Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

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 aboveCollier'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

Double post made in fear of a TOO-lengthy combined postEquinox: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...

(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.

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.

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.

Could we have some elaboration? Before more derogatory people than I shut your statement down?

Haha, it's all good mate It was just your very first statement:

quote:

---

Science can't touch the beginning of time as it was too hot for relativity to handle

---

That I did not fully understand, yet feared that it would experience some major rebuttal. I didn't restrain anything; I had nothing to say as I wasn't sure I understood what it was you were trying to say. So I thought I should ask for some elaboration.I'm still not fully understanding how Science has become (an alternate?) reason for your father to believe the Bible...

quote:

---

PS I appreciate your restraint - I'm not terribly thick-skinned.

---

You're welcome, but there was never going to be a shut down typed from my fingers . I was waiting for certain others within this forum who perhaps, like I, did not understand your point, to misinterpret and rebutt accordingly.

Yes indeed, too often people confuse the following issues:Christianity vs. AtheismCreation vs. EvolutionThere is a distinct difference between the two. And you can believe in (any) one of each, and ave evidence supporting your view.Just as you can believe in the theory of evolutin and be christian, you can disbelieve in God and believe in creation. It simply suggests you support the 'Intelligent Design' notion.As for me, the top issue is clear to me, I certainly believe in God; yet I am fuzzy as to which 'Origin of Life' theory I believe in...Actually, it is the reaosn I sought for a forum such as this, and now participate within it

Ahh, fair enough.So you believe that God did create the Earth (in the way the Genesis describes it?), and then the diversity of life was the product of evolution?That, essentially, is what I believe. But, I am not as learned as you, and so my view is a bit fuzzled, not having seen much of the evidence available. And so, I couldn't say that I have come to a legitimate conclusion about itI would very much like to have a conversation with you regarding this, if you had the time?Edited by Centrus, : No reason given.

Hmm, I think we will stray a bit if we continue it here...I'll start a new one concerning this another time, as at the moment I have a bit of homework that needs to get done by then :SBut thanks very much for your input and willingness