我们应当如何看待那些看似表明大地是平的，或表明大地不绕太阳运行的经文与圣训？

What do we make of all the verses and ahadith that seem to imply that the earth is flat or that the earth does not revolve around the sun?

The user's message is "Consider the ayah in Surat al-Kahf:" which is text to translate. 请思考《古兰经》中《洞穴章》的这节经文：

Consider the ayah in Surat al-Kahf:

《古兰经》第18章第86节： （Al-Kahf）（第18:86节）

Al-Kahf (Q18:86)

您提供的是标题性文字"And the hadith:"，我需要翻译的内容是这段文字本身。翻译如下： 而圣训如下：

And the hadith:

这些又该如何理解呢？说它们都是“比喻”很容易，也许在某种意义上确实如此，但这样下结论未免太过仓促。难道就没有别的途径可循吗？

How do we understand all this? It is easy to say that these are all ‘metaphorical.’ Perhaps they are in some sense, but that’s too hasty. Is there any other ‘recourse’?

假设两个人对宇宙的认识同样正确。这两个人对宇宙的描述方式却可以各不相同，也就是说，他们可以用不同的方式来描述宇宙。他们可以使用不同的语言、不同的比喻和不同的概念来解释同一件事。此外，即使他们是从各自的角度、按照字面意义来描述事物，也可以使用不同的术语。

Imagine two people have equally correct knowledge about the universe. Those two people can describe that knowledge in different ways, i.e., they can describe the universe in different ways. They can use different language, different images, different concepts to explain the same thing. Furthermore, they can use different terms even when they are describing things literally from their individual perspectives.

举个简单的例子：贝都因阿拉伯人对“狮子”有许多不同的称呼；爱斯基摩人对“雪”也有许多不同的称呼。阿拉伯人谈论狮子的方式，以及爱斯基摩人谈论雪的方式，必然与动物学家或气象学家谈论这些事物的方式大不相同。这并不是说阿拉伯人或爱斯基摩人在使用比喻，而动物学家或气象学家在使用字面意义。不是的，在这个例子中，每个人都是在字面意义上说话，只是某些概念存在于阿拉伯人或爱斯基摩人的语言之中、为他们所运用，却不见于动物学家或气象学家的语言和概念体系之中。反过来也是一样。 如今人们往往有一种假定：科学语言是描述事物本来面目的语言。但我们不必接受这一点。事实上，我们也不应接受，因为科学语言一直在变化。我将在下文说明这一点的意义。

What do I mean by this? Well, a simple example is all the different terms that Bedouin Arabs have for “lion.” Or all the different terms that Eskimos have for “snow.” The way that an Arab talks about a lion and the way that an Eskimo talks about snow will be very different from how a zoologist or a meteorologist speaks about these things. It is not that the Arab or the Eskimo are speaking metaphorically while the zoologist/meteorologist are speaking literally. No, in this example, everyone is speaking literally but there are just certain concepts that are in the language and at the disposal of the Arab/Eskimo that are not found in the language and conceptual architecture of the zoologist/meteorologist. And vice versa. The assumption that people nowadays tend to make is that scientific language is the language that describes things as they really are. But we don’t have to accept that. In fact, we shouldn’t because scientific language is always changing. I explain the significance of this below.

第二层是这样的：设想两个人，其中一人对宇宙拥有正确的知识，另一人并不正确，却以为自己知道。这又增添了一层复杂性。在前面的例子中，那位阿拉伯贝都因人依靠的是世代生活在狮子所处环境中的贝都因人积累起来的几个世纪的知识，可以说他对狮子的理解胜过那位从外地来的动物学家。这位动物学家每次只在当地停留几个月，做完田野调查便回国。当然，动物学本身也是一门新兴学科。因此，贝都因人的语言会体现出他们更为优越的知识。然而，这位动物学家未必会接受这一点。事实上，他认为这些贝都因人相当无知，他们对狮子的理解远不及他自己。为了证明这一点，他会引用贝都因人对狮子的描述，并断言这些描述不准确。但他凭什么断定贝都因人的描述不准确呢？他只能以自己的知识为依据，而在这个例子中，我们已经设定他的知识是错误的，并且远远不如贝都因人的知识。尽管如此，这位动物学家依然确信，这些贝都因人根本不懂自己在说什么。

The second layer is this: Imagine two people where one has correct knowledge about the universe and the other doesn’t but thinks he does. This adds another wrinkle. In the previous example, the Bedouin Arab relying on the accumulated knowledge of centuries and generations of Bedouins living in the environment of the lion arguably has a better understanding of lions than the foreign zoologist from outside that environment who travels to the location for a couple of months at a time, does his fieldwork, and goes back home. And of course zoology itself is a new discipline. So the language of the Bedouins will reflect their superior knowledge. But the zoologist will not necessarily accept this. In fact, the zoologist thinks that these Bedouins are fairly ignorant and their understanding of lions pales in comparison to his. And to prove that point, he will cite the Bedouin’s descriptions of the lion and claim that those descriptions are inaccurate. But on what basis can he claim that the Bedouin’s description is inaccurate? He can only do so on the basis of his own knowledge, which, in this example, we have stipulated is incorrect and certainly inferior to the knowledge of the Bedouins. Nonetheless, the zoologist is confident that these Bedouins simply do not know what they are talking about.