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 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.

Dear Greyseal,Thank you for the link.I followed the link you provided. Great stuff; the really funny thing is that they make the same blunders that I’ve see on this website when dealing with ‘Biblical inerrancy’.I’ll give you an example. If you check out my postings in The Geneses Hypothesis string (Message #36, #39, #45, and #47) I show that these two accounts do not contradict each other.I could go through each of these, so called, ‘contradictions’ and show that if you use some common cense, and (of all things) the ‘Scientific Method’ they are (in most cases) easily explained.I say most cases because there are things in the Bible that are confusing, even using these methods. {Example: the Trinity}PS. I could just as easily show you websites that claim the Bible is in-errant; and give just as many examples. Biblical Inerrancy
Reasons to Believe

Thank you, again, Greyseal for responding to my posts. I do not agree that it’s the weakest (so called) example of biblical errors; but I do agree it’s not the strongest either.However, my purpose for brining up that specific example is that I had dealt with it in another post.And, by the way, yes I did get past example #2. ;-} Yes, there are four ‘different’ accounts of the resurrection; however, just because four accounts of the same event are ‘Different’ dose not necessarily mean that they are wrong, inaccurate, or contradictory.If all four accounts were exactly the same there would be no reason for four of them. Not only that, but, with four accounts from four different perspectives you get a more complete picture of what went on. The atheists do not make these ‘blunders’ because of the theists assertion that the bible is to be taken ‘Literally’, it is because they throw out the rules of English, Science, History, Biblical interpretation when it come to the Bible.The Genesis account of Creation is a good example of this. I refer you to the ‘biblical Inerrancy’ Website and the Rule of Interpretation (the ‘Scientific Method’ for interpreting the Bible) A . Agreed, and, as long as you follow the ‘Rule of Interpretation’, it is accurate and consistent internally, historically, and with respect to the established facts of nature. If you take anything, anyone says or does, out of context it can easily be (and usually is) miss-interpreted and/or miss-understood. It is no different with respect to the Bible. Again, using the rules of interpretation; Show me where the Bible directly contradicts itself.With out evidence, there is no proof.{ a difficulty in a doctrine, or a grave objection to a doctrine, does not in any way prove the doctrine to be untrue.
Many people think that it does. If they come across some difficulty in the way of believing in the divine origin and absolute inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, they at once conclude that the doctrine is exploded. That is very illogical. They should stop a moment and think, and learn to be reasonable and fair.
There is scarcely a doctrine in science generally believed today, that has not had some great difficulty in the way of its acceptance. B } There are those whom say that the Bible is ‘Inspired’ (that it is inerrant in ‘Faith’ and ‘Practice’) However, I go one step further. Not only is the Bible inerrant in ‘Faith’ and ‘Practice’ but it is inerrant on whatever subject matter it touches on. The point is the Message, and because it is; if it is ‘Historically’ accurate then the Message can be trusted. If it can be proven to be ‘Historically’ inaccurate then that effects whether not the Message should be trusted.I.E. If the history is accurate the Message is trustworthy; if the history is inaccurate then the Message is not trustworthy. The Message stand or falls on whether or not the whole book is consistent internally, historically and scientifically accurate. Assuming, for the moment, that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God; there are things in the Bible that are not relative to my daily life in the Twenty First century. (For instance: this guy begat that guy, begat that guy) However, these things are still relevant, in the twenty First century, if I want to go back and do some background on certain individuals.Then there are things that are relevant to all generations (For instance: 13You shall not commit murder. [Exidus 20:13 AMB] ) The Bible is ‘Literal’ in whole; even though there are ‘allegorical’ statements made in it.This is another example of the tricks atheist (and others) use to try to say that the Bible is ‘full of errors’ or ‘contradicts itself’ or it’s ‘disproved’ by some scientific argument.If you use the rules of interpretation, you can tell when the Bible is using an allegory and when it is being literal.First thing is: Context, Context, Context.You shall not commit murder. Taken in the context of God using Moses to lay down the moral Law for individuals it is literal and meant for all individuals, in all time periods.Whereas,If you read His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. C [Revelation 12:4] you get the idea that the ‘stars’ mentioned here may not be 1 b : a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial body of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions D ; rather you can go to other passages in the Bible and it explains what these ‘Stars’ are. Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pitE explains that a star in this context is a person (or persons). Please note that this is also a literal translation of the text. The word ‘Star’ here ‘literally’ means: 5 c : an outstandingly talented performer 〈a track star〉d : a person who is preeminent in a particular fieldF You should Take any passage literally unless its context clearly indicates that it should be taken figuratively or symbolically. A5 For instance take Luke 15:11—32. This is a parable about a prodigal son; no names are given, not specific place is mentioned, and no time frame is given. Therefore we can conclude that this was an allegory, parable, a tale told by Jesus, to those listening, to convey a set of truths even though the story itself may not have referred to an actual father and his two sons.Please, tell me that you’re not rejecting what the Bible has to say on the bases of Jesus telling a story!? A - Guidelines for Interpreting Scripture:

​

1) Establish the correct frame of reference.
2) Make no conclusions without examining and considering the whole Word of God. {I.E. The Bible}
3) Accept only those conclusions that are consistent with the whole Word of God.
4) Interpret narrative passages in light of the didactic, or instructive, passages and illustrations in light of principles.
5) Take any passage literally unless its context clearly indicates that it should be taken figuratively or symbolically.
6) Accept a symbol definition only if it is defined as such elsewhere in Scripture
7) Recognize that many prophecies are fulfilled more than once.
8) Be prepared to draw more than one message or application from a passage.
9) Be alert to occasional problems in translation from the original languages.
{Taken from copies of transparencies used in a lecture about Biblical Paradoxes by Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Home - Reasons to Believe }
B - Torrey, R. 1998, c1996. Difficulties in the Bible : Alleged errors and contradictions. Woodlawn Electronic Publishing: Willow Grove
C - The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Re 12:4
D - Second form of the 1st definition of the word ‘STAR’: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S.
E - The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Re 9:1
F - Third form of the 5th definition of the word ‘STAR’: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S.

Dear Greyseal,Thank you once again for your comments on my postings. O.K., So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that four people, seeing the same event, must say exactly the same things , must give exactly the same details about the event, or they are automatically in contradiction with each other? Contradiction:

​

—noun

​

1. The act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. Assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. A statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. Direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. A contradictory act, fact, etc.
{Dictionary.com}No use at all. Not for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, notfor correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] notfor training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action) {paraphrased from 2 Timothy 3:16 Amplified Bible}In other words, if you come across something that the Bible says is a fact and it can be proven wrong then the Bible is good for nothing at all.The problem I have is that no one has proven (or even given decent evidence) that what the Bible says is true is in fact faults. Many have said that the Bible says something and that that is faults; however, when you take a logical, systematic look at what they are saying, time after time, it turns out that either:a. The Bible did not actually say what they said it said.
b. The two seemingly contradictory things did not actually contradict
c. What they said did not make any cense at all. I could write whole books about this, However (thank the Lord) others have. Please read ‘The Case for Christ’ by Lee Strobel. Exactly which established laws of nature are broken by the Creator of the universes when He rises Himself from the dead? You say that the resurrection is most certainly not in accordance with the established laws of nature but, again, you offer no evidence of this; you simply say it, and assume it to be true.Actually, the evidence points in the opposite direction.Take, for instance, medicines and medical tools we use today that bring people back from the dead. A hundred or even fifty years ago people would have believed it Impossible. We have learned to manipulate (in a small way) our bodies to bring us back from death in certain cases. Would not the Creator be able to do much more?The evidence we are seeing in quantum mechanics shows that the Creator of the universes can (and does) exist and operate in eleven plus dimensions.For instance: the Fact that everything in our universe (including the dimensions of height, width, depth, and Space/Time) began at the ‘Big Band’ shows that there had to be at lest one more dimension of time. Steven Hawking calls this other line of time ‘imaginary time’ (not because it’s not real but because it exists outside of our universe)With Knowledge, and Power that out strips our own (by several magnitudes) is it impossible for the Creator of the universes to raise himself from the dead without actually breaking the laws of nature?Just because we may not understand how the Creator of the universes did something does not prove He could not have done it; does it?Is Creator of the universes limited by our understanding; or are we?

Dear Greyseal,Thank you for your response; I always look forward to these discussions. We agree that the four Gospel accounts are not ‘identical’ the question, however, is Do they contradict each other just because they are not ‘identical’? O.K. Give me a reason, or example of how these four accounts ‘contradict or deny’ themselves or what one of the others say; show me where they are illogical. Your hypothesis here would be correct under normal circumstances; however, the Bible makes it clear that the infallible Creator moved the fallible hand of man to write His infallible Word .In other words, if they wrote it by themselves then it would be fully reasonable to say that it would be subject to the vagaries of human thought. However this simply is not the case.The fact that reading the bible from Geneses to Revelation gives one a consistent story line of events (even if it is not a chronological story line) with one over riding them suggests that mere man could not have written it alone. ‘Alone’ is the key here. If there were no God it would be hard to explain the contents on the Bible. Especially how it could get so many of the scientific facts strait that we are just now discovering. (The Big Bang and the fact that what is seen is held up by that which cannot be seen, for instance.) These four accounts are different enough to be separate accounts (not just copies of the same account) yet consistent enough to form a coherent picture without writing out every detail to the tenth degree.The Bible gives us enough information to form a relationship with our Creator; this is it purpose. It is not intended to give us every detail of every situation. No, the whole thing. If you can, say, prove that something in the book of Romans is historically or factually wrong, or that it ‘Directly’ contradicts something in one of the other 65 books (we call the Canonized Scripture) then the entire book of Romans should be take out of the canonization.(Note here that this would have to be a direct contradiction; and you would have to be using the Bible as it is written in its original languages, using the proper tools of interpretation to prove your point.) It’s hard to sum up a 360+ page book in just one or two sentences but it quotes scholars scientist and experts showing that the ‘Resurrection’ is not only ‘internally consistent ’ but that there is no logical reason to doubt it; historically speaking. Also note that this is just one book on the subject. There are many, many more.So, again, you would have to give verifiable evidence that the Bible is scientifically, historically, and/or internally inconsistent/inaccurate. Your right, there is no way we (mankind) can bring back someone from the dead after three days. So the question is ‘Can the Creator of the universes?’ Is the Creator of the universes using His power and authority to raise someone from the dead a violation of the laws of nature? If so, Why?

Dear Teapots&unicorns,Thank you for your participation, Great job there, you have found an err O — wait — ‘Oops’; Teapots&unicorns, you forgot to use the ‘Rule of Interpretation’.If you had followed them you might have found out that the first two references were where Jesus would meet them (the eleven disciples) for the first time after His Resurrection. Whereas, the second two are two separate meetings taking place at different times (and in different places) in the forty days Jesus stayed on Earth (in the flesh) after His Resurrection.Not a contradiction, just separate meetings, with different people.Great try there, but if you read more of my postings, I have dealt with may of these supposed ‘contradictions’ that would have been cleared up if people would just do a little digging. Guidelines for Interpreting Scripture
1) Establish the correct frame of reference.
2) Make no conclusions without examining and considering the whole word of God. (I.E. the Bible)
3) Accept only those conclusions that are consistent with the whole word of God.
4) Interpret narrative passages in light of didactic, or instructive, passages and illustrations in light of principles.
5) Take any passage literally unless its context clearly indicates that it should be taken figuratively or symbolically.
6) Accept a symbol definition only if it is defined as such elsewhere in Scripture
7) Recognize that many prophecies are fulfilled more that once.
8) Be prepared to draw more than one message or application from a passage.
9) Be alert to occasional problems in translation from the original languages.
{Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes by Br. Hugh Ross}

Dear Greyseal, Why should the account not be different? As I said in Message 291 (This String) As I have stated in the past: Examples:A: What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard? - Message #45
B: Can God lie? Message #35
C: evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins Message #81Edited by AdminPD, : Link for Msg

Dear Theodoric,Thank you for your opinions. O.K. Can you give us an example of the fallac(ies), distortion of evidence and gross misinterpretation(s)? As soon as I can get a copy I’ll read it and get back to you. However, I have read ‘The Case Against 'The Case for Christ'’ by Scott Bidstrup.He does the same things I see here at this forum. Call foul, and then give no real reason for the declaration. If you’ll look at some of my other posts I respond to many of the —so called- errors and contradictions that people have either pulled off of other websites or have apparently come up with on their own.I have not encountered anyone yet who, when properly using the ‘Rules of Interpretation’, have given me a provable error or contradiction in the Bible. Yet they still call ‘Foul’. I agree with you; and that goes for all sides of the debate. One of the problems I encounter is the ‘(Macro) Evolutionist’ want to debate the ‘Young Earth Creationist’ (YEC) and vice versa. When I (An Old Earth Creationist) try to speck to a YEC they try to throw me in with the Evolutionists; when I try to speck to an Evolutionists they try to throw me in with the YEC; then you’ve got the ‘Theistic Evolutionists’.

Dear Theodoric,Thank you for your post. Yes, it is always easier to just assume something ‘true’ or ‘Faults’ then it is to actually weigh out the evidence and come to a conclusion with as little conjecture and/or preconception as possible. I under your concern; I to have to face the fact that no matter what evidence I present many will still reject my arguments; however, please be assured that I do pay close attention to what each of you say, and I ponder and study these things before I respond.(If you’ll look at my posts, I do not think I have ever posted a response the same day it was posted. There are two reasons for this. #1 I do not check EvC forum [or my E-Mails] every day; #2 I spend time on them.)You have brought up some vary interesting points. Truth in context:I’m not going to quote all of the evidence here (It world -and does- take up several books), however, the manuscripts, and pieces of manuscripts that we have for all of the parts of (what we call) the modern day Bible out number (by far) the number of manuscripts, and pieces of manuscripts that we have for any other ancient document or group of documents (that aren’t chiseled in or painted on stone).Not only that but, even though the oldest remaining peaces of what we have may be 200+ years removed from the original documents thy are closer to their originals than any other ancient document or group of documents (that aren’t chiseled in or painted on stone).So when you say An unprecedented number of New Testament manuscripts can be dated extremely close to the original writings. It is in comparison with all other ancient manuscripts that we have copies of today. Truth in context:6625 עַלְמָה (ʿǎl∙mā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 5959; TWOT 1630bLN 9.34-9.40 young woman, i.e., sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active (Ge 24:43; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:26[EB 25]; Pr 30:19; SS 1:3; 6:8; Isa 7:14+), note: context will demand or suggest if the young woman is sexually active, note: for another interp in 1Ch 15:20; Ps 46:1[EB title], see 6628; note: see also DBLGrk 4221Note here that the word means sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually activeSo Matthew did not use the wrong translation.Also note the definition of vir⋅gin includes: —noun 1. A person who has never had sexual intercourse. 2. An unmarried girl or woman. {Dictionary.com}So, again, no mistranslation.Now to the point of the Modern New Testament being 99.5% error free.These variants are not as large as they seem. Remember that every misspelled word or an omission of a single word in any of the 5,600 manuscript would count as a variant. {Taken from: History of the Bible: How the Bible Came to Us}On top of that, none of these errors upsets any of the major doctrines taught in the Bible. Therefore we can be pretty confident that all though there are variations, that they are small; so the Bible comes to us pretty much as it was originally written.One last point here; If you read about Bible Inerrancy you will see that we do not call the English ‘copies’ of the original manuscripts Inerrant or God breathed; Only the original manuscripts themselves. I.E. we accept that there are small errors in what we call the modern day Bible; that’s why we have 18+ English translations in circulation today.However, here again, if you take 18 of the best English translations, put them side by side you could not find one that said Jesus was raised from the dead and another that said No, He was not. When allowing for ‘minor variations’ in wording there are no contradictions between these 18 English translations. You can also extrapolate that back to the ancient copies we have. Comparing the ‘ancient copies’ with the modern Bible variants, allowing for minor variations in wording, there are still no contradictions.These facts strongly improve my faith (—noun 1. confidence or trust in a thing{Dictionary.com}) in the reliability of the transmission of these documents through time. But these are not the only facts I find. There is contextual evidence, and predictive evidence that can be presented; However, in times passed, I have been warned about producing long posts so I will cut it off here and let you dig deeper.-------------------------------------------------------------------
n. noun, or nouns
fem. feminine
Str Strong’s Lexicon
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
LN Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon
EB English Bible versification
+ I have cited every reference in regard to this lexeme discussed under this definition.
interp interpreted
DBLGrk Swanson, A Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (Old Testament)
Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. DBLH 6625
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear MFFJM2,Welcome to our discussion.I am the person you quoted from Theodoric’s post. If you have time, I would invite you to go over the things I have posted. (If you click on my name JRTjr anywhere in this forum it will take you to just the things I have posted.)I have dealt with many of these ‘so called’ errors and or contradictions. Please at least look at my most recent response to Theodoric’s posting. (Message #307)With that said I would like to respond to your point.You should have used the Rules of Interpretation (See my post Message #298)If you had, you mite have figured out that ‘Izrahiah’ is also one of ‘the sons of Uzzi’. Considering that, in Hebrew, the word we translate as ‘Son’ means ‘Son’, ‘Grandson’, ‘Great Grandson’, etc. son \ˈsən\ n
[ME sone, fr. OE sunu; akin to OHG sun son, Gk hyios] bef. 12c
1 a : a human male offspring esp. of human beings
b : a male adopted child
c : a human male descendant
{MW Collegiate Dict. (11th Ed.)}So, ‘Izrahiah’ and the four sons of Izrahiah ‘Michael’, ‘Obadiah’, ‘Joel’, and ‘Ishiah’ are the five sons of their father/grand father ‘Uzzi’.Thank you for your interest; I hope to deliberate with you further.

Dear AdminPD,I posted two responses I had been working on before seeing this message. I will return to the topic at hand.God Bless,
JRTjr