Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

Those kids would only be judged on what they knew. I would think that most if not all made it to Heaven.

Okay it is late and I can’t resist a Kid’s in the Hall reference:Perhaps God is looking down at Satan, centering Satan's head between his thumb and forefingers and giggling while saying, I’m squishing your head! I’m squishing your head!

Really, how do you support this Biblically? Humans are born into sin, children are humans. Where does it say that ignorance is a get out of jail free card. Further, what makes you think that most children in third world countries have never heard of Jesus?

Well, do you really think that these children had heard of Jesus in any accountable way so as to make a decision? I would say that they knew no more of Jesus than we know of Buddha. Seeing as how the Tsunami was a natural event, God cannot blaim humanity for ignorance unless God blaims all of the so called western Christians who knew better.(assuming we do!) God judges humanity by declaring that no one is righteous. God is not so simple as to give us one chance. Surwely anyone who dies is given some chance of acknowledgement of God as a reality choice. Say one of us who is an atheist and who heard of God all their lives but rejected the religion based on common sense and honestly did not feel convicted was driving home and died in a car wreck. I believe that this atheist would have yet one more chance to choose God as a choice before they were fully dead. It is a question of being willing to surrender in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is not a case of having to do so before death. Is anyone willing to admit that they do not know?

I’m asking you for Biblical support for your position. There have been large groups of people that have a large number of those children are damned. There’s a reason the Catholic Church baptizes children and the Mormon’s do after death baptisms.In any accountable way? What exactly does that mean? By that definition, I’d say that no one alive has ever heard of Jesus in an accountable way.Your assertion that you can choose not to follow Christ and then after death pick him is in my experience a very minority one.

And who wrote this law?If I had my own country and I wrote all of the laws, one of them being that no car shall exceed 55 mph, can I as Dictator (Lord over all) have MY car exceed 55 mph? Sure I can.
Could Jesus heal on the Sabbath? Certainly!
Can God die and come back to life? His Son did. God the Father never has died. (except in the minds of those who claim human wisdom as their primary trusted source)By definition, God defines and controls logic.
Logic does not limit God.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-17-2005 11:42 AM

sure. not jesus. his explanation is not "as god, i'm allowed to do whatever i want thank you!" it's that it's not work, it's helping something or someone out. the point of sabbath is that you get a break, not that you're not allowed to pull you ass out of a hole in the ground.

Brian, you made a mistake in English comprehension.
...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
You wrongly applied "day" also to the latter.
If God intended "die that very day" then it would have been written
"for in the day that thou eastest thereof is the day that thou will surely die".Edited by h1a8, : No reason given.

We have someone who knows what God is thinking, what a wonderful gift.I am afraid that your interpretation really does not make any sense.Adam was going to die some day anyway, so to use your interpretation means that God's threat was pointless.Think about it. Someone says to you, "the day that you eat my cake you will surely die", you say " I'm going to die anyway, what would be the point of the threat if it wasn't meant to shorten your life?

Prove that Adam was going to die anyway.
The bible points out that man can live forever if he continues to eat of the tree of life (hence the name 'tree of life'). That is why God kicked man out of the garden and had an angel guard the entrance.God's intentions was either that man would die that very day or a day in the future. Since God didn't actually say that Adam was to die the very day he ate of the tree then it can't be proven that God lied.

Adam was mortal, he was dying from the moment he was created. No it does not say that.What it actually says in Genesis 3:22 is: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So ”take also’ obviously means that Adam has not eaten from the Tree of Life yet, if he did he would be like God, an eternal being. You only need to eat the from the Tree of Life once to become like God.Ain’t it annoying when the Bible doesn’t say what you would like it to? Of course, He had to protect the Tree of Life. If anyone eats from it they become eternal, just like God. You don’t have to keep eating from it. I’m afraid not. God lied, the Serpent told the truth. Adam did not die that day.It is easy to prove as well. Look at what the Serpent says about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. So, the Serpent uses the same terminology, ”in the day’, so when did Eve’s eyes become open?Genesis 3:6-7 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Their eyes immediately were opened, the very day that they ate the fruit. God said they would die that day and they didn’t. God lied, no big deal. Well I just proved it.But, to be serious for a moment, we really need to look at the Bible in context. The Adam and Eve myth doesn’t mean that anybody lied, Israelite philosophers were the same as any other nations’ philosophers, they came up with stories to explain the world around them. Suffering and evil was obviously a big concern in the ancient world, thus the Israelite philosophers came up with this tale, heavily borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology, to explain why the world could be such a shitty place.God didn’t lie, Satan didn’t lie, the creators of this myth MAY have lied, but since God and Satan are literary inventions we cannot say they lied.What we could say is that the mythological character Yahweh lied in the Book of Genesis.Isn’t ancient mythology amazing?

Adam was mortal, he was dying from the moment he was created.

No offense but you should take some classes in critical thinking, logic, or mathematical proof. Because any argument where one makes the most simplest of logical fallacies is a waste of time.I said prove to me that Adam was going to die anyway (was mortal) and not use a circular argument. Your argument is equivalent to "The ball is red because it is red", which is circular. Thus you haven't proven that Adam was going to die regardless of whether he ate from the tree of knowledge or not. You must prove that he was mortal without the tree of life.

No it does not say that.

​

What it actually says in Genesis 3:22 is:

​

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

​

So ”take also’ obviously means that Adam has not eaten from the Tree of Life yet, if he did he would be like God, an eternal being. You only need to eat the from the Tree of Life once to become like God.

​

Ain’t it annoying when the Bible doesn’t say what you would like it to?

Many consider the text "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" to mean spiritual death. Prove to me that it couldn't have meant spiritual death.God shows mercy here. Eating of the tree of life to live forever in a state of death (spiritual) and alienation is very bad (eternal torture).And you are again using silly logic. God didn't want man "to know good and evil" and "take also" of the tree of life (by the reasoning above). To "take also" doesn't mean nor implies that one has never taken the said thing before. I can say to you, "take also the penny".
That doesn't mean you have never taken a penny before.

Of course, He had to protect the Tree of Life. If anyone eats from it they become eternal, just like God. You don’t have to keep eating from it.

What? Another baseless assumption.
Prove that one only has to eat of the tree once in order to be eternal. Don't use circular reasoning now.Also know that God allowed Adam and Eve to eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16).

Well I just proved it.

​

But, to be serious for a moment, we really need to look at the Bible in context. The Adam and Eve myth doesn’t mean that anybody lied, Israelite philosophers were the same as any other nations’ philosophers, they came up with stories to explain the world around them. Suffering and evil was obviously a big concern in the ancient world, thus the Israelite philosophers came up with this tale, heavily borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology, to explain why the world could be such a shitty place.

​

God didn’t lie, Satan didn’t lie, the creators of this myth MAY have lied, but since God and Satan are literary inventions we cannot say they lied.

​

What we could say is that the mythological character Yahweh lied in the Book of Genesis.

​

Isn’t ancient mythology amazing?

Baseless assertions with no proof makes arguments a total waste of time.If God lied in Genesis where the book of Genesis is just a made up myth then it is clear that it makes no sense for author to contradict his self (due to a lack of intelligence) when it clear that he had a sufficient amount of intelligence in order to write Genesis in the first place.

Hi, H1a8. Welcome to EvC! Actually, Brian didn't make an English mistake at all. You seem to have overlooked that pesky little word "in," which switches the phrase "the day that thou eatest thereof" from a subject into an auxiliary clause modifying the verb "die."The sentence... ...can also be written... In modern English, we would more likely say: If Brian made a mistake, it certainly wasn't a mistake in reading English.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

That would sum up Genesis to a "T"

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Um, what mercy is being shown? This eternal torture in hell according to the Bible is the fate of the vast majority of humanity is it not? He didn't? Than why put it there in the first place? This is equivalent of putting a box of matches in front of a toddler and saying do not touch and walking out of the room and returning to find the house burnt down and then punishing the child (if they survive). Where is God's moral responsibility in this act? Is he not the more culpible moral agent in this story not the freshly minted and inexperience persona's of Adam and Eve? And you, yourself do not provide evidence that falsifies this statement as well. So your statment commenting that Brians statements are baseless, are themselves baseless as well. If you want to back up your statement, than you should start a new topic and provide evidence supporting your statements. BTW, if you do I will provide evidence supporting Brian's assertions as well. Um, I think Brian was saying that the God (Yahweh, Elohim, El-Shaddai, whatever) of the Bible is a mytholical figure and thus it makes no difference what his actions in the Bible are anyways not that there is a real God and that he actually lied in the book of Genesis.BTW, there are many other religious books that have some very profound theology and philosophical musings which could be considered on par if not surpass the "intelligence" of the events in the book of Genesis i.e. try reading the Buddhist or Hindu Sutras concerning creation: How is this for being unintilligent?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan