Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 16 of 153 (359876)
10-30-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
10-30-2006 12:57 PM


well, formless means just that. And atoms have a definite form. So AninGenitals is right, in that regards. I'll leave you to your fuming over the extra-literalist.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 10-30-2006 12:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 10-30-2006 8:02 PM kuresu has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 153 (359981)
10-30-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by kuresu
10-30-2006 2:14 PM


That's not being extra-literalist. That's just plain ole nitpicking.
And no, atoms don't have definite form. You of all people should know this. We've moved beyond the plum pudding and the simple planetary model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kuresu, posted 10-30-2006 2:14 PM kuresu has not replied

Centrus
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 153 (360031)
10-31-2006 2:53 AM


Exaggeration
A.I.G.:
No harm to you mate, but, without discrediting the topic (as it is quite interesting), the evidence you supplied with which you suggest that the Bible refute atomic theory is quite insubstantial.
Please remember, Genesis was written by a man (Moses, in fact), not by God himself; so in order to interpret what the quote; "And the earth was without form, and void..." really means, we must take it at a level a common man (as the common man, of that time, was his targeted audience) would.
Thus, it is highly unlikely that 'formless' (essentially 'without form') in any way implies support for the continuum theory. In fact, if it does oppose atomic theory, it equally opposes continuum theory, as we are still dealing with matter, and matter (whether made up of microscopic, indivisible particles, or if it is continously and infinitely divisible) has form, going by the definition you seem to be.
But, I highly doubt that any implication supporting or rejecting atomic theory exists within that quote. Remembering that Genesis, like much of the Bible, was translated from Hebrew into English. And if you know more than one language, you will agree with me that often direct translation is difficult (to minimise misinterpretation). Thus, it is moist likely that the simple and most obvious definition of 'formless' would be the right one in this instance:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
form-less
- lacking a definite or regular form or shape; shapeless.
I don't know about you; but I interpret that definition to be, basically, of undefined shape. Thus, it has shape, does exist, but it is difficult to define or describe this 'shape'.
Ironically, the ONLY entry in the following dictionary (which I believe, with respect that you may not, is quite authentic) is identical to the above
Collier's Dicionary (1986 edition)
form-less
- lacking a definite or regular form or shape; shapeless.
Sorry, I am quite Oxfordless at the moment. If you consider it relevant enough, post the oxford entry if you wish. But I think the above is evidence enough to prove my point (I will happily accept disagreement to this statement, but as far as I can see...)
But even having to revert to dictionaries is probably too much. Just as Dr. Adequate argued, in our everyday colloquialisms, formless would be interpreted as an indefinite shape, with both subjects believing in atomic theory
And so, formless, IMHO, should not in any way be considered a rejection of atomic theory
Q.E.D.
Edited by Centrus, : Just a bit more spacing... makes it easier on the eyes, you know

Centrus
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 153 (360034)
10-31-2006 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Equinox
10-30-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Deafening silence
Double post made in fear of a TOO-lengthy combined post
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! Even in modern day speech, the use of atoms as an hyperbole would be rare. A reference to grains of sand or stars in the sky is far more open to the understanding of the world as it was then, and even the world as it is now.
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.
quote:
“atoms in your body” or in “the Jewish Temple” would have been more impressive.
Assuming he would have the slightest idea what he meant. There wouldn't have even been a name for atoms back then...
quote:
and keeps track of it by numbering the hairs on your head (something that a human could conceivably do)
Start counting
quote:
The deafening silence on all of these points I think speaks volumes.
Without being rude, I had to stifle a laugh after reading that statement.
Contrary to your illusion that you provided remotely significant evidence that the Bible supports the continuum theory, I must say, I am not convinced...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Equinox, posted 10-30-2006 12:10 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Equinox, posted 11-01-2006 4:10 PM Centrus has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 153 (360171)
10-31-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals
10-29-2006 2:00 AM


Interpretations
I will start the ball rolling with the second verse of Genesis: "And the earth was without form, and void..." 'Without form' clearly implies that the matter of the earth was continuous and not atomic in nature, for if it were atomic (and molecular), it would have the form of the atoms (and molecules) that make it up. Thus, either Genesis 1.2 or the atomic theory of matter is correct, but not both.
I take the verse to essentially be saying that, in the beginning, nothing was there in the truest sense of the word. We may ask with an open palm, "What's in my hand?" Nothing visible is in your hand, but certainly there are oxygen molecules. I take the verse to mean, 'nothing' was there. That's why it says the earth was without form and void. And yes, obviously you would have to extend that to mean atoms.
Am I not understanding your question? To me, it seems like you have correctly interpreted the passage.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-29-2006 2:00 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Centrus, posted 11-01-2006 2:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Centrus
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 153 (360322)
11-01-2006 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
10-31-2006 3:06 PM


Re: Interpretations
(In the hope, of course, that you've read the entire thread...)
Okay...
I respect your interpretation. That's fair enough. However, consider the possibility that perhaps you've misinterpreted it? Based on evidence I provided in previous posts, it would seem appropriate that an alternate interpretation is not only possible, but probable. I'll leave you to think about that.
quote:
I take the verse to essentially be saying that, in the beginning, nothing was there in the truest sense of the word. We may ask with an open palm, "What's in my hand?" Nothing visible is in your hand, but certainly there are oxygen molecules. I take the verse to mean, 'nothing' was there. That's why it says the earth was without form and void. And yes, obviously you would have to extend that to mean atoms.
Forgive me, but it seems to me that the example you gave, if anything, actually refutes your own interpretation. When we say 'nothing' is in our hand, we are not speaking in an entirely literal sense; as you said, atmoshperic molecules (and a whole host of others) are there. To me, the same applies to the quote in question. Moses described the Earth as formless, yet it may have a form, just one incomprehendible to him, or to his readers. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Even if your interpretation is correct, I'd hardly consider it sufficient evidence for one to boldly state that the Bible rejects atomic theory. Especially when you consider what we're actually dealing with... creation. Thus, we are dealing with God. When considering the text, you must consider Him. God is all powerful, and so perhaps, before the Earth had a definite shape, atoms did NOT exist. Who knows? Personally however, I agree with an alternate interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2006 3:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-02-2006 12:41 PM Centrus has replied

Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 22 of 153 (360511)
11-01-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Centrus
10-31-2006 3:49 AM


Re: Deafening silence
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 neither
The 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Centrus, posted 10-31-2006 3:49 AM Centrus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 11-01-2006 5:17 PM Equinox has replied
 Message 24 by Centrus, posted 11-02-2006 1:27 AM Equinox has replied
 Message 50 by Joman, posted 11-16-2006 3:30 PM Equinox has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 153 (360529)
11-01-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Equinox
11-01-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Deafening silence
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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Equinox, posted 11-01-2006 4:10 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Equinox, posted 11-02-2006 12:04 PM Faith has not replied

Centrus
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 153 (360620)
11-02-2006 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Equinox
11-01-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Deafening silence
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.
quote:
Scholars agree that moses didn’t write Genesis.
News to me mate...
As for the second half of your post, I think we're reading the same book, but I'm not sure we're quite on the same page. You see, I don't think there is a (learned) Christian out there who seriously believes that the Bible was written directly by God. Most (myself included) consider it a book written by man, but inspired by God.
Thus, the book is open to the (possibly biased?) POVs of each author. Hence, it does matter when humans discovered these things. I highly doubt that the majority of authors (as I stated above, who were not scientists) would have cared or thought about the fundamental structure of matter. The only way they would have known was if God had educated them. Somehow, I find it hard to picture God providing frequent lessons on the subject; and since it is unlikely that any would have asked Him about it, they may have had no stance on the matter at all.
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.
But that is a separate discussion, and so belongs in a different thread, if you wish to continue it.
quote:
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).
Again, different page. (Please understand that the following is simply my understanding of it, which is certainly open to correction) Moses wrote Genesis upon the inspiration of God. 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), and so complicated things like the fundamental structure of matter did not concern him, just as they would not concern (but confuse!) the majority of his readers.
Edited by Centrus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Equinox, posted 11-01-2006 4:10 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by anglagard, posted 11-02-2006 7:07 AM Centrus has not replied
 Message 26 by Equinox, posted 11-02-2006 10:07 AM Centrus has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 25 of 153 (360677)
11-02-2006 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Centrus
11-02-2006 1:27 AM


Re: Deafening silence
Centrus speculates:
Moses wrote Genesis upon the inspiration of God. 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), and so complicated things like the fundamental structure of matter did not concern him, just as they would not concern (but confuse!) the majority of his readers.
Perhaps God answered Moses' questions at a level that Moses could understand, without going into the singularity, atomic structure, quantum physics, cosmology, geoscience, bioscience, etc.
Of course had the Bible gone into such details, even with God patiently teaching Moses, would it have been understood by the audience that Moses ultimately would have to confront? Would that portion of the Bible have even survived their incredulity short of divine intervention.
However, even the slightest hint such as providing the acceleration due to Earth's gravity, would have rendered athiesm and even this forum problematical. Guess too much truth was not part of the plan, or at least more truth than your average bronze-age mentality could handle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Centrus, posted 11-02-2006 1:27 AM Centrus has not replied

Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 26 of 153 (360738)
11-02-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Centrus
11-02-2006 1:27 AM


Re: Deafening silence
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Centrus, posted 11-02-2006 1:27 AM Centrus has not replied

Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 27 of 153 (360790)
11-02-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
11-01-2006 5:17 PM


Re: Deafening silence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 11-01-2006 5:17 PM Faith has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 153 (360812)
11-02-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Centrus
11-01-2006 2:14 AM


Re: Interpretations
I respect your interpretation. That's fair enough. However, consider the possibility that perhaps you've misinterpreted it? Based on evidence I provided in previous posts, it would seem appropriate that an alternate interpretation is not only possible, but probable. I'll leave you to think about that.
You didn't offer any alternative hypotheses. You just sort of bashed the only one proposed.
Forgive me, but it seems to me that the example you gave, if anything, actually refutes your own interpretation. When we say 'nothing' is in our hand, we are not speaking in an entirely literal sense; as you said, atmoshperic molecules (and a whole host of others) are there. To me, the same applies to the quote in question. Moses described the Earth as formless, yet it may have a form, just one incomprehendible to him, or to his readers. Do you see what I'm getting at?
I guess we could flip that around on you and point out that when you said Hebrew and English are different languages, that their true meanings can be lost in translation. You also have to understand that for anything to have a form, requires atoms. So if it is 'formless' and 'void,' then it seems reasonable to suggest that what Moses was essentially saying is it did not exist until God spoke it into existence. I will certainly grant the notion that perhaps the concept was incomprehensible to Moses as far as he could fully grasp the concept, but that doesn't mean he wasn't clear on his message.
What do you think he meant by this verse?
Even if your interpretation is correct, I'd hardly consider it sufficient evidence for one to boldly state that the Bible rejects atomic theory. Especially when you consider what we're actually dealing with... creation. Thus, we are dealing with God. When considering the text, you must consider Him. God is all powerful, and so perhaps, before the Earth had a definite shape, atoms did NOT exist. Who knows? Personally however, I agree with an alternate interpretation.
How can there be a shape when there is nothing there to make it? In order for something to have a 'shape,' there must be matter displacing space, and all matter is comprised of atoms. So, please explain how there could be a definite shape without atoms? Any other theory to have your cake and eat it too is required of a miracle, which I certainly wouldn't play down. The only problem is, you can't really explain miracles by the scientific method because a true miracle, by definition, goes against natural law.
I think my interpretation is reasonable.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Centrus, posted 11-01-2006 2:14 AM Centrus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Centrus, posted 11-03-2006 2:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

42
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 153 (361030)
11-03-2006 2:13 AM


Science can't touch the beginning of time as it was too hot for relativity to handle; however, science (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and sociology together) offer an alternative explanation as to why my Dad believes in the bible. And that is hard to ignore.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Centrus, posted 11-03-2006 2:43 AM 42 has replied

Centrus
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 153 (361034)
11-03-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
11-02-2006 12:41 PM


Re: Interpretations
quote:
You didn't offer any alternative hypotheses. You just sort of bashed the only one proposed.
Pardon me, I was under the impression that, whilst admittedly I didn't clearly state it, I clearly implied it by the definitions I gave of formless, and my concurrence with them.
To answer your first question (and make it clearer for everyone), I interpret 'without form' to essentially be 'formless', which colloquially (obviously) and officially (from the definitions I supplied) mean without a definitive shape. Thus, I take it to mean that one would find it difficult to describe the shape of the Earth at that time. Much like plasma, or even air (when described collectively). Yet, both plasma and air are comprised of atoms, no?
The rest of my original post was exposing the validity of that interpretation. Thinking of it from Moses' perspective (let's leave whether Moses was the author or not out of it, it is a separate issue and my point remains the same nevertheless), formless, back then, I seriously doubt would be considered to mean 'atomless', so to speak. It is simply a description (or lack thereof) of the Earth's shape at that time. Colloquially, that is how the majority of, even modern day, people would interpret formless to mean.
You don't seem to be reading correctly. I am not at all saying something can have shape without atoms. I'm saying something can be without (definitive) shape with atoms. Notice the difference?
And yet, I can think of a theory (whilst wrong in reality, obviously plausible in some people's minds) that suggests something can have shape without atoms. It's called continuum
quote:
So if it is 'formless' and 'void,' then it seems reasonable to suggest that what Moses was essentially saying is it did not exist until God spoke it into existence.
If that is your interpretation, then your conclusion that it supports continuum theory is quite misplaced. You see, if that indeed is what happened, then it seems that 'formless' and 'void' refers to this Earth that doesn't yet exist? Thus, it is not matter in the first place? The continuum theory only applies to matter I'm afraid. Your interpretation (which I also find legible ) is basically saying that Earth, while supposedly 'formless' and 'void' was a mere concept or idea, not an actual mass. Thus, when God 'spoke' it into existence, it became matter, but the 'formless' and 'void' descriptions no longer apply.
And so, it seems I am not disputing your intrepretation, but the logic (or lack thereof) with which you have drawn your conclusion. Remembering of course, that even if your conclusion is indeed correct, it is hardly even remotely significant enough for one to so recklessly say that the Bible supports continuum theory. Surely you can agree on the weakness of this claim, even if it is true? Even your 'ally-in-debate', Equinox, has admitted to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-02-2006 12:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Joman, posted 11-16-2006 2:32 PM Centrus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024