Sunday, April 5, 2009

Muslim Scientists Debate whether the Earth Is Flat and whether the Sun Is Smaller than the Earth

Notice which Muslim scientist is appealing to the Qur'an for support.


Anthony Rogers said...

Haaaaaa! Now that was entertaining.

In order to explain why ships appear to sink out of sight, He said: "...we see with the upper half things that are far, and with the lower half things that are near."

Try tilting your head down, then. That should clear things up.

What a goof.

Radical Moderate said...

Ok I'm convinced the koran does have scientific miracles in it. NOT

Anthony Rogers said...

As anyone can see from looking at the first frame of the video, this man is bigger than the cars and buildings behind him. It is similar same with the sun and the moon.

If you think about it, this man is not only proof of the teaching of the Qur'an regarding the sun and the moon, but also of the hadith's story of a ninety-foot tall Adam.

(Someone go tell Osama the good news)

ubiquitouserendipity said...

koranic science ~ ha ha ha ha ha

makes as much sense as a cat bark, or a dog meow

also makes as much sense as "koranic jurisprudence." every time i hear that phrase i guffaw... and chortle

7th century superstition is what mohammedanism is

those poor lost souls

Nakdimon said...

As far as I am concerned the only "miracle of the Qur'an" is that people still believe that book. I think Peter Pan sounds more exciting and real than anything the Qur'an says.

Fernando said...

"Anything that is not in the qur'an is false"...

well, then he must be false cince he is not mentioned there...

his he a true scientiste? ore somme muslim block picked up in a streete corner while was habing a nap?

he makes me reminde the great Ghamidi...

Anonymous said...

I remember this one.
In duscissions, I often use it as a proof that the Quran is not a scientific miracle.

IslamSINS said...

This only proves how very toxic Islam is to the brain. All Muslims, without fail, must deny obvious truths. Muhammad is NOT a messenger of YHWH, and once this single foundational belief is accepted, it then begins to destroy braincells, making all the lunacy of his 7th century ignorance acceptable to his very blind, eternally condemned, global asylum. We dare not let the dementia of islam infect our Democracies.

Jime said...

It's incredible!

The ability of the human mind to rationalize deep cherished beliefs has no limits.

It remembers me of a paper by an independent philosopher, who argues that reason is not the cause of most of our beliefs (especially, of our worldview beliefs).

In his paper "Arguments beyond reason", he writes:

If we examine our reasons for believing what we believe beyond the reason-giving we do to defend our beliefs we find the animating core which motivates us to have the beliefs that we have and deploy the reasons that we do. The reasons we give for believing as we do are not the real reasons we believe because they always ultimately end in circularity, regress or assumptions.[6] Since all belief-systems if pursued far enough will end in circularity, regress or assumptions we cannot say that reasons are what ultimately cause us to believe. There must be something else which causes us to adopt our particular chain of reasons or web of beliefs. Since in terms of their ultimate rational foundation our belief system is as good as an opposed belief-system, there must be something else which causes us to choose, and which holds us to, our particular belief-system. What is characteristic of us is not only the combination of beliefs we have woven together, since everyone does that with greater or lesser originality, but why we adhere to this, rather than that, belief-system. In our rational discussions there is a way in which we completely miss the point since it is not the reasons we are deploying that cause us to believe. If we are trying to convince another person or challenge our own beliefs then we should, for more efficiency, go to the source of the belief, which is the emotional and psychic need to have the world be the way we believe it is

As far I don't agree with everything he says in that paper, his thesis is useful to explains why most philosophical, political or religious controversies aren't resolved rationally (i.e. through debate and argumentation). In spite of the best arguments, each side will often reinforce their previous views on the matter.

Liberals can't convince conservatives of their views (or viceversa); atheists can't convince theist of their views (or viceversa); dualists can't convince materialists... etc. There are some rare exceptions to that rule.

So, "reason-giving" is very often an excercise in rationalizing, and the above video is an example.

By the way David Wood, what has happened with your essays responding to Richard Carrier's objections to your review of his book? I've been waiting for the next parts of your reply.

Your first part of your reply was very good.

David Wood said...


Concerning Carrier, I decided to focus on Islam for a while. I suspect I'll be returning to the atheism debate in the fall. (I suspect I'll make an entire site dedicated to our dear friend Richard. He's given me plenty of material to work with.)

Stephanie said...

That's one major inconsistency with what many Muslim apologists claim--the Qur'an holds scientific truths; yet, when the Qur'an directly contradicts what modern science has proved, Muslims reject modern science. Why should only a few choice concepts be correct (when they line up with the Qur'an), but other equally rational concepts be rejected (when they are contradictions)?

It's one thing to reject a theory if it's based on unsound proof, but that the earth is round and revolves around a considerably larger sun is backed up on many valid premises. The rejection of evolution would be a completely different story, because as most know, it is merely a theory based on assumptions that lack scientific proof.

It's simply illogical to reason that:
Premise 1: The Qur'an lines up with scientific truths today.
Premise 2: The concept of a round earth is not consistent with the Qur'an. Therefore
Conclusion: That the earth is round is not a scientific truth because it contradicts the Qur'an.

This is of course a foolish conclusion since there is proof--not merely theories or assumptions--that the earth is indeed round.

Bryant said...

Nakdimon said: "As far as I am concerned the only "miracle of the Qur'an" is that people still believe that book."

HAHAHAA.....Nakdimon you never cease to speak truth.

Michelle Qureshi said...

Gosh, I really felt for the physicist during this "debate". He must have been thinking "This is unbelievable! I can't believe this guy is even saying these things, they're so obviously wrong!"

So, in other words, the physicist was analogous to a Christian apologist.

Royal Son said...

Whatever happened to "Allah knows best" ?

Fernando said...

Royal Son saide: «Whatever happened to "Allah knows best"?»...

not eben allah knows... oops, it does nott know anything...

Radical Moderate said...

Just a thought people, I know this guy sounds ridiculous. Its laughable. However think about this, there are Christians, i'm sure some that even read this blog. That have taken a single chapter out of the book of Genisis, and developed a whow scientific theological doctrine in regards to the creation of the Universe. They believe the Universe is 5000 years old. That dinosours romed the earth with man. They even believe that when God says he created the universe and everytihng in it in 6 days that litterlay meens six 24 hour earth days.

For those of you that think Man walked the earth with dinosours. I sugjest you visit the field museum in Chicago. They have a complete T Rex skeloton on display. We wouldnt of stood a chance.

BlackBaron said...

Fat Man,

Hate to go off topic, and since there are no dates listed in the Bible, I am not a 5000 year earther, but I am curious as to when you start believing the Bible? Do you begin with Cain and Able, or do you wait until Noah?

Radical Moderate said...

I begin believe the bible at Genisis 1:1. The point of the first chapter of Genisis, is that God created everyting with his word in Stages. 6 Distint Stages. The lenght and time of those stages is relative. The other 49 Chapters of the book of Genisis then deals with what is really important, and that is Gods relation with his creation i.e MAN.

faktb said...

I wonder what he has to say about Google Earth?

Anthony Rogers said...

Fat Man,

Okay, now project your scenario into the future and apply the same reasoning to the following:

Muslims have failed to dominate the world and Islam has gone the way of all the earth along with other religious dinosaurs.

You go to a museum where a Muslim suicide bomber is on display, and the caption below says: "Radical Muslims use to exist and terrorize the world; now they are extinct."

Along comes a man who calls himself "Big Guy". He looks at the caption and says, "This is ridiculous. How could civilized human beings exist at the same time as such people? We wouldn't have stood a chance. I don't believe it."

What do you think? Sound feasible?

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Blogger The Fat Man said...

I begin believe the bible at Genisis 1:1. The point of the first chapter of Genisis, is that God created everyting with his word in Stages. 6 Distint Stages. The lenght and time of those stages is relative. The other 49 Chapters of the book of Genisis then deals with what is really important, and that is Gods relation with his creation i.e MAN.

me: i'm no theologian, neither a rhetorician, nay, nor a logician. a simple man, with a simple faith. i take G d at His revealed Word. at what point does a day actually become a day as we know a day to be? the term used for day in hebrew is "yom" which is used 2239 times. 1270 as day, 669 times as days. the interesting thing about the first usage of yom is that it is when the Lord creates day and night. the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

unless there is evidence that we have encountered an incredible increase in the speed which we rotate on our axis, travel around the sun, and also an increase in the rotation of the moon around the earth, i'm gonna' assume a relative constancy since G d set the heavens in order.

but the span after the creation light, and previous to the creation of the first day, may quite well be billions of ions of time to us, but just a moment of eternity with G d. but days are days, e.g., of an evening and a morning (night and daylight). G d created them, describes them for us, and then worked within that framework to describe His handiworks. why is that so hard to believe? Peace, in His love, joe

ubiquitouserendipity said...

fatman ~ another thing to consider: we have no time frame for adam's and eve's life in the garden. so there is no way for us to adjudge the age of the earth,,, again, adam and eve could have lived millions of years in the garden,,, we just don't know. for me it matters not a whit. the faulty towers of science do not determine my personal relationship with the Living G d. Peace, in His love, joe

Radical Moderate said...

Semper Paratus; I'm sorry I have dont know exactly what your post to me is ment to convey. I'm going to assume that you meen since we have dinosour bones that does not meen that civilization was not in existence at the same time. Or that man did not exist at the same time. If thats the case then as a amature arrow head hunter. I have found many arrow heads, remains of indian campsites, old animal bones. In other words were ever I found arrow heads, for the most part there were animal remains. In other words if dinosours existed at the time of man then we would find mans remains with the animals bones. Case in point. We have found Wolly Mamomoth slaughering grounds. Basiacaly Cliffs that clovis man drove the mamonths off of. They are huge grave yards In each one of these grave yards not only do we find the bones but we also find the remains of man. Discarded flint tools used to skin and butcher the animasl, remains of fire pits etc... There has been no, none, nadda, zip, zero human remains found with dinosour bones. That is only one example of a lack of evidence for the existance of man with dinosours.

Secondly the mare fact that the dinosourse that were preditors were to big for for stone age man to compete with. There is no way that a stone age man could dominate a T rex or even a pact of raptors. As a hunter, who has hunted deer, a relativly small animal in comparison with modern Compound bow, and shotgun. I have hit this animal with a broad head ment to sever arteries. Even after doing this in most cases I still have to track it for a mile or two before I can harvest it. The same with the shot gun. There is no way man could bring down this large of an animal with a simple stone spear. And remember stone age man would be competing with the other preditors. Its a mere matter of natural economics.

Radical Moderate said...

If God created man on the sixth day, and then lived for 930 years, and if we are to take the creation account as a step by step historical document. Then yes the young earhters who say that the earth is a little over 5000 years old are in fact right.

I do not believe we are to take the creation account in Genisis literaly. It is true, God created the universe in stages. No historian, physicist, chemist, enviromentalist, anthropologist, or any other "IST" can argue that all that has come into existence has been in stages.

If you are going to argue a literal interpretation then you are going to sound as funny, and laughable as the muslim saying the quran is flat using the quran as his proof. And when ever I hear what I call "Kent Hovenist" spout this kind of nonsese I cringe. This nonsense has to be stopped.

Radical Moderate said...

I forgot God says that a day to him is like a Eeon to us. I dont feel like looking it up but I beleive its in proverbs

Anthony Rogers said...

Fat Man said: "I'm sorry I have dont know exactly what your post to me is ment to convey."

Just a little spoof of your reasoning. That's all.

Radical Moderate said...

Semper Paratus
Just a little spoof of your reasoning. That's all.

Well I dont know what you were trying to spoof. Bottom line if you laughed at this fool trying to say that the earth was flat and the sun was smaller then it is compared to the moon, and that the sun revolved around the earth, as I did. Then you must laugh at people who try to use a single chapter of Genisis out of th context of the entire book to some how say the universe is only 5000 years old, that man walked with the dinosours, etc... Doing so not only makes christians look like this fool in the video, but also ingnores the truth of Genisis. Wich is God created the world through his WORD, he did it in Stages, and God interacts in a relationship with his greatest creation MAN.

Radical Moderate said...

One more thing for you Ken Hovenist out there. I have one thing to say to that mans character. He is doing 10 Years in prison for tax evasion. The IRS does not like to put people in prison. They want their money. They will work with you so you can pay them off. YOu being in prison meens your not working it meens you cant pay them. In other words you really have to anger them in order for you to go to prison. Secondly, after he was convicted he broke down and cried and said basicaly "If its about the money I HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL DONATE TO PAY THIS OFF" he said that I have people who will donate to pay his tax bill. Now I dont like criminals, but when you get caught, when you get convicted at least have some self respect. Have some dignity.

BlackBaron said...

Fat Man,

Just for fun, what in your opinion is the behemoth from Job 44?

"Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins,and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron."

Radical Moderate said...

Actualy Dr Wood I would like to see your input on this whole young earth thing. You dont have to post this if you dont want. But I would like to here your input.

Anthony Rogers said...

Fat Man,

I'm not sure why you appear to be getting uppity. It wasn't my intention to draw that out of you.

However, if you really have a thing about this, then you can start with the following, none of which is derived from KH, none of whose books or works I own (as if it mattered):

1. The primary and usual meaning of the Hebrew word YOM in the Bible is a regular 24 hour (or 12 when speaking of just the daylight portion) day. Unless the context indicates otherwise, that would be the expected meaning in Genesis 1.

2. Although the word YOM can have a figurative meaning, it never does so when used with a cardinal or ordinal prefix, as in Genesis 1. (This is true in all 119 cases in the writings of Moses.).

Just take one example for the construction Yom Echad ("One Day"), Numbers 11:19-20. It is written: "18Say to the people, 'Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat; for you have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, "Oh that someone would give us meat to eat! For we were well-off in Egypt." Therefore the LORD will give you meat and you shall eat. 19'You shall eat, not one day (Yom Echad), nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, 20but a whole month, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you;...."

The fact that a clear sequence is given, the fact that it culminates in a month, the fact that it uses the word "tomorrow" (v. 18), and the phrase "the day after" (v. 32), all sink the proverbial nail in the coffin, at least in this instance, that the meaning is of an ordinary day.

All other examples would yield the same conclusion.

3. The days of Genesis 1 are clearly qualified by the expression "morning and evening" (Heb. erev and boker, respectively). In the 37 times this phrase appears outside of Genesis 1, it always refers to an ordinary day.

All other examples would yield the same conclusion.

4. In the fourth commandment (Ex. 20; Dt. 5), where man is commanded to work six days and rest one day, because God created in six days and rested on the seventh, the word "days" (Heb. Yammim) is used for the creation week. Yammim is used 608 times in the Old Testament, and it is never used for ages, which is expressed by such words as dor, moadim, tzamani, lashiva, ate, or Olam.

All other examples would yield the same conclusion.

Note: I have made your job easy. In order to refute me, all you have to do is provide a single counter-example each for points 2, 3, and 4. Point 1 simply requires you to bring out relevant contextual indications that these words are not being used in the ordinary way. I am familiar with the attempts to argue from some necessity of the context for a figurative understanding, and I will be happy to hear them again from you.

As others have pointed out, this question is really not on the same level as what we find in the video. If you think your anecdotal stories somehow impinge on the scientific integrity of the Bible at this point, though I can assure you that more than just anecdotal stories and provincial experiences can be brought to bear in response to what you've said, then you have to work on coming up with an answer to things like the above or forever hold the Bible, accurately interpreted, and science, its established facts not its theories, in tension.

I could say more, but it was not originally my intention to say this much. If the above makes me look like a fool in your eyes, then I am fine with that. But if you were looking for someone who is embarrassed by the teaching of Scripture, then you stopped up short. Keep looking.

P.S. My taxes are in order.

BlackBaron said...

The Fat Man said,

"...God created the world through his WORD, he did it in Stages..."

By "stages" do you mean something like, "stage 1 = 5 billion years, stage 2 = another billion..."?

If you see the days of creation as long ages, do you believe in the ORDER of creation? If you do believe the order is correct, do you think that we would have any plants and flowers (created on day 3) which require pollination by birds and insects (created on days 5 and 6). Or do you think that all such plants would have gone extinct in the billions of years between day 3 and 5?

Also, not sure why you brought up Hovind and his character. I'm sure we could think of one or two people who hold to your view of the earth's age who have similar character shortcomings.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I do not however think many people in Muhammad's time believed the earth to be flat.

It was a common idea at least among the Greeks and the Jews that the earth was spherical in every direction, and placed in an open space, orbited by seven planets that were swiming in a space-occean of water or liquid or thick gas (whatever) and surrounded by a seven cosmological spheres or heavens.

Amazingly, the Qur'an borrows all these other ideas from ancient science, I it just amazing that the author of the Qur'an missed the fact that the earth was spherical, the only proposition among the all the others which is correct.

So lets summarize this:

The author of the Qur'an plagiarizes all the wrong scientific postulates of his time but misses out the only accurate one, namely that the earth is spherical.

If the muslims still wanna argue that this is Gods' revealed word, how are they gona explain this factors?

Fernando said...

Brother Hogan asqued: «If the muslims still wanna argue that this is Gods' revealed word, how are they gona explain this factors?»...

simply: they'll ignore the evidences, putt their heads in the sand, and say "allah knows best" and, threrefor, will continue to believe in their totally false ideologie... someone might have argued: it's some sort of brain washing... butt sinse theire heads are in the sand, I would rather say: it's some sort of sand washing...

Fernando said...

By the way: I don't thinke thate any biblical author was worried to gibe an scientificl acount of the creation of the Universe... the 10 first chapters of the Genesis are a big midrash, a sapiencial acount in a restrospective prophecy (prophecy... not prephecy...)... but guess watte: I'm just an humble Christian... happie easter to all our jewish brothers!!!

Anonymous said...

The Qur'an describes the earth as being flat over and over again.

Let me give you a few examples.

note: I will post the arabic word being used after every ayah (verse)

Q. 13:3 And He it is who hath outstretched the earth, and placed on it the firm mountains( Madda)

Q. 15:19 And the earth have WE spread out (Madadnaha)

Q. 20:53 [since he is the One] Who has laid out the earth as a carpet for you (Mahdan)`

Q2:22 Who made the earth a bed for you, and the heaven a roof (Firasha)

Q. 43:10 (Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out (Mahdan)

Q. 50:6-7 What, have they not beheld heaven above them, how we have built it, and decked it out fair, and it has no cracks? And the earth -- We stretched it forth, and cast on it firm mountains, and we caused to grow therein of every joyous kind (Madadnaha)

Q. 51:48 And the earth we have spread out, and how excellently do we spread it out! (Farashnaha)

Q. 71:19 And God has laid the earth for you as a carpet (Bisata)

Q. 78:6 Have WE not made the earth as a bed, And the mountains as pegs (Mihada)

Q. 79:27-30 What, are you stronger in constitution or the heaven He built? He lifted up its vault, and levelled it, and darkened its night, and brought forth its forenoon; and the earth - after that He spread it out, (Dahaha)

Q. 88:20 Nor even how the earth has been flattened out? (Sutehat)

Q. 91:5-6 By the heaven and that which built it and by the earth and That which extended it! (Tahaha)

Those are just a few showing what muhammad used to believe.

Radical Moderate said...

BlackBaron said...

By "stages" do you mean something like, "stage 1 = 5 billion years, stage 2 = another billion..."?

If you see the days of creation as long ages, do you believe in the ORDER of creation?

As far as the length of time concerned. Time is meaningless to God. If you beleive the creation accont is Gods literal blue print. Then how can a Day be a day before the sun was created. Day and night were determined, and the sun and the moon was created on day 4.

As far as the order is concerened lets look at it.
Day 1. Before the universe was created there was darkness, God said let there be light and there was light.

Day 2, God creates the Heavens.

Day 3, God creates the earth, the earth contains dry ground and sea's.
God created plants. Now this brings to your question? WEll before dinosources, or mamals could walk on the plantet. there needed to be oxygen. Oxygen is created via photo synthesis. So yes before any oxygen breathing creature there needed be oxygen for them to breath. Now we can argue algea, single celled of multi celled fungi etc... But the bottom line is Oxygen needed to be created.

Now to be fair and honest, it is the fourth day that I would have the most problem with. Here God now creates the sun and the moon, the stars for the seasons etc... But really since I dont believe that Genisis is a blue print for creation instead it is a general outline. I dont really have a problem with it.

Day 5, God creates the creatures of the sea that swim, and birds that fly in the air.

Day 6, The creation of land animals, and the most important creation MAN.

So as you can see, as a general outline yes the bible is accurate. There is one or two small problems. But if you believe as I believe that the point of the 1st Chapter in Genisis, is to say that God created everying in Stages, and these stages have phases that are over lapping. Then its no problem.

The problem comes when you try to develop a Theology based on single chapter in a book that contains 50 chapters. The entire subject of the book is Gods creation MAN, and how he relates, and interects with Man.

Again I state the position, If you laughed at the muslim trying to say the earth was flat, then yes you must laugh at the young earthers.

Radical Moderate said...

BlackBaron said...
Fat Man,

Just for fun, what in your opinion is the behemoth from Job 44?

Ever here of a hypopotomis? Now it might be possible that there was a remnent of grass eating dinosur like creatures still in existence. If there was they were dying off, the last remnent. However more then likely this is a reference to a Hypo.

Radical Moderate said...

BlackBaron said...
Also, not sure why you brought up Hovind and his character. I'm sure we could think of one or two people who hold to your view of the earth's age who have similar character shortcomings.

The reason why I bring up Kent Hovend. Is becasue I see alot of this nonsense comming from him. Their are lots of crimes you can commit, Murder, Robery, Rape, etc... However the crime he commited was a crime against his personal character. In my opinion a murderer, a thief, even a rapist can still be a honorable man when it comes to personal integrity. However fraud, purgery, espeicaly trying to defraud the US government goes against ones core character. Its a crime againts ones integrity. How many times does a liar have to lie to you before you call him a liar. This man lied. He lied to the government by commiting fraud and tax evasion. He even lied to his own employee's. He with held income tax from there pay checks, but never paid that income tax to the government. By the way he put his own employees on the hook for those taxes.

And finaly, after he was convicted, he broke down and cried and said "If its a matter of money the I HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL DONATE TO PAY THE MONEY." Think about this the man made money, kept the money and now wants other people to pay the taxes on the money he kept.

I'm sorry this man has no character, actauly he has the character of Mohamed.

Sepher Shalom said...

Well, the Jewish understanding of creation has never been literal or precluded the foundational issues of evolution.

I'm sure this isn't the highest caliber of a link to provide but I'm feeling lazy right now so this will do for now.

In Jewish tradition there were "2 beginnings". One beginning of the universe (the 6 "days" of creation) and the other is the creation of Adam in which he recieves his neshama (soul) by having it breathed into him by YHWH.

According to the calculations of the 13th century rabbi, Isaac of Acco, the universe is exactly 15,340,500,000 years old.

Some 700 years later modern science concluded that the universe is about 15 billion years old. Isaac of Acco was 700 years ahead of modern science and he only used Jewish traditions and Scripture to arrive at his figure.

Just some food for thought.

Royal Son said...

Hey Fatman, I guess the standard reply to the idea that Behemoth = hippo is that a hippopotamus' tail is not like a cedar tree.

To be honest, I don't consider the age of the earth a big deal. Personally, I sway toward the notion of a young earth but that's just me. Sometimes Christians get hung up on the most peripheral issues. I prefer to focus on the core teachings like the death and resurrection of Christ.

Radical Moderate said...

Sepher Shalom said
"According to the calculations of the 13th century rabbi, Isaac of Acco, the universe is exactly 15,340,500,000 years old."

Well thank you for the validation. That is exaclty my point. THe jewish tradition does not view the biblical account of genisis as a literal time line of the creation of the universe.

Royal Son said...
"Hey Fatman, I guess the standard reply to the idea that Behemoth = hippo is that a hippopotamus' tail is not like a cedar tree."

I dont understand your objection. Saying a animals tail is strong like a ceader tree does not meen its as big as a cedar tree. But then again you expose what is called hyper literalism.

Secondly you say you believe in a young earth, well then I laugh at you as I laughed at that fool saying the earth is flat based on the quran.

So laugh at the muslims claim of scientific miracles in the quran at your own peral.

Royal Son said...

Fat man : So the hippo's tail is strong like a cedar tree ?

Also, I won't laugh at you. Actually, I don't laugh at muslims.

I pray for them.

If I am in error, please do the same.

God bless you.

Anthony Rogers said...

What counts is what the text says.

"To the Law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8)

No Hebrew grammarian worth his salt would deny the fact that "Yom" ordinarily means a day, or that it always refers to a good old fashioned day when used with an ordinal prefix, and when it is even qualified by the phrase evening and morning. Also, when one looks at the fact that God's working and resting is the exemplar for our working and resting (Ex. 20; Dt. 5), and that the fourth commandment uses yammim, and that there were alternative idioms readily at hand if Moses wanted to communicate something else, and the matter should be beyond controversy. I see it is for most, especially those whose watchword is Sola Scriptura.

Although it wouldn't do anything to overturn the above even if it was true, it simply isn't the case that the Jews always interpreted Genesis the way we are told Isaac of Acco did in the thirteenth century. This is more than a little bit like jerrymandering a canal underneath one's own feet. In any event, if we are going to add something to Scripture, Jewish or otherwise, the last thing we should add is that of Kabbalistic Jews. If you disagree, then I would say Isaac of Acco is long over due for having his taxes audited. :)

I do recognize that good people differ, even if some of those good people brand fellow believers "fools" for daring to side with Moses.

If I might paraphrase the good Dr. Luther: "The inscripturated Torah commands my assent; I can do no other. Here I stand."

Anthony Rogers said...

edit: gerrymandering

BlackBaron said...

Fat Man,

So the hippo's tail is strong like a cedar??? In what way? A hippo tail is a 6-8 inch stubby appendage which as far as I can find in not know for it's strength.

ben malik said...

Semper, both the late Gleason L. Archer and Walter Kaiser deny that asserion and they were/are semitic scholars worth their salt. For answers to your questions, you can find them here:

Start from number 30 since there you will see he addresses all your concerns.

So no need to reinvent the wheel.

Anthony Rogers said...


You are certainly right that Archer and Kaiser did/do not hold to six literal days, and I did think of at least Gleason Archer after saying the above. In any event, Eminent men that they are, they are exceptions that prove the rule.

Also, I really don't think I am "reinventing the wheel", not unless you believe the wheel wasn't invented until Archer and Kaiser.

The standard view of classical Judaism, though not without its exceptions, and though certainly abandoned over time as one proceeds through the middle ages on up to the present, clearly favored six literal days. One may consult for example the Talmud, specifically the treatise Chagigah (12a, i, 1), or Seder Olam (can't remember the exact location off the top of my head), or Josephus' Antiquities (1,1,1) for several examples.

As far as the early Christians, we find much of the same. But I rest my case on the Bible.

It occurs to me after writing the above that perhaps by "reinventing the wheel" you were referrring to the fact that the arguments have already been adressed in the link you provided. If so:

If Fat Man wants to cite any of the proferred reasons found in your link and stand by them, then I will be happy to respond. As it is, I only chimed in on this issue because Fat Man was throwing his weight around and calling those who hold the traditional view "fools". I don't suspect you hold the same judgment. Outside of this, I have no axe to grind on the issue.

Nevertheless, I will be magnanimous and say a few things about the article:

1. It grants my first point found in a previous comment. The article says, "It is true that most often the Hebrew word yom (day) means "twenty-four hours."

The article attempts to circumvent this point by saying that that doesn't determine its meaning in Genesis 1, it is the context that counts. But I already said as much, so on this point, not even such worthies as Archer and Kaiser, who Ankerberg is relying on, would dispute what the preponderance of Hebrew scholars have contended.

2. I note that Ankerberg didn't, as I said no one could, bring a single example from the writings of Moses where Yom is used with a series of ordinal adjectives where it ever means anything other than normal days. So once again, it would appear that even such worthies as Archer and Kaiser, Ankerberg's benefactors, are hard pressed to concede even this point, at least in practice.

3. The article didn't address my point about Yammim at all.

4. As for what Archer does say about the fourth commandment, rather than reinvent the wheel, I would direct you to Douglas Kelly's book - Creation and Change - where he calls it an example of "exegetical desperation."

Obviously there is a lot more that could be said, but really this isn't a burning issue for me. If people need Genesis to jive with current scientific wisdom in order for their faith to stand and to not think of themselves as fools, as Fat Man appears to need, than who am I to snuff out a smoldering wick?

In light of this, I think I will just let the issue rest here for me. I've said my peace.

Fernando said...

Royal Son said: «Also, I won't laugh at you. Actually, I don't laugh at muslims. I pray for them. If I am in error, please do the same»...

Good christian attitude brother Royal Son...

I doo believe thate we cannot ignorre scientifical evidences since God, the creator off all the rulles that are in the heart of science, also "speakes" through them, but I would never laugh at anyone just because they do not agree with mee, eben when I feel an humble sorrow for them...

Obviously the problem, I reccon, is aboute the litterary gender of Genesis 1-10; as I stated before, I do beliebe that they are a bigg Midrash, a sapiential reflection on the origines (not the begginings) of the worlde, the Universe...

Being so, the fact that "yom" is used does nott mean it signifies litteralie "24 hours", or "the period of light during the 24 hours period"...

but eben "yom" is used in other textes, I belibe, in senses who do not mean "24 hours": the "day of YHWH" (yom YHWH: see, v.g., Obadiah 1:15) does nott mean the "24 hours of YHWH"; neither the "continuous day" of Zechariah 14:7 means a "continous period of 24 hours", eben when it may mean a "continous period off light"...

butt then... I'm just an humble christian... whatt doo I know?

Happy passover (as miss Stephanie rightelie rectified me) to you all!!!

Sepher Shalom said...

Semper Paratus: “What counts is what the text says.

"To the Law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8)

…and the matter should be beyond controversy. I see it is for most, especially those whose watchword is Sola Scriptura. ”

Certainly the text is the foundation for all sound doctrine. But more to the point, do you speak according to “the Law” that Isaiah kept (i.e. Torah)? One has to wonder how much dissonance exists between a claim of literally interpreting the text while ignoring the fact that the text and indeed the very verse just quoted enjoins us to keep the Torah. I have yet to see a Protestant denomination that actually holds to “Sola Scriptura” as they claim, or a literalist within Protestantism that doesn’t cease to be a literalist as soon as a verse is about the eternal Torah.

It is rather ironic to see that you explicitly mention the Sabbatical cycle being modeled from creation as validation for your literal reading of the word “Yom” in the context of Genesis. I read the creation as an allegory, yet I actually keep the 7th day Sabbath that is literally commanded in the Bible, where on the other hand you read the Creation account as literal and do not keep the Sabbatical cycle that is literally commanded (I am assuming, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). I’m not sure what that says about either of our readings of the text, but I couldn’t help noting it. As you already pointed out the creation account is not where keeping Shabbat is literally enjoined on us. In fact, it would take an allegorical reading (which you reject) to extrapolate Elohim “resting” (which in itself is figurative) into meaning that we also need a rest once every 7 days.

We can know for certain that there are aspects of the creation account that hold non literal meaning for several reasons. 1.The language applied; 2. The order of events; 3. The internal contradiction created if read literally. (space will not allow for elaboration on these points, but I might blog on them sometime soon)

Scripture itself directly applies non-literal outcomes to the creation account. Case in point:
Leviticus 25:2-13, "Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When you come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath to the Lord. Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather in its fruit; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest to the land, a sabbath for the Lord; you shall not sow your field, nor prune your vineyard….And you shall count seven sabbaths of years to you, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to you forty and nine years…. And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants of it; it shall be a jubilee to you; and you shall return every man to his possession, and you shall return every man to his family. A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be to you….".

According to a literal reading of the Genesis account we would expect Moses to have needed to know that YHWH rested every 7 and 50 years as an example to us. So we do know that even Moses understood “and on the seventh day He rested” to be an allegorical teaching opportunity that held truth to be applied in various fashions. Furthermore, Scripture tells us “…one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2Peter 3:8) Clearly YHWH’s time is not like our time. So what are we to make of the mention of “days” in the B’reshit creation account in light of this?

Semper Paratus: “…it simply isn't the case that the Jews always interpreted Genesis the way we are told Isaac of Acco did in the thirteenth century.”

Perhaps. But you seem to be implying that the primitive understanding must be the correct understanding. We know from the plain text of Scripture (i.e. Revelation) that YHWH seals up information unto it’s appointed time. Who’s to say that the understanding arrived at in the Middle Ages isn’t the correct understanding, and the Most High chose to allow it to be revealed then? This is certainly a possibility. And Isaac of Acco certainly did draw on schools of thought going back to the very earliest extra-Biblical Jewish materials we have. And it is certainly not the case that this interpretation arose as some sort of apologetic one. No one was postulating a 15 billion year age for the earth in the 13th century. The scientists of the time probably thought Isaac was a schmuck.

Semper Paratus: “if we are going to add something to Scripture, Jewish or otherwise, the last thing we should add is that of Kabbalistic Jews.”

I’m not suggesting we “add” anything to Scripture. Adding to or subtracting from Torah is forbidden (Deut 4:2, 12:32), but I think your comment belies a general ignorance of what Kabbalah is (no offense intended brother). I don’t see any evidence that Isaac of Acco intended to “add” to Scripture. I’m really not even sure why you would bring that concept up? My allegorical reading is no more “adding” to Scripture than your literal reading, and no more “adding” to Scripture than an allegorical reading of Psalm 22, or Isaiah 53. This also seems to be a case of poisoning the well. Just because the numerical figure comes from a “Kabbalistic Jew” the method of reading the whole creation account is invalid? Tony, I read some of your work, I know your logic skills are way better than that. I even dare say they are better than my own in terms of gross analysis and juxtopositioning ideas.

Semper Paratus: “If I might paraphrase the good Dr. Luther: "The inscripturated Torah commands my assent; I can do no other. Here I stand." ”

I have a lot I could say about Martin Luther, but in the interest of not taking this thread even further off topic, let me just point out that he never kept Torah, and say....Him I can do without. That’s a man that I wouldn't want to be when comes time to answer and stand before his Jewish Messiah.

Semper Paratus: “1. It grants my first point found in a previous comment. The article says, "It is true that most often the Hebrew word yom (day) means "twenty-four hours." ”

I won’t argue with the contention that yom regularly refers to a 24 hour period. However, this does not preclude the possibility of an allegorical meaning, especially in light of 2Peter 3:8 (the Hebrew word “day” could only have been yom had it been employed). Also, the order of events in the creation account complicates this literal thinking. The 24 hour day is based on a single rotation of the earth, based on shadowing and revealing of the sun. However, the sun was not created until Gen. 1:14 “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years”, and there had already been 3 “days” of creation at this point. This cannot tolerate a literal reading, or literal days being the meaning of each yom. You can’t have that kind of “day” without the sun.

Semper Paratus: “I do recognize that good people differ, even if some of those good people brand fellow believers "fools" for daring to side with Moses.”

I recognize that same thing (and can’t say that I’m a fan of calling literalists “fools”, nor of your implication that allegoricalists are somehow propping up weak faith). But, it is a stretch to say that your reading is “siding with Moses”. This requires that we believe Moshe had to understand the exact nature of the words in the creation account. I see no reason why, even if Moshe believed the story to be literal, YHWH couldn’t still have been communicating an allegory He knew his future audience would understand, while giving people at the time of Moshe a story that would speak to their understanding of the world and edify them. After all, it is unfathomable to think a finite Moshe would have reciprocal knowledge of all the depth of the revelation he had been given in the words of Torah. The only character in the pages of Scripture I grant that status to is Yeshua. Other than that, they were all fallible people conveying an infallible message. I mean, do you really think when David was composing the Psalms he knew the full Messianic implications of his poetry? This is why PaRDeS is a necessary application to the Scripture (that is the Hebraic understanding that every verse has a Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod level of meaning).

This post turned out to be far longer than I planned, so in all humbleness, I think I have monopolized enough of David and Nabeel’s blog space. I will close by saying, Yah’ bless you Tony for all the work you do for the Kingdom, and may Yeshua keep and protect you.

ben malik said...


My comments concerning reinventing the wheel was in respect to the responses given to your questions.

And you are correct, I don't think young earthers are fools.

As far as the comments by Ankerberg and others proving your position, well if that's how you feel then fine.

Your challenge to show where yom is used with a series of ordinal adjectives to mean anything other than a normal day can be easily turned against you. Can you please present a verse where the occurrence of yom with a series of cardinal adjectives is speaking of the event of creation, a unique event, like we find in Genesis?

Anyway, you have your views and other Christians who are also Godly like yourself have theirs. As long as both sides agree that Genesis 1-3 is narrating actual history and not fable or myth then I have no problem either way.

ben malik said...

Sepher Shalom,

I couldn't have stated it any better. More to the point, I wouldn't be able to put it the way you did! Great stuff.

Anthony Rogers said...


As you might imagine, I think a response to what has been said would only be too easy. But since Ben (whom I respect) has already given you the thumbs up, and in light of my own self-imposed stricture not to defend the position further, I will let the matter go.

That said, I still have the option of just murering the opposition (on this point) and maintaining my personal integrity, but if I break my word here then Fat Man will call me a Muhammadan. (For those who have been following the dialogue, you will recognize that I am being facetious.)

I appreciate the spirit of your response, and as far as other things go, you might be surprised about the affinity between my position and your own on a number of issues as compared to the generality of posters here. There would be differences to be sure, but not as many as you might suppose. But I'd rather not open up another can of worms (though I would remind all: I didn't open up this can. I simply came to the defense of a view and people who were targets of one man's inordinate fixation for this issue, leaing him to make remarks I found to be wide of the mark about fellow believers.)

If I were to hold a different position, it would be for the sorts of reasons that you and Ben have brought out, but alas, I am as yet unconvinced. If you or anyone else are interested in private correspondence on the matter, I am certainly open to that. But once again, I would remind you, the issue doesn't get me out of bed in the morning, it doesn't pursue me throughout the day, and it doesn't give me the confidence to lay my head down on the pillow at night confident that not a hair can fall from my head apart from the will of our Father.

In conclusion, let me just point out one thing that you missed that I wouldn't want you to hold any longer than you have already. My point about people of weak faith needing certain things as a prop were registered against one person, and it certainly wasn't you or Ben. As I said, good people differ, and many good people hold different views for respectable reasons. But not all people have respectable reasons for their views, and it is shown in the scatalogical (and illogial) nature of how they contend for it. I think if you reread that line you will see I wasn't referring to you.

I hope this helps clear some things up.

Sepher Shalom said...

Semper & Ben,

Elohim bless both of you! There's always room for disagreement and discussion. That's the best thing about being in Messiah, sometimes the arm gets an itch and scratches the leg, but in the end we are one body :D.

...and now back to the Quran, lol.

Anthony Rogers said...

By the way, even Gleason Archer would be a fool on FM's reasoning; after all, he believed in the coexistence of T-Rex, Brontosaurus, and other dino's(Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 65).

Anthony Rogers said...

edit: p. 63

Royal Son said...

I think it would serve us well to take heed of the following scriptures:

Matthew 5:22 "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

1 Peter 3:15 "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence"

James 3:10 "from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way."

Anthony Rogers said...

edit again: "he believed in the co-existence of T-Rex....with man."