7 Earths in the Qur'an, and recently discovered

Tim the plumber wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

Ah, you meant one of the moons of Jupiter. You see, I'm Dutch, and "Europa" is "Europe" in Dutch, you see, that's the reason for the confusion on that one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

airmano wrote: @Al Ghuraba Amazing that you've chosen the color of your Tee-shirt as an example for reality. I change my Tee-shirt every day ! Jokes aside, the underlying subject is "reality" and you claim the so-called miracles in the Quran are real. Let's check the facts: -Why does no high level scientist get impressed by these "miracles" ? -Why does only the Muslim world (believe to) see them ? -Why are there no references to the "inspiration given by the Quran" in high ranked scientific journals ? What worth is a reality that seems to be 'real' for about 20% of the world population only ? I will give you some examples of more convincing facts: - Newton/Einsteins mechanics is recognised all over the world independent of respective faith and religion. - Maxwells equations have withstood any test since they were written down 150 y ago: Something the Quran can not even remotely dream of.    - Quantum mechanics is alive an' kickin'. - Biology and chemistry leaves all Quranic' statements of the kind "we are made out of clay" literally in the dust. All educated Jews, Christians, Atheists and Hindus agree on those ---------------------------------------------------- To your case, let's have a look at the different translations of 65:12 Sahih International: It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them. [His] command descends among them so you may know that Allah is over all things competent and that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge. Pickthall: Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surroundeth all things in knowledge. Yusuf Ali: Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge. Shakir: Allah is He Who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like of them; the decree continues to descend among them, that you may know that Allah has power over all things and that Allah indeed encompasses all things in (His) knowledge. Muhammad Sarwar: It is God who has created the seven heavens and a like number of earths. His commandments are sent between them, so that you would know that God has power over all things and that His knowledge encompasses all. Mohsin Khan: It is Allah Who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof (i.e. seven). His Command descends between them (heavens and earth), that you may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge. Arberry: It is God who created seven heavens, and of earth their like, between them the Command descending, that you may know that God is powerful over everything and that God encompasses everything in knowledge. ---------------------------------------------------- It clearly talks of seven heavens. Do you have any proof for that ? Is there a door or any kind of Messenger to exchange information between them ? Why 7 and not 8 ? Because Allah likes the number 7 ? What a nonsense ! Than it carries on with 7 earth like things. Reading the translations, don't you think that it is much more rational to assume that Mohamed tried to express that the seven "earth like things" are a 'foretaste" of [the 7] heaven[s] to come (God knows when) - and nothing else ? The fundamental difference between your approach and mine is the following: You think that the Quran is always right and that facts have to (be) bend to this doctrine. I('d) consider the Quran to be right if(!) it had really something verifiable and revolutionary new to tell.    But it doesn't. Ah, and btw. theories should be falsifiable: So, will you ditch the Quran once we have found 8 earth like planets ? So, what is your criterion for the falsifiability of 65:12 ? I'd bet that you can't answer this question. Airmano

I will, God-willing, answer your questions in the same format, so refer back to your own post as well.


- Because first of all, not many of the "high-level-scientists" do even know about them. Second of all, there are plenty of "high-level-scientists" that found out about the miracles, and converted as a result of that. I personally know of Dr. Jeffrey Lang and Dr. Lawrence Brown (may have mispelled their names). But there are plenty of others. There's also one scientist that I know, that acknowledged the miracles of Qur'an, and he said that no-one could've known those specific miracles, except God, but I don't know if he converted or not. Professor Keith Moore, is what his name was, I think. And plenty more, of course.

- They don't.

- That's something you have to ask those that are involved in those "high ranked scientific journals". And besides, like I said, not many people know about the miracles. And why is it, in the interest of those agnostic/atheistic "scientists", interesting to mention those miracles? That's like asking: "Why didn't Hitler give cookies to the Jews?"

- Reality is real for everyone. But not everyone is opening their eyes. Some don't WANT to open their eyes, and some don't even KNOW they have their eyes closed. Let that sink in. And by the way, it's 25%.

- First of all, algebra is recognised all over the world independent of respective faith or religion (while a Muslims came up with algebra), so are clocks, so is the camera, so is the university, so is the flying machine (responsible for all the future technologies like airplanes, as a result), so are medicines, so are maps, etc. What's your point?

- The Qur'an is over 1400 years old. It has withstood any test imaginable. Not only that, it has been preserved from day one.

- So? Like I said, what's your point? How is this even relevant to this?

- We ARE made from clay. How can you even disprove that in the first place? First of all, the "clay" mentioned, is not a "clay" that we know of, nor are we familiar with it's nature. Remember Adam was created in Paradise, and the "clay" used, is used from there, or somewhere there. How can you even disprove the fact that we're made from clay? What kind of test, or analysis are you going to make? Are you going to compare our skins with the earth of Earth? Like I said; not the same. The fact that we're made from clay is something to believe in. It cannot be disproved, because to do so, you would have to ask God for a sample of that "clay". Go ahead and try. Plastic is made from oil as well. If all oil was exhausted, and the human race would've never heard of oil, just plastic, we would NEVER find out what the original material was for plastic. Your logic, and whatever you have, is debunked and void.

- Uhm... No? In the Bible, and the Torah, it clearly says the same thing; that we'r made from clay. Atheists aren't really relevant to bring to this, because atheists are going to reject anything and everything having to do with "faith" and "religion" in the first place. Hindus prostrate to stone idols, and to wooden altars. Their opinion or view on things is the LAST thing you want to ask for.

- Lastly, I've already spoken about the different translations; showing that you didn't actually read my post. This is one sign for me to not even respond to yours if you're not going to even read mine.

Why did God create 7 Heavens? Why don't you ask Him on the Day of Judgement?

The Qur'an is from God, word-for-word. Muhammad (SAW) is not the author - so that's the correct answer to your invalid question.

You can do whatever you want to. But every action has its reaction. You'll see the results of yours, as I will.

You CLEARLY did not read my post... no, POSTS. I even wrote that in the first post! I CLEARLY said that I could be wrong about what the verse meant. That's one thing. Second thing, the verse has three interpretations, which I listed as well. I am NOT saying that this interpretation IS the correct one. Rather, I said which I am thinking to be the correct one.

So, if we discover more Earth-like-planets - which we won't most likely - but IF, then the interpretation of that verse which was correct all along, would be "and of the Earth the like thereof [without specifying any NUMBER]". Then, we know what the correct interpretation was. Because, we don't even KNOW what the correct interpretation is, so it's, currently, assumption. LIKE. I. ALREADY. SAID.

Get it now?

65:12 will never be false. It has never been false. It is not false.

Al Ghuraba wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Astronomers have discovered 7 planets which are possibly a bit earth like, so far.That's within 40 light years. So far.When they say earth like they will almost certainly not be survivable by humans. That they may have conditions suitable for life to eveolve to a high level such as here is possible. Maybe. But the likelyhood of them being at all habitable for us is very very low.The planets could have too high a gravity and we could not walk for any length of time, too low gravity and animals with simpler breathing systems such as insects could be able to grow to massive sizes and eat us.Loads of other factors which are even more drastic in their ability to make the places deadly for us are out there. Also what happens when the next 300 planets are found? You must understand that it's about those planets being "Earth-like", not necessarily inhabitable/survivable for the human-being... That's far beside the point. A planet is considered "Earth-like", not because of the lifeform on it, but because of specific things, which is known for planet Earth to have. It could be that there are planets out there, which DO harvest life, but might look completely different to Earth itself, and cannot possibly be called "Earth-like" therefore, you see. It could be - remember the knowledge of the human being is very much limited - that there are organisms out there that can survive on planets that don't even look like Earth. Maybe there's a planet out there where the temperature is 1 million degrees, but it still has some kind of organism living on it, you see? You don't know that! But you wouldn't class that planet as "Earth-like" would you? No. Inhabitable, yes, but not Earth-like. Second point; those scientists said that three of those 7 planets are likely to harvest life (i.e. three of those planets are the most likely to be inhabitable, as for the other 4, it's less likely (but still likely; read the article)). Again, not relevant. Whether they are inhabitable or not, is not the topic. The topic is whether they are "Earth-like" or not. Because, you see, Paradise is inhabitable, right (obviously, because you can be living there)? But it's not considered to be "Earth-like", is it? In fact, it's not even comparable. And also remember the SIZE of Paradise, the surroundings, the nature, etc. In short, it's not about whether it's inhabitable or not. It's about whether it's "Earth-like" or not. So, what's "Earth-like"? First of all, Earth is known for it's earth and FLOWING water. The reason I'm emphasizing "flowing", is because that's typical Earth. There's no planet out there that has this quality in the same shape, that we know or have discovered. Water in of itself is not really exclusively to Earth. Water can be found inside of the Moon, if I'm not mistaken (lunar water), but it's not flowing (it's in crystals, etc.). That's the first thing. Second thing is the obvious: earth. For a planet to be called "Earth-like", it's got to have earth, at LEAST. I mean it's in the name... Whether that earth can be used to harvest life or not, is not relevant. There are many types of earth on our planet alone that are not suitable for life itself, you see. These two points HAVE TO BE present on an Earth-like planet. So far, only those 7 planets have both of these two characteristics. THAT was the point. And also, yes, life on Earth is a well-known fact. But... like I said, life is not exclusively assigned to Earth. Paradise has life aswell, and there could be planets out there, not looking like Earth, still being inhabitable by certain creatures. And by the way, there could still be life on those 7 planets. I'm just saying whether there is or isn't; doesn't matter. Point made. And what happens when the next 300 planets are found? Well, I don't know what "planets" alone have to do with this? This whole topic is about planets being EARTH-LIKE, not about there being 7 planets beside Earth...! Mars is planet, so is Mercury, Venus, Uranus, etc. Those aren't Earth-like. No, not Mars, because there's no proof for FLOWING water, or at least, not that I know of. Not every planet is Earth-like. So I don't get why you're asking about what happens when the next 300 planets are found... Those 300 planets could be un-Earth-like, so what's the point? And also, like I said, it could be that that verse means something else entirely. Like maybe 7 other Earths where creatures are being tested, or maybe something else, MAYBE... Many possibilities can be imagined. I just wanted to share this one thing, because I don't think it's a coincidence, but then again, I'm a human being that's limited in knowledge. And that goes for you aswell.

errrrrrr.....

I say again;

They have discovered 7 planets that are good candidates for life similar to here on earth. That is the right distance from their star and the right sort of size.

They have not discovered if they have flowing water on them.

If and when they doscover many many more such planets with conditions that make them sort of earth like a bit what happens to this idea?

We do know of large bodies of liquid water within the solar system outside the earth. Europa has a vast ocean beneath it's ice surface. For example.