Only, there is no such thing as a "formless lump of clay". Every lump of clay has some (lumpy?) form.
But that is not what I would mean. And surely the word "formless" applies to something, or why do we have it?
And since your words, to the best of my knowledge, have not had the power to create an entire universe, I don't put your pronouncements in the same category as the word of god.
Well, now I'm just insulted.
Unlike you and me, god is 'scale free': you do not preceive the atoms in the clay, but to god an atom is like a universe and the universe is as an atom.
I still think you're reaching a bit. Especially when there's so much else in Genesis which you could point to instead.
I do, after all,
know about atoms, but I would still describe something as "formless" without meaning to deny that it was made of atoms.
Moreover, I don't see why such a statement, if it works against the atomic theory, does not also work equally against the proposition that matter is continuous. Doesn't continuity count as a form? Are you not trying to have your cake and eat it?
™ Version 4.2