic known as gemellimesh; Translated reads;   'The skies doth expand forever farther than we can ever reach.  It doth expand from a point so small the eye cannot see, smaller than a single grain within a plank of wood. Search the skies my students with not just your eyes but your minds."

This was written somewhere between 2030 and 2056 BCE and it confirmes the following;  Plank time, Expanding space, and the big bang.

Sorry your late to the party Atlas.

RAmen.

I agree that religions borrow or steal motifs from prior religions, but no, it does not NOT "confirm" "Plank Time" or "expanding space" or the "Big Bang" anymore than the ancient Greek's use of the word "atom" confirmed quarks, or electrons or protons or neutrons. 

All that ancient squiggle confirms is people guessed and made those bad guesses on prior polytheism whom, those polytheist were as ignorant of modern science as monotheists.

POINT IS, that nobody, worldwide had any clue of what we know today.

[vulcanlogician]

I don't think he was quite serious, Brian.

[Nay_Sayer]

Once again wrong. Your book shamelessly took the teaching of the first Sumerian Collander scrolls.



"This is from the great epic known as gemellimesh; Translated reads;   'The skies doth expand forever farther than we can ever reach.  It doth expand from a point so small the eye cannot see, smaller than a single grain within a plank of wood. Search the skies my students with not just your eyes but your minds."

This was written somewhere between 2030 and 2056 BCE and it confirmes the following;  Plank time, Expanding space, and the big bang.

Sorry your late to the party Atlas.

RAmen.

I agree that religions borrow or steal motifs from prior religions, but no, it does not NOT "confirm" "Plank Time" or "expanding space" or the "Big Bang" anymore than the ancient Greek's use of the word "atom" confirmed quarks, or electrons or protons or neutrons. 

All that ancient squiggle confirms is people guessed and made those bad guesses on prior polytheism whom, those polytheist were as ignorant of modern science as monotheists.

POINT IS, that nobody, worldwide had any clue of what we know today.

Sir I'll have you know Ancient Pastafarianeese is not squiggle; Like Latin, Esperanto and Donald Trumps tweets, It is a language very few can read and understand.

[Minimalist]

the teaching of the first Sumerian Collander scrolls.

Wait.  I thought the Collander Scrolls were written by the FSM?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Could you elaborate Wyrd? I don't follow. Couldn't there have been a word that meant the same thing in Arabic?

Some translations use the word "guardian" instead of "manager".  They are not exactly synonyms.  http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/guardian?s=t
[/url]
[url=http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/manager]http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/manager

It might seem to be nitpicky but when newer words are used it tends to shift the meaning of the original thought.  The word "manager" is from the 1580s. https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=manager.  The word "guardian" is from around 1510  https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=guardian.

I can't read Arabic but if a version of the Koran uses a word that can be translated into either "guardian" or "manager" then that copy of the Koran was written in modern times.  So that could mean that every idea in it has been altered from the original 640 A.D. version.  We know that the Koran had a major alteration when it was put into numbered chapters and verses to mirror the Bible's format.  So even if it's written in the Arabic language it doesn't mean that it is the original version.

It's like reading about Guardian Angels in some versions of the Bible.  That idea is from the 1630s and replaces the idea of the cherub from the late 14th Century.  https://www.etymonline.com/word/Cherub

[WinterHold]

Congratulations, Atlas, for making your claim unfalsifiable. And that's not a good thing.

Nope.  It's an excuse.

Yep. This whole thing is a babyish game of "nuh-uh, I said it first so I win!", hiding behind the pretend shield of authority.

Sorry, but most of us outgrew shit like that when we got out of nappies (diapers, for the USians). It's a message, alright - it says that some people have a lot of catching up to do.

The whole point is showing why I believe in what I quoted and said; and to show my believe criteria that is based on mere logic and authenticity.
I judged, and my judgement was as follows: this is an ancient book, that said clearly that the universe is expanding. If negation of the previous exists; I will gladly take it and even advocate it.

The game is life, not human nature. Actually; if somebody created a brand first, it's a crime by international law for somebody else to claim authorship over the brand.
That's why on so many -if not all- websites, you find "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom, add to that the complicated long walls of text, that lawyers and law students spend years to study how to deal with it, with this exact reason in the end: who said it first?

And as many other "human natures" and validation facts, some people -if not many- manipulate facts to produce the version they want of the nature.
To me life itself is the game..not instincts like telling the reality of what happened.

---

I'm Arabic. So I will give literal translation of the Arabic verse:

و السماء بنيناها بأيد و إنا لموسعون

و السماء=And the heavens -literally-
بنيناها=We have built it
بأيد=With our hands
وإنا لموسعون=And we shall expand/ and we are its expanders (Literally; you either pick the first meaning or the second, it won't change the meaning).

That's the literal translation; no translators or websites for translation.
The language defies the interpretation you provided; and once again we witness how ignorant Sunni and Shiite scholars feed wrong translations everywhere.

Still, no English translation said 'expand' until after Hubble's discovery. Funny how the translators couldn't figure out the correct translation until non-Muslim scientists found evidence of expansion.

The word is mentioned in other contexts elsewhere in the Quran; it's ancient:

Sura 4,The Quran:
(97 )   Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves - [the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنتُمْ ۖ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا ۚ فَأُولَٰئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا (97)

Sura 2, The Quran:
( 286 )   Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned. "Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people."
لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۚ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَعَلَيْهَا مَا اكْتَسَبَتْ ۗ رَبَّنَا لَا تُؤَاخِذْنَا إِن نَّسِينَا أَوْ أَخْطَأْنَا ۚ رَبَّنَا وَلَا تَحْمِلْ عَلَيْنَا إِصْرًا كَمَا حَمَلْتَهُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِنَا ۚ رَبَّنَا وَلَا تُحَمِّلْنَا مَا لَا طَاقَةَ لَنَا بِهِ ۖ وَاعْفُ عَنَّا وَاغْفِرْ لَنَا وَارْحَمْنَا ۚ أَنتَ مَوْلَانَا فَانصُرْنَا عَلَى الْقَوْمِ الْكَافِرِينَ (286)

Sura 29, The Quran:
( 56 )   O My servants who have believed, indeed My earth is spacious, so worship only Me.
يَا عِبَادِيَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّ أَرْضِي وَاسِعَةٌ فَإِيَّايَ فَاعْبُدُونِ (56)

All the above are the Arabic for "expand", in tenses suiting the context they are in. All are derived from the same word "سعة"=capacity, which the verb from it is يوسع=expand
واسع means wide
The verb expand, means يوسع
The adjective means موسع
The plural adjective is موسعون

---

No he is not. I like him. I also like Catholic lady. But in both cases, I say the same thing. "That was then this is now". Humans made horrible guesses back then, and it turned into religion. But today, because most humans get sold religion at birth old habits are hard to break. The thought of being finite for most humans frightens them. I don't think it should, but it does, and that fear ends up in the form of religion.

I think most humans are good, even though I think their logic sucks.

I'll still take a liberal theist over a conservative hate filled nutcase, and they exist in every religion.

He sounds as bad as a drunk poe. Preaching in my house.

Everybody preaches in your house; from food companies "advising you to taste their products" to the internet preaching users to stay away of malformed URLs.

---

He sounds as bad as a drunk poe. Preaching in my house.

Not to me. Mystic is far more dreamy eyed to me. Atlass33 at least goes after his own, even CL does. 

I simply see Atlass33 has being conflicted but like most liberal theists, have a hard time with cognitive dissonance. I've seen far worse far right Christians. Atlass33 isn't a conservative from what I see. I still don't agree that his God exists, but he isn't an Isis member anymore than CL is a KKK member.

cognitive dissonance is not the right term when contradiction is what makes the belief makes sense.
If the idea of God as the creator of everything was to make sense; one has to accept that God created both good and evil. When taken as a block; the conclusion is a unique single creator, unlike us, who are always subject to one single behavior.

We are a binary specie.

---

The verse says:




Things "break" when they are "expanded"?

How did Mohammed know that heaven was expanding?
If we assumed ignorance and lying of the author of the Quran; why would they refer explicitly to such a fact?
Even a nomad Muslim in the desert 1400 years ago, would know that the skies (universe) is expanding. Not just that; actually saying otherwise defies the verse above.
The universe is expanding, by the direct statement of verse 47 of Sura 51 in the Quran, and the implicit referring by verse 5 of Sura 42

Long before Hubble's discovery. 1400 years approximately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law


The verse in Arabic:

والسماء بنيناها بأيد وإنا لموسعون

If you write anything vague enough you can get it fit any outcome. Its what mediums do to fool their audience.

It's not vague; it specified expansion, not shrinking.

---

Skeptics Annotated koran

51:47 We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

Apparently this shit means whatever the translator wants it to mean.  Which makes it like all other theistic horseshit.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-52929-p...pid1681683

on this post I gave a word-by-word literal translation of the original verse.
It means what language dictates through its rules and constraints.

---

Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno correctly proclaimed that stars were distant suns with their own planets - in the 16th century. Does this demonstrate he had divine knowledge?

No. He had a spot-on imagination based on a strong observational skill in this one.
Expansion of the skies is a genius idea if somebody had it: like Hubble, who based his conclusion on scientific observation.

But no way somebody expects it without a telescope.