Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

quote:

---

In the Flood story, God changes his plan because his plan has failed. He has learned something (good for him) and from now on he'll do things differently (he says). How about you comment on this?

---

Perhaps God used this period in history as a lesson to those who would follow. He does love and care for us and knowing how evil all flesh [apparently even the animals were infected by sin] would become, He demonstrated that there is an end even to His patience, and demonstrated His power. At the same time He demonstrates His love by sparing Noah and sons to perpetuate the race.I agree that the Nineveh story isn't about God changing His mind, He knew that they would repent [for a time at least]. I believe much of the language God uses is for our benefit. Instructive and illustrative to make a point.

quote:

---

Less than 90% of what the Apostles called "Bible" is still considered "holy" by the Christian community. The rest has been purged from your Bible (highy likely if you are Protestant). That culling was done by men. One might call them Holy Men. One might say their edit was 'inspired.' But no one can demonstrate that God or any of the Apostles approved their hatchet job.

---

What writings are you referring to? I'm aware of the apocrypha [why doesn't this site have spell check?] but I'm not sure that's what you're referring to.

I love the way you dissect parts of my sentences without ever touching the meaning of them. I wasn't talking about anachronisms as you should know. Women didn't have seed!I like the way I read it.

quote:

---

quite. but think about it for a second. if the story is about permament guilt and original sin for all my kind, how are some men in the bible called perfect? good old job -- the story hinges on the fact that he hasn't sinned, and is perfect in every way.

---

Well, my version says that Job was blameless, not that he never sinned or was perfect. It even mentions that he was making extra sacrifices for his children in case they had sinned without realizing it. At one point in the narrative he asks God how many sins he has that he's not aware of.

quote:

---

why? i'll put in standard christian terms. when we die, we go to god, right? and now we're separated from god. if you truly believe... well, why isn't christianity a suicide cult? they completely invalidate this life, saying it's all preparation, a test to get into the next.

---

I look at it as if I'm supposed to live my life for God, doing what Jesus commanded. And this life is sweet indeed. Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die.Sure I've read some of the Bible. And that seems to be a recurring theme, about avoiding separation from God.

Lost my head there and forgot that you view the Bible as mythology. I see it as God's revelation to us, kind of a handbook or operating manual for life and sometimes wonder why people are so opposed to it. Sure, people misuse and attempt to corrupt the message, but people do the same thing with heroin.

What motive would an animal have to subvert God? Satan, the fallen angel, one of God's creations that was so great he wanted to take God's place, would have a motive.

I don't know that the animals sinned, sin had an effect on all creation, and the verse says all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. It doesn't talk about consciousness, morality, or salvation of animals.What value do books like Susanna have? What message of spiritual import is imparted?

Because of the talking snake. I'm waiting to see how it turns out.

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.

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?

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.

The "evidence" does not appear convincing so far. I've just checked a few of the supposed quotes by Paul and it seems that he could have got them from other sources. For instance Hebrews 11:5 is found in Genesis, and Hebrews 11:35 could refer to the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the widow's son returned to life by Elijah in 1 Kings. The other "quotes" I've investigated could have come from Paul's own experiences or other parts of the Bible.One qualification for "scripture" is that there is some value to the text relating to God's stated intentions.The Maccabees were written during the silent years when no prophets were forthcoming.They are valuable as history and very important to the Jews, with incredible stories of perseverance and heroism, but with no communication from God.Is there reference to the other writers of the NT quoting the disputed writings?I'll hold off on my donations for the time being. The Bible seems to read as a remakably complete and cohesive work, especially considering that it was written over such a long period of time and by so many different inspired writers. Kings, fishermen, prophets and physicians, all writing at different times with different styles, yet not contradicting each other.Giving the unvarnished truth and the wonderful promise of God, who offers salvation for free.