399
edits
User:CPO675/Sandbox 1: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
# <s>What they Quran says - short paragraph on the science</s> | # <s>What they Quran says - short paragraph on the science</s> | ||
# <s>Apologist claim? here or above the science?</s> | # <s>Apologist claim? here or above the science?</s> | ||
# Why is it incorrect - the science and refutation of apologist claim. | # <s>Why is it incorrect - the science and refutation of apologist claim.</s> | ||
# <s>refutation of apologist claim</s> | # <s>refutation of apologist claim</s> | ||
# <s>Why is it incorrect</s> | # <s>Why is it incorrect</s> | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
Critics point to issue's with inserting this is a scientific miracle, or even scientifically accurate: | Critics point to issue's with inserting this is a scientific miracle, or even scientifically accurate: | ||
# Firstly as with all claims of scientific miracles in ancient scripture, nothing scientifically new was known/discovered from this verse as one would expect if it clear<nowiki/>ly described a new scientific fact - the method of 'discovering' falls into typical categories of selective literalism, de-historicization and pseudo-corelation etc. (''see [[Scientific Miracles in the Quran]]''), taking advantage of ambiguity in language to fit a modern reading rather than an honest one. | # Firstly as with all claims of scientific miracles in ancient scripture, nothing scientifically new was known/discovered from this verse as one would expect if it clear<nowiki/>ly described a new scientific fact - the method of 'discovering' falls into typical categories of selective literalism, de-historicization and pseudo-corelation etc. (''see [[Scientific Miracles in the Quran]]''), taking advantage of ambiguity in language to fit a modern reading rather than an honest one. | ||
# The idea of the density of salt water being more than freshwater was already known | # The idea of the density of salt water being more than freshwater, separating the two was already known at least by the time of Aristotle; ''“The drinkable, sweet water,'' <nowiki/>''l of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind.” - Aristotle (382 BC to 322 BC''''then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind.” - Aristotle (382 BC to 322 BC'')<ref>[https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.2.ii.html Meteorology.] Aristotle. ~350BC</ref> | ||
# This description is so basic and lacking any actual science (i.e. God creates a barrier between two seas which stops them merging), it could easily apply to someone sa<nowiki/>iling nearby or over one of these and passing on the descriptions as they have done since ancient times<ref>''[https://www.bu.edu/archaeology/files/2016/05/Ancient-mariners-may-have-set-sail-130000-years-ago-_-Register-_-The-Times-The-Sunday-Times.pdf Ancient mariners may have set sail 130,000 years ago].'' ARCHAEOLOGY. The Times. Norman Hammond. 2016. Boston University Archive</ref>, as the colours are often different (as seen in the image on this page), leading people to assume there was an actual barrier placed by God between the two waters. | # This description is so basic and lacking any actual science (i.e. God creates a barrier between two seas which stops them merging), it could easily apply to someone sa<nowiki/>iling nearby or over one of these and passing on the descriptions as they have done since ancient times<ref>''[https://www.bu.edu/archaeology/files/2016/05/Ancient-mariners-may-have-set-sail-130000-years-ago-_-Register-_-The-Times-The-Sunday-Times.pdf Ancient mariners may have set sail 130,000 years ago].'' ARCHAEOLOGY. The Times. Norman Hammond. 2016. Boston University Archive</ref>, as the colours are often different (as seen in the image on this page), leading people to assume there was an actual barrier placed by God between the two waters. | ||
# This description also implies there is no mixing between them at all, and could just as easily be written by someone believing that someone believing there was no mixi<nowiki/>ng at all between them. | # This description also implies there is no mixing between them at all, and could just as easily be written by someone believing that someone believing there was no mixi<nowiki/>ng at all between them. | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
=== Antiquity interpretation === | === Antiquity interpretation === | ||
There is another interpretation for this verse which critics argue is the only one to accurately fit this verse on a literal reading, which we will discuss below in the historical context. Which fits a prevalent antiquity (and pre-antiquity) view which was present across this region, and was also held in biblical cosmology and later Christian/Jewish exegesis, that this refers to a somewhat magical cosmic ocean surrounding the Earth. | There is another interpretation for this verse which critics argue is the only one to accurately fit this verse on a literal reading, which we will discuss below in the historical context. Which fits a prevalent antiquity (and pre-antiquity) view which was present across this region, and was also held in biblical cosmology and later Christian/Jewish exegesis at the time of Mohammad, that this refers to a somewhat magical cosmic ocean surrounding the Earth. | ||
Whether the two seas mentioned in the Qur'an referred to these mythological seas or a more general inviolable barrier between bodies of salt and fresh water, critics argue that the verse in question is scientifically wrong. | This may be compared to the ancient Akkadian myth of the Abzu, the name for a fresh water underground sea that was given a religious quality in Sumerian and Akkadian mythology. Lakes, springs, rivers, wells, and other sources of fresh water were thought to draw their water from the Abzu underground sea, while the Ocean that surrounded the world was a saltwater sea. This underground sea is called Tehom in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Genesis 49:25 says, "blessings of the heavens above, and Tehom lying beneath".<ref>Wensinck, Arent Jan (1918). "The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites". Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks. dl. 19. no. 2. page 14</ref> Wensinck explains,<ref>Wensinck, Arent Jan (1918). "The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites". Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks. dl. 19. no. 2. page 17</ref> "Thus it appears that the idea of there being a sea of sweet water under our earth, the ancient Tehom, which is the source of springs and rivers, is common to the Western Semites". Similarly in Greek mythology, the world was surrounded by Oceanus, the world-ocean of classical antiquity. Oceanus was personified as the god Titan, whose consort was the aquatic sea goddess Tethys. It was also thought that rainfall was due a third ocean above the "Firmament of the Sky" (a vast reservoir above the firmament of the sky is also described in the Genesis creation narrative).Whether the two seas mentioned in the Qur'an referred to these mythological seas or a more general inviolable barrier between bodies of salt and fresh water, critics argue that the verse in question is scientifically wrong. | ||
The antiquity view is well summarised in Tommaso Tesei's 2015 article '''[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.135.1.19 Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60–65: The Quran in Light of Its Cultural Context]''<nowiki/>' which can be read on Jstor examining the Qur'ans verse, especially regarding words that have puzzled Islamic commentators. The full article can be read in the link which provides much deeper arguments than the summary: | |||
The story is taken from the Syriac Alexander Legend, which separate part of this chapter 18 Surah al-Kahf come from (''see [[Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance]]'') | |||
{{Quote|Tommaso Tesei's. 2015. JSTOR. Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60–65: The Quran in Light of Its Cultural Context.|..starting with the word saraban which has puzzled commentators + fish regaining life: All we know is that the fish breaks loose near a rock at the junction of the two seas and that this event indicates to Moses that he has reached the goal of his journey. When examined in light of a legend concerning Alexander’s journey to the Land of the Blessed, during which he fails to bathe in the water of life, the episode acquires more sense, however. Specifically, the fish’s escape represents an allusion to the resurrection of a salt fish after Alexander’s cook washes it in the water of life. Muslim exegetes introduced some elements of this legend in their explanation of the narrative told in the Quran. In fact, the fish’s escape episode is usually related to the motif of the water of life. Western scholars, too, almost unanimously consider this story of Alexander to be behind the Quranic account. The motif of the source of life reported in the legend concerning Alexander should certainly be understood in relation to the life-giving characteristics that Near Easterners attributed to the sweet waters of the rivers... | |||
When at v. 63 the Quran states that the fish “took its way in the sea in a marvellous way,” it evidently refers to its wondrously being revived upon contact with the miraculous water. In fact, the enigmatic episode acquires sense only if read in light of the dynamic described in the legend of the water of life, and the extreme vagueness with which the Quran describes the episode suggests that its audience was expected to be acquainted with the Alexander tale... | When at v. 63 the Quran states that the fish “took its way in the sea in a marvellous way,” it evidently refers to its wondrously being revived upon contact with the miraculous water. In fact, the enigmatic episode acquires sense only if read in light of the dynamic described in the legend of the water of life, and the extreme vagueness with which the Quran describes the episode suggests that its audience was expected to be acquainted with the Alexander tale... | ||
| Line 108: | Line 106: | ||
..identification of the water of life with the rivers of paradise, as confirmed by Philostorgius and, more significantly, in the Talmudic version of the Alexander legend, and, on the other hand, the idea that these rivers lowed underground beneath the sea from paradise to the inhabited earth, as several authors report—it seems very likely that saraban in Q 18:63 is meant to describe the subterranean passage under the sea that the fish takes once resurrected by the miraculous water of the paradisiacal rivers... | ..identification of the water of life with the rivers of paradise, as confirmed by Philostorgius and, more significantly, in the Talmudic version of the Alexander legend, and, on the other hand, the idea that these rivers lowed underground beneath the sea from paradise to the inhabited earth, as several authors report—it seems very likely that saraban in Q 18:63 is meant to describe the subterranean passage under the sea that the fish takes once resurrected by the miraculous water of the paradisiacal rivers... | ||
In Quranic cosmology, this expression is possibly intended to designate a place that has a specific role in the passage of the heavenly waters to earth. In light of the above, one can imagine majmaʿ al-baḥrayn as the place where the heavenly and terrestrial oceans meet, and from where the sweet waters reach the earth, by way of an underground course alluded to by the expression saraban..}}Other classical interpretations - Ptolemy's view? | In Quranic cosmology, this expression is possibly intended to designate a place that has a specific role in the passage of the heavenly waters to earth. In light of the above, one can imagine majmaʿ al-baḥrayn as the place where the heavenly and terrestrial oceans meet, and from where the sweet waters reach the earth, by way of an underground course alluded to by the expression saraban..}}Other classical interpretations - Ptolemy's view? | ||
| Line 189: | Line 185: | ||
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. }} | 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. }} | ||
Critics also wonder why if it really meant a natural phenomena such as the meeting of two seas, why would they describe one that also matched a highly mistaken antiquity view of | Critics also wonder why if it really meant a natural phenomena such as the meeting of two seas, why would they describe one that also matched a highly mistaken antiquity view of the world - for exmaple there is nothing about the creation of forests or deserts. The lines are not needed nor do they add anything to the text. | ||
== Delete == | == Delete == | ||