Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

hmmmm, the "circle" of the earth! if it were a circle why would there be four corners? can you explain to me how you think that quote proves a dome?and the second quote uhh, what if the only kingdoms of the world at that time were in the vicinity of that area? it WAS pretty close to Ceasar and he was said to once be the most powerful person in the world.

But how could it have corners if it wasn't flat?

quote:

---

Isa 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

---

quote:

---

Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

---

Either the authors didn't know the real shape of the earth or it wasn't important to their story.Similarly, it seems unlikely that the existence of atoms was particularly important to their story - whether they knew about atoms or not.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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)

quote:

---

hmmmm, the "circle" of the earth! if it were a circle why would there be four corners? can you explain to me how you think that quote proves a dome?

---

Well, the "curtain" thing on a "circle" gives me that impression.
I can't explain why there would be four corners to a circle because the bible's whack!, Mui loco, senor.

quote:

---

and the second quote uhh, what if the only kingdoms of the world at that time were in the vicinity of that area? it WAS pretty close to Ceasar and he was said to once be the most powerful person in the world.

---

What if, huh?, what if... what if the bible doesn't know what it's saying at all, that would make more sense than civilizations developing densely in a small area.

As always you are a being of many corners in the circle of life. Welcome to EvC.

You made me feel like Mother Nature, lol.

I know this reply is as old as the hills, but.... I still want to just reply. I totally agree with this angle. the Bible is about a relationship. It is not a science lesson. As far as being different authors of Genesis.. I never dug that deep into it to really say so or not. I'm sure it is quite possible. I am sure there is alot of mystery to The Bible and more than likely plenty of missing books too.

quote:

---

the Bible is about a relationship. It is not a science lesson.

---

Then why is it making claims on how Earth was formed? Why is it making claims on how life started?, from my experience, a book about relationship tells how to enhance one, how to make someone else feel loved. Trying to claim such large events would certainly warrant some need for evidence.

quote:

---

I'm sure it is quite possible.

---

You're sure it is? You're sure a woman can be created from a man's rib?, you're sure it's possible the Sun and Moon were created after plants, and revolving around Earth?

You have got to be kidding me? Wow.. Big claim.. All ONE sentence. And how many other sentences does The Bible speak of relationship? A relationship between man and God. It deals with all you say and more. It is quite obvious it isn't trying to corner the market on explaining or teaching science. I never said it was literally elite and perfect. Far from that. I would say some parts are, others are not. The scientific evidence I agree with-for the most part. So that doesn't make me a YEC. I follow more along the lines of a progressive creationist or a thiest evolutionist. I do not know enough about the fossil record to make a complete judgement. I would like to discuss that with someone on this board that is knowledgeable about such things.Didn't mean to go off on a tangent, but I think you should know my position on this matter. The "quite possible" I was actually refering to was different authors of Genesis and the OT in general....Edited by xXGEARXx, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You have got to be kidding me? Wow.. Big claim.. All ONE sentence. And how many other sentences does The Bible speak of relationship? A relationship between man and God. It deals with all you say and more. It is quite obvious it isn't trying to corner the market on explaining or teaching science.

---

Then shouldn't Science be the one explaining how the Earth formed, since there was centuries of research put in it?, instead of a book about a relationship?

quote:

---

I never said it was literally elite and perfect. Far from that. I would say some parts are, others are not. The scientific evidence I agree with-for the most part. So that doesn't make me a YEC. I follow more along the lines of a progressive creationist or a thiest evolutionist. I do not know enough about the fossil record to make a complete judgement. I would like to discuss that with someone on this board that is knowledgeable about such things.

---

In other words, you cherry-pick what you think is right?

quote:

---

Didn't mean to go off on a tangent, but I think you should know my position on this matter. The "quite possible" I was actually refering to was different authors of Genesis and the OT in general....

---

But do you think genesis is true?Edited by DemonScythe, : No reason given.

I am not disagreeing with your statement. I am confused as to why you are asking me this? No, I am just intelligent enough to know that not everything one reads can be taken word for word. I am also aware that the people of that time described real events in their lives as best they could. I think there are some parts that explain the truth the best way a person could describe it at the time. I do not think every word is literally correct.

Since the Bible is composed of atoms it follows that they confirm it.

The bible stories were originally an oral tradition and were part of a traditional oral continuum.

Greeting Mr. GenitalsYour challenge calls two things to mind.1. Paul's statement: Hebrews 11:3 (KJV)

quote:

---

"... what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." ESV (English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles)

---

Which makes me think he may have been reading Democritus.AND2. The definition of Tohu, especially when it appears in combination with Bohu, as in these verses: Genesis 1:2 "... without form and void ..." Jeremiah 4:23 "... without form and void ..." Tohu itself is sometimes translated 'wilderness' (bold emphasis mine):

quote:

---

"He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; ..." Deuteronomy 32:10

---

quote:

---

"He taketh away the heart ... and causeth them to wander in a wilderness ..." Job 12:24

---

The KJV renders Tohu in a variety of ways including once, and only once, as: "nothing." This in a description of where caravans go when they get lost. Here (Job 6:18) the majority of modern versions give it something else, such as: "nowhere," (NKJV); "wasteland," (NIV); or "desert." (NLT)Thayer's commentary:

quote:

---

"... that which is wasted, laid waste, ..."

---

Strong's etymology (#8414): (bold emphasis mine):

quote:

---

"... from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively - a worthless thing; ..."

---

Seems to me the fact that the committee translated Tohu as "without form" (i.e. amorphous) might reveal a bias toward the plum pudding concept of matter. Alternatively it could be an attempt to support the idea that God was not indebted to pre-existing matter; that the universe existed in his mind but was not yet material, as Philo teaches.This last would tend to refute the ancient notion that the universe was made from water and in water (as Genesis and St. Peter attest). It would also deny an alternative interpretation whereby Genesis describes the re-building of a devastated civilization, or the reclamation of a trackless waste. There is certainly no other place in scripture where Tohu is asked to convey the meaning which so many want to give it here, in Paragraph One of Book One.What Say Ye?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I say the bible, as you have elucidated it, is a book for all seasons; a Chinese menu of potential interpretations: select 'void' from column A, 'form' from column B. No wonder there has been so much war, strife, and torturous murder over this one tome. That his book invites, nay, demands such divisive and confused interpretations makes one wonder whether it is the product of the darker forces. That would explain so much about our worlds religions and there interactions. A benevolent, loving god would certainly be clear and unambiguous in his pronouncements so that there would be unforced convivial unanimity in the understanding of his words, particularly where the correct understanding means the difference between eternal bliss and eternal torment.What say ye.