A few questions for Intelligent Design

It concerns the omnipotence of the IDer.In that sense I feel it relevent to this discussion.Does the IDer need to be omnipotent ... and is there evidence
that the christian God is omnipotent ?I have suggested that the bible cannot be used in this
context except to support a non-omnipotent God in the Bible.Hmm .... maybe that's not relevent here after all ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
God does nothing that cannot be explained by natural means, albeit
at a level unprecedented in the supposed time of the Bible.

​

He doesn't make the walls of Jericho dissappear, nor Sodom
and Gomorrah.

​

That's what I was getting at ... I hope some of my flippancy
hasn't offended anyone ... I'll try to restrain myself in
future.

---

I must have misunderstood the criteria. My apologies.Nevertheless, some of the events mentioned can not possibly be explained by natural means.The increase of Jacobs flock in Genesis 30-31
Aaron’s rod that budded in Numbers 17
The thrice dividing of the Jordan in Joshua 3 and II Kings 2
- The Jordan is not subject to tides
The sun stands still in Joshua 10
The meal and oil multiplied in I Kings 17
Water supplied in II Kings 3
-Water from nowhere would be against the rules of His creation.
The floating axe head in II Kings 6
The reversal of the Sun's motion in II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38
The water changed to wine in John 2
- Your suggestion of watered down wine is not consistent with the passage
Walking on the water in Matthew 14
-Matthew was written in Greek not Hebrew. The word used is peripateo and has no connotation of swimming.By the way, these would be examples of the chaotic elements we would expect to find if an omnipotent designer exists who remains in contact with his creation. In that sense this diversion may be very applicable to the topic.On a side note, three of your responses in particular reveal a lack of familiarity with the Bible. I have found that even when debating against a work it is best to be as familiar with that work as possible. For example, I can successfully argue that Tolkien’s works contain contradictions because I have read his works many times and have personally noted the presence of those contradictions. However, I did not notice many of them until after my fifth reading, and many of those that I at first thought to be contradictions proved not to be so after subsequent readings. Likewise I would suggest that while debating against the Bible you should read it as much as possible, thus equipping yourself to better defend your position. After all, is not knowledge half the battle?

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
I must have misunderstood the criteria. My apologies.

​

Nevertheless, some of the events mentioned can not possibly be explained by natural means.

​

The water changed to wine in John 2
- Your suggestion of watered down wine is not consistent with the passage
Walking on the water in Matthew 14
-Matthew was written in Greek not Hebrew. The word used is peripateo and has no connotation of swimming.

​

On a side note, three of your responses in particular reveal a lack of familiarity with the Bible. I have found that even when debating against a work it is best to be as familiar with that work as possible. ... After all, is not knowledge half the battle?

---

I must confess I haven't read the bible of a regular basis for
many years ... so you are right to suggest I'm rusty.I'll have a check before I make any particular responses, but would
be interested in the three particular lacks of familiarity.With regard the 'walking on water', I know that Mathew was written
in Greek, but that's not what's relevent. The story was handed
by word of mouth for sometime first, and was originally told in
(I guess admittedly) either Hebrew or some form of arabic. Hence
my question. What I was really asking is, even amongst fishermen,
was swimming known and was there a word in the language to
express swimming at that time ?Again, with watering of wine, the idea may not be consistent with
the passage ... that's the crux of my argument ... that passages
in the bible express to the best of the ability of the chronicler
(original not necessarily the one who wrote it down) the events.
Those events, if mis-understood would be mis-recorded.I'll look up the other verses though, and see if they satisfy
my 'within the rules' argument ... the sun stopping one could
be a clincher there [Added by edit:: couldn't peripateo just mean 'go' also ?]

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I must confess I haven't read the bible of a regular basis for
many years ... so you are right to suggest I'm rusty.

​

I'll have a check before I make any particular responses, but would
be interested in the three particular lacks of familiarity.

---

The first was your question regarding the Arc of the Covenant, the second your comment about the watered down wine, the third your question regarding the language in Matthew. There is also your silence on several of the topics.

quote:

---

With regard the 'walking on water', I know that Mathew was written
in Greek, but that's not what's relevent. The story was handed
by word of mouth for sometime first, and was originally told in
(I guess admittedly) either Hebrew or some form of arabic. Hence
my question. What I was really asking is, even amongst fishermen,
was swimming known and was there a word in the language to
express swimming at that time ?

---

Actually the book of Matthew was written by Matthew. Thus the writer would have had first hand knowledge of this particular event.There are words in both Hebrew and Greek for swimming. The Hebrew word is transliterated sachah and can be found in Psalm 6:6, Isaiah 25:11, and Ezekiel 47:5. The Greek word is kolumbao and can be found twice in Acts 27:42-43.

quote:

---

Again, with watering of wine, the idea may not be consistent with
the passage ... that's the crux of my argument ... that passages
in the bible express to the best of the ability of the chronicler
(original not necessarily the one who wrote it down) the events.
Those events, if mis-understood would be mis-recorded.

---

I was trying to point out that, the passage claims that the governor who drank the water turned to wine praised it for its taste.

quote:

---

I'll look up the other verses though, and see if they satisfy
my 'within the rules' argument ... the sun stopping one could
be a clincher there

---

I look forward to your conclusions [QUOTE][B][Added by edit:: couldn't peripateo just mean 'go' also ?]
[B][/QUOTE]No, it couldn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Actually the book of Matthew was written by Matthew. Thus the writer would have had first hand knowledge of this particular event.

---

I understand that you believe this on faith, but what of the rest of us. What evidence can you present to back up this claim. As per my own understanding, the evidence is stacked heavily against you. Thus, your claim that the author had first hand knowledge doesn't hold.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[b] [QUOTE] The first was your question regarding the Arc of the Covenant, the second your comment about the watered
down wine, the third your question regarding the language in Matthew. There is also your silence on several of the topics.
[/b][/QUOTE]I thought the ark mentioned in Joshua 6:4 was the ark of
the covenant, carried by the isrealites.'And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.'Seem to have read about that somewhere, years ago.As far as good tasting watered wine is concerned ... the romans
commonly drank watered wine so I don't see the relevence. Perhaps
you would be suprised by the taste should you try it, and
possibly even remark upon it.I always thought that the authors of the gospels were not the
disciples themselves. I think that was mentioned during religous
study classes in school ... might be wrong ... some else could
perhaps comment on that.As for omissions ... I didn't want to bog down the board with
an explanation for every single one, but I realise I'm going to
have to go through the others now As for swimming ... you have perhaps answered a question I have
wondered on for a long time. I know that in many ancient
cultures, even those that were fishermen, swimming was not well
known and hardly practiced. My suggestion of this was that the
witnesses were unaware of the art fo swimming, or of a word for
it (perhaps it was not in common usage) and so had no alternative
but to be descriptive using other language.I looked up 'peripateo' and there was a suggestion that it could
also mean 'to live'.So perhaps the suprise was not about 'walking on the water' but 'living on the water' rather than drowning