Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

There are many of passages and even section in the Bible that talk about scientifically testable things, and about the physical nature of the real world (such as the passages in Psalms and Proverbs describing stars, the sky, weather, and such, the genetics of Gen 30, etc.). There also many places were a mention of atoms would have very nicely served the writer in what he was trying to say. For instance, in Gen 22 God is boasting about how many descendants Abram will have, saying “more than the grains of sand on the seashore” and “stars in the heavens”. Adding “atoms in the ocean” or some such fits nicely. (Of course, anyone who has even one surviving kid is likely to have literally millions of descendants in just a few centuries).Or in Luke 12, Jesus is saying that God knows everything, and keeps track of it by numbering the hairs on your head (something that a human could conceivably do) - “atoms in your body” or in “the Jewish Temple” would have been more impressive.Though the Bible never explicitly says atoms don’t exist (Gen1 is a good try, but I don’t think that really helps us). It certainly had a lot of places where it would have, if it were known by the writer. The Bible has over a half million words - only a couple sentences of those would be needed to tell us about the periodic table, or anesthetics, or radio waves, or electricity, or internal combustion engines, or vaccinations, or antibiotics, or even germs. Even less would be needed to explain atoms. The deafening silence on all of these points I think speaks volumes.Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

quote:

---

Equinox:
Well, mate, whilst I understand what you're saying, I don't think this evidence really holds up well either. Actually, it is really quite weak.

​

To me, you are basically saying that, because of a lack of the use of atoms to exaggerate a statement; this shows support of the continuum theory? I seriously hope you are joking! . .

​

And

​

Contrary to your illusion that you provided remotely significant evidence that the Bible supports the continuum theory, I must say, I am not convinced...

---

OK, let’s go through this carefully, since there are two different points we are discussing, and confusing them will only lead to difficulty.First - there is the question of whether the Bible:
A. Supports continuum theory
B. Supports atomic theory
C. Supports neitherThe second question I’ll get to in the second half of this post.Back to the first question. Your statements quoted above argue against A. I brought those bible sections up because I wanted to examine the first question with all the evidence available from the Bible.I think that it, on balance, weakly supports A. You said my evidence was weak (well, you said "quite weak") - I agree, that’s exactly what it is. In support of B I can find no evidence in the Bible. So in conclusion it seems to me that the Bible weakly supports A, but is mostly silent on the issue. I think we agree on that, right?***************************************************************OK, now, the second point. The authorship of the Bible. Christian doctrine affirmed by both protestants and catholics is that the Bible is God’s word, not just man’s word. That’s why Christians consider the Bible significant, and not just another book. That’s why the Bible records things for which there is no one there recording it (such as the creation itself, which Moses certainly wasn’t there for) or Jesus’ private speech to Pilate, etc. This doctrine is easy to find, in official doctrine statements (confessions), both protestant and Catholic, it’s incorporated into worship services, its mentioned on radio and video sermons, it’s nearly as basic to Christianity as the idea that Jesus is somehow significant. Faith, and other Christians here, can I get a witness on that? I was raised Catholic and went to mass literally thousands of times. The part before the reading goes like this:Priest: “a reading from the holy gospel according to Luke”Congregation: “according to you, Lord.”Etc.Now, in light of that, let’s discuss the second point.

quote:

---

Equinox:
quote:

quote:

---

The Bible has over a half million words - only a couple sentences of those would be needed to tell us about the periodic table, or anesthetics, or radio waves, or electricity, or internal combustion engines, or vaccinations, or antibiotics, or even germs.

---

​

Tell me, how many of these either existed, or were known to have existed, over 1,000 years ago (substantially over, in some cases)? I'll tell me: buckleys and none! And since some of them were actually discovered (if not fully understood) BEFORE the discovery of the atom, that particular argument is quite weak also.

​

Remember, of course, that many of the authors of the Bible (at least those you supplied) were not scientists themselves, it is probably safe to assume they never even considered whether matter was continuously divisible or fundamentally indivisible; or if they did, had no reason to include it in their writings.

---

About the buckleys - according to the Christian position, it doesn’t matter when *humans* discovered those things - God knew all about them before he created them. You are arguing that humans, with imperfect and limited knowledge, are what is really behind the Bible. I have to agree with you.

quote:

---

Assuming he would have the slightest idea what he meant. There wouldn't have even been a name for atoms back then...

---

Minor correction - Democritus came up with the name for atoms centuries before that, and if the Bible is really God’s word, then God certainly has a word for atoms, and he knew that people could understand the idea of atoms, since as we saw, democritus discussed it centuries earlier.

quote:

---

Please remember, Genesis was written by a man (Moses, in fact), not by God himself;

---

This too needs a minor correction. Scholars agree that moses didn’t write Genesis. However, as I’ve discussed above, the Christian view is that God was ultimately the one behind Genesis, not just some limited, imperfect man (moses or anyone else). So either way the statement needs some tweaking.Overall, it seems that we agree on the second point as well as the first. We agree that the Bible itself doesn’t support the idea that it’s written by someone who knows all about science. If we disagree on that, then we can discuss it - I just wanted to clarify areas were it seemed we may have been violently agreeing.Have a good day-Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.Edited by AdminJar, : take out a few hysterics

quote:

---

I will agree that whatever evidence that has so far been provided does lean towards the continuum theory. However, it is nowhere significant enough to conclude that the Bible supports it. I would suggest that it supports neither.

---

We agree.

quote:

---

News to me mate...

---

(that scholars agree moses didn't write the torah).
Yep. Not just Christian scholars, but also Jewish ones. The two biggest Jewish groups in America (the conservative and the reformed Jews) recently endorsed that view. You may be interested in learning about the history of the Bible. I'd suggest "who wrote the Bible", which covers most the OT, and the course on tape: The Great Courses

quote:

---

The fact that humans were indeed the actual authors of the Bible does not in fact make it insignificant. It is, after all, a compilation of recordings by a wide variety of authors, all with different observations, and different POVs. This, to me, also explains why different Gods (so the speak) are portrayed in the Bible. What we read is based on the POV of the author.

---

and

quote:

---

I guess the assumption is that Moses was curious as to how the Earth was created, and questioned God. Thus, God explained it to him, and Moses later recorded it for others to read. Moses simply wished to portray how he was told the world was created (and maybe he did so slightly inaccurately, who knows? But I choose to believe he didn't), ....

---

Those two statements are very different from how a big chunk of Christians see the Bible. They see it as God's plan (not mans) to reveal the correct truth, not some hearsay story. To them it's not about some passive god just answering a few questions and not caring about whether or not they are recorded acurrately. Faith and MJ- what do you think of Centrus' view of the Bible?Overall, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the majority of Christians are much more strictly biblically-based, and see the Bible not as some haphazard list of ideas changed through fallable humans, but as the word of God. On the other hand, I've seen many fundamentalists who are unaware of the millions of moderate and liberal christians and Christian scholars.Oh, and on another note, it's very common on this subject to bash our ancestors as being stupid. They weren't. Bronze age people were just as smart as us today, but not as knowledgeable. Even without divine intervention, they certainly could have understood the ideas of atoms, planets, long ages of time, and so on.Have a fun day all-

quote:

---

---

Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Faith wrote: [quote]

quote:

---

Scholars agree that moses didn’t write Genesis.

---

Not the scholars I take seriously, only a certain class of scholars we believers roll our eyes at.[quote] "We believers"? Nearly all of the scholars I'm referring to are Christian. They base this on the text itself, which contains all kinds of clues that there is more than one author. Now, perhaps moses was one of them, but it take the denial of evidence to claim that Moses wrote the whole pentateuch, or even all of Genesis. Rolling you eyes at solid scholarship, including that by fellow Christians, only further erodes your credibilty.

Joman wrote:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Can anyone quote a biblical passage that clearly states, or that can be interpreted to state that matter is either continuous or atomic in nature? "Atomic" here means made up of distinct units and includes molecules as well as atoms.

---

​

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

---

So its clear that the Bible, in addition to proving atoms, also proves phlogiston and the luminiferous ether?

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Joman wrote:

quote:

---

Equinox wrote

quote:

---

The Bible has over a half million words - only a couple sentences of those would be needed to tell us about the periodic table, or anesthetics, or radio waves, or electricity, or internal combustion engines, or vaccinations, or antibiotics, or even germs.

---

Nature gives man revelations about the creator of it. The purpose of the Bible is to provide a legal document that requires all men to accept or deny by faith belief in it's authorship by God and it's revelatory truth's that can't be in any other way obtained.

---

The Bible is a legal document? I thought it was much more than that, a holy communication of God's word about all manner of life and of things in this creation. Are you denigrating the Bible?

quote:

---

There exists a fish in the Indian ocean that uses AM and FM radio to see. Anesthetics are the result of natural drugs found in nature. Alchohol is one. God put Adam to sleep when he operated upon him. Which is the first recorded use of an anesthetic.

---

Wasn’t it God’s power as God that he used to put adam to sleep? Was God so impotent that he needed to use an anesthetic because he couldn’t do it by his own holy power? Aren’t you saying God is as limited as us pathetic humans are by saying that God had to use an anesthetic? And which one do you suppose he used?Oh, and please provide a reference for that fish - and a reason why, if it exists, the Bible doesn’t tell us about it.

quote:

---

Lightning is electricity and electricity requires a path; that is, a circuit.
Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:
28:27 Then did he see it, and declare it; he prepared it, yea, and searched it out.
A decree is a law.
A way is a path or circuit (if the path is a return)
The above passaage says that God saw the pathway, was the one to declare it existence (thunder), prepared it (the pathway of lightning is prepared in advance of every lightning stroke) and God searched it out (which means the way of lightning isn't obvious).

---

Joman gives Job 28:26 from the Bible which he says explains accurate modern science.Others see science in their scripture as well. Some say the Qur’an explains the supernova origin of the elements (41:53), geology (78:6-7), botany (20:53), the solar system (21:33), the water cycle (23:18), and many more. Similar science verses are claimed in Hindu, Buddhist, and other scriptures. The prophecies of Nostrodamus are claimed to predict past and future events, including 9/11. In all of these cases, verses like these convince many people that their scripture must be of divine origin. You can read many different sacred scriptures for free at ISTA - Internet Sacred Text Archive Home. If someone is going to claim that the Bible is from God because it contains accurate science, then they have to explain why God also inspired the Qu'ran, the Vedas, and others.On the other hand, some people are not convinced. They claim that all of these verses are vague enough to be interpreted many ways (read that “lightning” one above). They also point out that the Bible contains over 500,000 words, and the other sacred scriptures are similarly long. It would have only taken a few of those words to clearly describe, say, the periodic table, how to vaccinate a child, the exact date of the Pompeii or Krakatoa eruptions, how to make a telegraph, printing press, bike, or an antibiotic. Any or all of these could have been inspired in a short paragraph in addition to, say, spending 9 chapters on “begats” in the book of Chronicles.If you are one of the people who see modern science in scripture, I hope you can see the similar divinity in the scriptures of other religions. Or you may be one of the people who see these verses as too vague, or you may wonder why a loving, scientifically knowledgeable deity would intentionally keep so much life saving information from us for thousands of years, until humans discovered it using their own science. Either way, we can all find and recognize the verses containing beauty and love. Have a fun day-Edited by Equinox, : minor fix

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Juraikken wrote:

quote:

---

hmmmm, the "circle" of the earth! if it were a circle why would there be four corners?

---

It's Isaiah 40 that talks about the circle, and it's Rev 7 and Is 12 that talk about the corners. Juraikken, you are pointing out to us contradictions in the Bible! Is that what you wanted to do? I wonder too, how COULD it have had corners if it were a circle? Maybe we have two different authors here, who have different ideas about what the earth is like?

quote:

---

what if the only kingdoms of the world at that time were in the vicinity of that area?

---

OK, someone is completely clueless about both the history of the world and about basic trigonometry. The Bible puts this story at around 25 CE. There were kingdoms in Africa, the Americas, China, etc, then and well before then. The curvature of the earth would easily prevent one from seeing even something as close as Rome from any mountains in israel, so even if Rome was all there was, that still won't work. Edited by Equinox, : typo

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)