Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

Thanks for clarifying that.db

solely a faith issue. i refuse to believe in a jesus who walked around attracting worship, claiming to be god or the way to god, etc, as such things ARE blasphemy. even if you're related to god.the point of christianity is that christ is a blameless victim, to take on the sins of others (not that i really accept that any more either*). but christ can't be that if they can find a valid reason to execute him under mosaic laws. which in the gospel of john, they can.paul i don't feel like getting into. he just doesn't line up with the hebrew bible or the teachings of christ, and i hear nothing but bad things in his writings. (oppress women and gays, stay away from sex, etc). it also seems to the source of a lot of the messed-up christian complexes i've witness firsthand. and i think i'll leave it at that. ponder it on your own, and let me know what you think.*recently, i've come to think of christ's sacrifice as not to god, but to the people. he's not fulfilling mosaic practices in any way, rather it's to make people understand that god cares and to make them feel like their sins have been atoned for and their guilt removed. it's a technicality, and i'm still thinking this one over. but either way, the tainted christ in the book of john is contradictory to the idea.

quote:

---

they're called ovum. mabe by ovaries. but then, you knew that, right? however, please look up the other 280-some times the word "seed" is used in the bible, and tell me exactly what you think the word means?

---

In the Hebrew the word for seed is always masculine when used as a noun. The example you give says for God hath appointed me another seed [son]. She does not call Seth her seed. When God says her seed, in Gen. 3:15, this is the only time that phrase is used in the Bible. Yes it clearly is the prophecy of the virgin birth. It is usually used as the word for semen or male offspring. This should not even be a debate for the meaning is abundantly clear. Check any Hebrew dictionary. Even when used as a verb it has the meaning that connotes sowing, or implanting seed. No, Satan is not the son of a snake, the snake was the way Satan appeared to Adam and Eve. I covered this previously. The scripture says bruise not bite. He will crush his head and that was accomplished on the cross. Satan may not know it yet, but it is finished. This is descriptive language, a type used in many places, not only in the Bible, but literature generally. See Revelation 12, verses 7-9, which clearly shows that the angels have free will.I know that God wins, actually He already has from His view point, it just remains to be played out. That's the part I'm interested in, just seeing how it all happens.

quote:

---

The script seems to define the contextual meaning of 'flesh.'
  —dctrbill

---

"My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh ..." 6:3 RSVDid a little research and found Genesis 6:19, 9:4, and 9:15-17, and it seems that not only are animals called flesh, but God even made a covenant with them! Perhaps they do have souls.Then I just happened to come across Job 27:3, that seems to indicate an understanding of the spirit as opposed to the physical life of man. My feeling is that God has the power to influence the selection of which writings are selected as scripture. There were many criteria which were involved in the determination of whether or not they were inspired texts. I've read a lot of those books and they read like the Book of Mormon to me. Interesting, but not the inspired word of God.

The belief in the supernatural [as in an evil entity taking on the appearance of an animal and talking] seems no less plausible to me than the belief that everything is an accident.

Good work. Perhaps the animals have a covenant scripture squirreled away somewhere? Word of the Great Predator?
At any rate, the Flood Covenant provides little comfort to those (human and otherwise) who drown in floods. "Influenced by God" to override decisions made by the Apostles?And why did those influenced men include the apostolic writings in their canon while excluding writings which the apostles had endorsed? If you say so.db

---

actually, the connotation is "first born." i think that would even be an acceptable translation. she does. and you even posted. don't let the grammer confuse you. if god has a appointed HER another seed, the seed is HERS. don't be preposertous. the story has nothing to do with virgins or anyone but eve. because the euphemism usually has to do with semen. "spilled his seed on the ground," etc. if you're a christian, jesus would be GOD'S SEED, not mary's. the only way jesus would be mary's seed is if it just simply means "first born" or "son" in which case there is no reason the genesis verse would indicate anything but eve's child, or by implication mankind.remember, the hebrews like to refer to groups euphemistically. the nation of israel is ben'yisrael: the sons of israel, or even the sons of jacob. and so the seed of eve relates to her being the mother of all mankind. explain to me how mary produced semen. if she did, then that would make her the only bi-functional hermaphrodite ever, and jesus's father would not be god, would she? ie: impregnation. as in by a man. not a miracle. and have consistently failed to back this purely religious argument. what makes you like this satan guy so much that you see him everywhere? semantics. where does satan BRUISE jesus's heel? this god of yours is a procrastinator, isn't he? either it was acomplished on the cross, or it wasn't. the whole crushing of the head thing... i'm sure he'd notice. yes, it's sure is descriptive. if i described something that crawls along on it's belly and licks the ground, and is called "a snake" what would i be describing? an angel of course! don't be silly!it's not metaphorical, because it is the origin of snakes. maybe the theme is there, but it is NOT satan because it's describind why snakes are snakes. revelation is quite a trippy book, isn't it. now this i HAVE covered before. the dragon imagery comes from leviathan. who is not satan. wrong serpent. this is an amalgamation of several different legends, and is most likely saying something about a real-world person and not an angel.they are not refering to the satan you think. satan means adversary. devil means liar. these are not even titles, really. in chapter two, this satan is described as having a real throne, and a real church. it seems to be talking about a person, and this name can apply to people who test faiths.for instance, a king who feeds christians to lions could be called satan. you're just getting confused because they threw in the leviathan legen to let you know god wins. your god's lazy, isn't he? i mean, limitless power, knows the future. why do anything when you can do everything? why does this satan run around if he's been beat? are you saying that god can't kick an ass very good?in fact, if you create everything, why make a battle for yourself? he could have won before it started right? your logic is very strange.

do we see the double standard here? why is the book of mormon not ok, but say the new testament is? they line about with the ot about as well.why do you accept the entire ot as the word of god, when the people who wrote it only treat the majority of the first five books as the word of god, and easily recognize that books like psalms were written by men ABOUT god, not vice versa?

Or the gnostic gospels, or the gospel according to Biff.Seriously, I can't stand that argument about which chapters were TRULY inspired and which weren't. What would those be? Were they peer reviewed by religious scholars?Could you please post a link to these criteria?This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 05:02 AM

I don't know that they cited any of those writings in their letters. Where can I find that they [the apostles] considered them inspired?

i think all writing is inspired, period. but then, i use the proper definition of inspiration, and not the "god forced my hand to make this" definition.

quote:

---

do we see the double standard here? why is the book of mormon not ok, but say the new testament is? they line about with the ot about as well.

​

why do you accept the entire ot as the word of god, when the people who wrote it only treat the majority of the first five books as the word of god, and easily recognize that books like psalms were written by men ABOUT god, not vice versa?

---

The Book of Mormon should agree with the OT pretty much because it was largely copied from the OT.The OT books such as Psalms contain prophecy and history. 16 copies of Isaiah were found among the Dead Sea scrolls, so somebody back then must have thought it was an important book.

What would those be? Were they peer reviewed by religious scholars?Could you please post a link to these criteria?Among the criteria were whether they were quoted or mentioned by Jesus or His apostles. There is a difference of opinion between the Catholic church and the majority of Protestants about the Apocrypha. In John 10:35 and Luke 24:44, Jesus speaking about the OT omits any mention of them, but does mention psalms, the books of Moses, and the prophets. There are other criteria but I don't have a link. I read about it in a book titled :Church History in Plain Language, by Bruce Shelly.

quote:

---

explain to me how mary produced semen. if she did, then that would make her the only bi-functional hermaphrodite ever, and jesus's father would not be god, would she?

---

She couldn't and God didn't. That's what made the whole thing miraculous, and that's why the Jews were puzzled about that. Ask a rabbi since you appear to reject the Hebrew dictionary and make up your own definitions. English dictionary, DESCRIBE-[IN LITERATURE]PORTRAY, CHARACTERIZE.

Actually, I have heard this one a number of times. We don't know why God put that particular tree in the Garden. I am content to believe that as a mere human, I don't need to know Everything that God does and why. If I did, he wouldn't be a God to worship.
He did tell Adam he would surely die and he did.
In the 21st century we have a bad way of trying to interpret history thru this time and our current knowledge.
How do you know they were to die? How do you know it was their destiny to die? Remember we don't get to see the behind the scenes of God yet! I for one can't wait until that day!!
The bible is the truth, literally and you can believe it from cover to cover. We ALL face spiritual blindness until we take that step and except Jesus as Lord and Savior!!