Originally posted by humy

he could feel the wind (air movement, movement of air, moving air) and was inspired to write of its weight.

Then he was clearly in error.
And PLEASE stop pretending to be stupid with this "(air movement, movement of air, moving air) " as if you don't understand the difference between "movement of air" and "moving air". Do you really clai imple as that.
Your original claim that the Bible says air has weight is debunked.

I am referring to the air, dummy. How can there be wind without air?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am referring to the air, dummy. How can there be wind without air?

am referring to the air, dummy.

what you were referring to isn't what is really relevant here: The verse wasn't referring to air but rather wind.

How can there be wind without air?

have you heard of solar wind? besides, air still isn't wind even when the wind is the movement of air. If air IS wind as you seem to so strongly imply then when the air is not moving then that air still would be 'wind' which is a contradiction by the definition of the word 'wind'.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am referring to the air, dummy. How can there be wind without air?

Look up solar wind. How much air do you think is involved in that numbnuts?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It does not really matter to me if the quark is the fundamental part of matter or not. My aim was to restate my original question so that the something I referred to is understood to be physical and not spiritual. So why does whatever you consider the smallest part of physical matter exist at all? Do you understand that question?

I understand the question, but I'm not sure you do. Science does not and cannot answer the question of what doesn't exist, so it cannot claim anything is the smallest particle (implying no smaller particles exist). All it can do is state the smallest known particles, which happens to include all of the particles in the Standard Model, which have no known internal structure.

Originally posted by humy

am referring to the air, dummy.

what you were referring to isn't what is really relevant here: The verse wasn't referring to air but rather wind.

How can there be wind without air?

have you heard of solar wind? besides, air still isn't wind even when the wind is the movement of air. If air IS wind as you seem ...[text shortened]... air still would be 'wind' which is a contradiction by the definition of the word 'wind'.

It is obvious that Job is talking about wind on earth, numbnuts. You have already conceded that wind is the movement of air and that air has weight right? So anyone with common sense should know the weight refers to the air.

Originally posted by Kepler
Look up solar wind. How much air do you think is involved in that numbnuts?

Job is not talking about solar wind, numbnuts!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I understand the question, but I'm not sure you do. Science does not and cannot answer the question of what doesn't exist, so it cannot claim anything is the smallest particle (implying no smaller particles exist). All it can do is state the smallest known particles, which happens to include all of the particles in the Standard Model, which have no known internal structure.

Why shouldn't I underestand the question? I am the one that posted the question. Yes, my point is that science does not know and can not know tha answer. That answer must come from a higher source.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obvious that Job is talking about wind on earth, numbnuts. You have already conceded that wind is the movement of air and that air has weight right? So anyone with common sense should know the weight refers to the air.

You have already conceded that wind is the movement of air and that air has weight right?

Not “ conceded” but merely stated for I never denied or resisted it. And movement of air is not air that has weight.

So anyone with common sense should know the weight refers to the air.

Today, thanks to science, yes. Before anyone knew that air had weight, no! And the person that wrote that verse obviously didn't know air had weight else he would have said 'air' and not 'wind' -there is just no other explanation for why he said 'wind' if he meant 'air' -unless you can give one?

Originally posted by humy

You have already conceded that wind is the movement of air and that air has weight right?

Not “ conceded” but merely stated for I never denied or resisted it. And movement of air is not air that has weight.

So anyone with common sense should know the weight refers to the air.

Today, thanks to science, yes. Before a no other explanation for why he said 'wind' if he meant 'air' -unless you can give one?

This explanation does not realy belong in the Science Forum, but since you are concerned about the use of the word "wind" and "air" by Job, I will try to educate you. If you look up the word "wind" in Strong's Concordance and find Job 28:25 you will find the word translated "wind" is listed as the Hebrew word numbered 7307. See the verse below:

For He looks to the ends of the earth,
And sees under the whole heavens,
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
(Job 28:24-25 NKJV)

Now, if you look up the word "air" in Strong's Concordance and find Job 41:16 you will find the word translated "air" is listed as the Hebrew word numbered 7307. See the verse below:

One is so near another
That no air can come between them;
(Job 41:16 NKJV)

Therefore, since "wind" and "air" are English translations of the same Hebrew word. To the Hebrew speaker "wind" and "air" are equal to each other.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why shouldn't I underestand the question? I am the one that posted the question. Yes, my point is that science does not know and can not know tha answer. That answer must come from a higher source.

Okay, so what does the higher source say about particle physics?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The person writing this was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he did. I don't think the writer knew what air was either. ...

Therefore the person writing it was inspired to write crap.
And evidently the Holy Spirit knew no better.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This explanation does not realy belong in the Science Forum, but since you are concerned about the use of the word "wind" and "air" by Job, I will try to educate you. If you look up the word "wind" in Strong's Concordance and find Job 28:25 you will find the word translated "wind" is listed as the Hebrew word numbered 7307. See the verse below:

For He l rew word. To the Hebrew speaker "wind" and "air" are equal to each other.

If in Hebrew the word for 'wind' and the word for 'air' were the same then how do you know they meant 'air' (as we understand it) and not wind?
And how do you know they had the modern concept of 'air' that is something other than just empty space?

So you are saying it was a mistranslation?
Well, that means the Bible is not the word of God after all.

One is so near another
That no air can come between them;
(Job 41:16 NKJV)

Why couldn’t 'air' above mean merely the empty space and distance between them?
They must have had the concept of wind because they could feel the wind but how could you know they knew that wind was the movement of 'air' and not merely a sideways 'push' you feel when you experience it?
How do you know that they had the modern concept of 'air' that is something other than just empty space?

In addition, if their word for wind and air are the same, then how do you know that where that verse says "One is so near another That no air can come between them"
that the word 'air' didn't actually mean 'wind'? After all, it says " "One is so near another That..." but it doesn't say they were touching but rather 'near' and if they were not touching then air must actually be between them!

Originally posted by humy
If in Hebrew the word for 'wind' and the word for 'air' were the same then how do you know they meant 'air' (as we understand it) and not wind?
And how do you know they had the modern concept of 'air' that is something other than just empty space?

So you are saying it was a mistranslation?
Well, that means the Bible is not the word of God af ...[text shortened]... d if they were not touching then air must actually be between them!

It was the Holy Spirit that knew, not them. And I did not say it was a mistranlation either. The translator had his choice of how he wanted to translate the word. In one case he translated it wind and in another he translated it air. In logic, 2 things equal to the same thing are equal.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was the Holy Spirit that knew, not them. And I did not say it was a mistranlation either. The translator had his choice of how he wanted to translate the word. In one case he translated it wind and in another he translated it air. In logic, 2 things equal to the same thing are equal.

That's logic, not linguistics. Do you think there, their and they're are the same thing? In spoken English they have exactly the same value and yet they are not equal.

Originally posted by Kepler
That's logic, not linguistics. Do you think there, their and they're are the same thing? In spoken English they have exactly the same value and yet they are not equal.

Those are different words. The translator seems to think that one Hebrew word can have different meanings just like some of our English words. That is his choice to use what English word he thinks conveys the meaning he believes is being stated. The point is that the same Hebrew word is tranlated as "wind" in one place and "air' in another place. So if one of these is spoken of as having weight, it would be "air" for most of us. However, the translator decided to use "wind" for some reason unknown to me.