Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

Dear Bailey,Thank you for your response.All I ask is that you make sure that it is something in the Bible that actually contradicts either something else in the Bible or a Fact of nature.I am using the word contradict because I believe that the word inconsistent is too broad a term. There are many things in the Bible that may seem inconsistent (the Trinity for one) but there are also many things in nature that seam to be inconsistent and yet they are still true.One last favor, please read my post EvC Forum > All Forums > Science Forums > The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy > Can God lie? Message 35 before you start; it may help you chose your material.

Dear JRTjr,A cursory google-search turns up one webpage which purports to have a nice long list of inconsistencies (and other biblical issues) collected into one place.there are undoubtedly more (it's a long collection of books) but you may wish to read this page before continuing:Just a moment...Now, link-spam isn't something one should indulge in, but rather than copy verbatim, I think we can all agree that a simple clickety-click and a read isn't the most difficult in the world, and the alternative wastes everyone's time and datastorage duplicating.It has in it the facts that the four accounts of the resurrection are different, even though they are supposed to be simultaneous accounts. It has in it the two accounts of the creation of the world (6 days plus 1, versus 1 day, with the order being different) and several others.Rather than ignore wholesale the people who say such inconsistencies exist, I believe the onus should be on you to respond.Cheers,Greyseal.

So you say...but I've seen no evidence of that, especially in the practice of Cristians who claim that we're still living under sin. The consensus seems to be not that he washed away sin, but that he merely gave us the ability to wash it away if we subscribe to his rather contrived method of washing. Well, if that person went through his entire life knowing he would lose the arm for a couple days, then get it back for all eternity, and he kept harping on me saying, "Look man, I gave up my arm for you, and you can't even deign to toss me a beer?"Yeah, I'd get sick of him bringing up the arm he temporarily misplaced. Because God claims to have sacrificed something. If I give someone my prized valuable, but take it back three days later, did I sacrifice anything? The only way it becomes a sacrifice is if I take something back from an unhappy recipient despite the fact that I really, really didn't want it. So, if Jesus' death and return to his father is any sort of sacrifice for the father, it must be because he didn't want Jesus to come back.

This is a good point, because although Jesus did allegedly suffer, he still knew he was going to be resurrected in three days time. Oh, and what was he probably doing in that time? Whooping it up with God.For example: I love playing with my computer, so it is awesome. It's my favorite thing to do. But, one day I lose it in customs. I know it will eventually be shipped back to me, but in the meantime I am cut off from the world- no internet, email, etc. However, I spend my waiting time watching movies which, though not as great as my computer, are still pretty fun. Then, 3 days later I get my computer back and I moan and agonize to my friends about how hard and difficult it was to live without my laptop, even though I knew I would eventually get it back. Anyone else see the parallels? See above. I would respond to this, but the last line about God trying to ditch Jesus is just too funny.

quote:

---

The only thing necessary to receive forgiveness for ones wrong doing is to believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Jesus as your savior.

---

Actually the only thing necessary to receive forgiveness for ones wrong doing is to repent. Repentance is what Jesus preached along with the good news of the coming of the kingdom.

quote:

---

The evil force in your soul is there because of your rebellion against God; not because of a rib-woman being deceived by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.; Although mankind’s rebellion did start there.

---

No it isn't. Our evil inclinations have nothing to do with rebellion against any god. Good and evil are part of life.

quote:

---

To stifle one’s own pride, and humble one’s self before the Creator of the universes is no cakewalk. It is literally the hardest thing anyone will ever do.

---

Not necessarily. What is hard for one person may be easy for another.

quote:

---

It is humbling one’s self before God and accepting that there is no ritual, no journey you can take, and no action what so ever, that you can take, that can absolve you from your gilt before a Holy God.

---

Sure there is. Repentance. Meaning one has truly changed their way of doing things and doesn't continue wrong behavior.

quote:

---

Only by accepting the fact that Jesus took on your sin (your gilt) by dieing on the cross do you escape the punishment for your own rebellion against His righteous decrees.

---

Jesus didn't take on our sins. That's not really possible. We don't escape punishment for wrongs that require punishment. Only repentance brings forgiveness. Which righteous decrees are you referring to?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Oh -- I thought the only thing necessary to receive forgiveness was to give continuous monetary support to your church (and, depending on your choice of church, maybe having to say some particular prayers, or prayers of your choice on a particular topic, or whatever).Anyway, I thought this thread was in a so-called "science" forum? Has there been anything in this recent discussion that touches on specific references in the bible to the notion of God's omnipotence?If there's some relation between this notion of "forgiveness" and omnipotence, I'm not able to see it. And of course, while the OP in this thread didn't really give much detail, there is (in my mind) rather a lot that's unclear about what "omnipotence" is really supposed to mean.If it just means "He can do whatever He wants," that doesn't really help, since part of His "omni-mysteriousness" is the simple fact that we can't even guess (let alone have any real clue) what His specific intentions might be with regard to particular possible outcomes in the future, and any assertion about observed past events being intentional "acts of God" (as opposed to being something else) is frankly nothing more than groundless speculation.If the assertion of omnipotence is founded on the notion that "everything is according to God's plan," that's not only entirely circular, it's entirely meaningless. It reminds me of this old "news report" from The Onion:KinjaIt's silly, but to the point: God Answers Prayers... "No," Says God. Okay, that's a pretty solid case for omnipotence right there, folks. Can't argue with that.Actually, whether or not there is really any direct biblical justification for asserting God's omni-whatever is irrelevant. The fact that people make these assertions of "omni" attributes, as if they had any meaning at all, is completely absurd regardless where these ideas come from.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

Actually, whether or not there is really any direct biblical justification for asserting God's omni-whatever is irrelevant. The fact that people make these assertions of "omni" attributes, as if they had any meaning at all, is completely absurd regardless where these ideas come from.

---

Message 14 showed the meaning of omnipotence today. Unfortunately the meaning of the word translated as almighty, Shadday, in the OT doesn't carry the same meaning. In the NT the word translated as almighty, pantokratōr, carries this meaning: So again the meaning of almighty changes with the times.The OT meaning carries the idea of powerful as in strength and the NT meaning carries the idea of ruling power.I don't think either of the original meanings carries the idea of unlimited power as in God can do anything whether strength or authority. The people referred to their God as the most powerful. Just another way to refer to one's leader. We address politicians as honorable. It doesn't mean they are.It is obvious in the writings of the Bible that God does not have unlimited power or omniscient.Meaning of omniscient today. Religion has to keep God ahead of mankind's knowledge.

Thanks for that, Purpledawn, that's pretty useful and interesting information.It seems, from that, that god called himself "almighty" (at least a few humans apparently told whoever wrote it that he did) - but that it meant "the most powerful" - and very supernaturally powerful is, indeed, very powerful...but does it mean quite what it means today?I think (unless you're a revisionist YEC with a heartfelt desire to still believe both modern science AND a 1500-year-old collection of books) that the universe way back then was the earth (ground) and the sky and the waters, and that it was easy to believe a god as having created all of that.Now our knowledge has grown, and we can conceive of logical conundrums like a being creating a rock so heavy it can't lift it (yes, I went there) and suddenly this perfect god starts to look a little tatty - we were used to being told he was perfectly good, all-powerful and everywhere at once, but those words meant less, and all-powerful was only so-so powerful enough, and everywhere was a damn sight smaller, and there's a few people with their hands up saying "but wait...what about Africa and America - they never even HEARD of the bible until a couple hundred years ago..." causing trouble, and insisting that it all still make sense...I think it seems likely that the words meant less back then and that "very powerful" and "knows a hell of a lot that's going on" was enough for people then.Whichever way you spin it, he wasn't omniscient (all-knowing) because he genuinely seemed surprised that Adam and Eve ate the apple of knowledge, and genuinely worried (so much so he cast them out) that they might eat the tree of eternal life which, if death didn't exist "before the fall" wouldn't have been necessary for them to live forever.Maybe they wouldn't have known what death was, but then lots of animals don't know what death is, but that's a philosophical difference, not a physical one.

quote:

---

Whichever way you spin it, he wasn't omniscient (all-knowing) because he genuinely seemed surprised that Adam and Eve ate the apple of knowledge, and genuinely worried (so much so he cast them out) that they might eat the tree of eternal life which, if death didn't exist "before the fall" wouldn't have been necessary for them to live forever.

---

Exactly! If we can surprise God, then he isn't omniscient.People say God is all knowing, but what kind of knowledge does God actually have?Factual or Propositional: Just the facts.
Procedural: Knowing how to accomplish a task.
Experiential: From direct experience.To be all knowing, God would need to be capable of all three aspects of knowledge.Now Iano says that God will always be wiser than man, but wisdom develops through experiential knowledge.Can a nonphysical God transcending time and space have experiential knowledge of sex and other physical acts?
Can God experience raising children?
Can God experience loss of a mate?
Can God experience pain, hunger, etc.?As easily as pain is inflicted on humans by God, I would say no. How can God advise humans if he can't experience?When it comes to procedural, I also have my doubts. God has been known to give procedural information to humans, but he seems lacking when it comes to managing civilization. When one has to have their own son killed to clean up a mess that if done right the first time should not have happened, then the skills aren't there.Factual knowledge is considered a given since God supposedly can see into the future, but the Bible stories don't support that idea either. God heard the 911s but had to go down and check it out.The Bible stories clearly show that God can be surprised and he has to "physically" check on details. That puts a crimp in the omniscient capabilities.

Thanks for the exchange.
Hope all is well ... Brutha JRTjr, regarding the errancy captured within scripture texts on the whole, feel free to employ the terms 'contradict' and 'inconsistent' however you see fit. The onus is most certainly on those who hold to the doctrinal view of biblical inerrancy; such a doctrine is, not so surprisingly, absent from scripture.What the witness of scripture does seemingly provide, most inerrantly, is the endeavor put forth on behalf of all of the spirit-filled Prophets whom always counter the relentless attempts, on behalf of the poor ol' morally bankrupt, fleshly priestcraft, to cornhole all of mankind into a sort of psychological slavery.In the end, after washing their calloused and dirty, stinky feet, minds and hearts - brother Joshua the Anointed One sets those slaves free as a breeze ...I further contend, with greyseal in this instance, that the various mutually exclusive testimonies within the roman scripture text collection - referred to as the 'holy bible', are rather blatantly obvious. Bringing them to the attention of anyone who would make every attempt possible to reconcile them to one another may serve as a means of making the Father out to be some sort of a jackass, which, dogmatics can do well enough on their own, without my assistance.Besides that, it may quicker prove a waste of time, which is often a precious commodity to many of us, and as well, it's quite off topic from the stated OP.If anyone becomes interested in honestly seeking discussion, within a civilized and constructive framework, regarding the apparent mutually exclusive testimonies and, overall, seemingly contradictory information located within and throughout the canonized roman scripture text collection I'd be more than willing to participate. However, if this desire arises on anyone's behalf, be encouraged to propose a new topic whose purpose would focus on that dialogue.In the name of Brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

In the interests of the truth, I am indeed a brutha.Far be it from me to hold the declared creator of all to a demand for consistency in what is being trumpeted as the officially sanctioned account of his magnum opus - obviously such a great one as He is above petty demands for accuracy, consistency and accountability, even in works writ by his hand alone.Cthulhu fh'taghn and may you be touched by his noodly appendage, RAmen.

Dear Greyseal, Forgive me; however, I did not fail to see your point. Your point is vary clear.The only problem with your point is that it is based on somebody says. Which is not what I said; you added something to my sentence to change the context of what I was saying. These are two completely different sentences; saying two completely different things.

Dear Bailey, I’m interested. Please, start a new string, put one or two of those apparent mutually exclusive testimonies and, overall, seemingly contradictory information and send me the link by e-mail.

...far be it from me to disagree with you that your saying the above is completely different from saying that since god is the creator of everything we ought to do what he saysI must obviously stand corrected, they're obviously not the same logical assertion at all and are in no way equivocal...obviously.

or, you know, you could just click on this link:Just a moment...and tell everybody what you think. No need to keep it to yourself.