Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

i believe god can do anything, including what we would term evil.as brain pointed out, god does tell lies in the bible, or instruct his messangers to lie. but we've had this debate here somewhat recently.

not in my experience, no.

last i checked, shaddai did mean "almighty" but in the respects of being sufficent for human needs or in being the strongest (out of the other gods), as opposed to standard christian omnipotence.the word does not appear to be used as a verb, but modifies the name "el" or is part of the name "el" (depending on translation).

actually, that would be truths.the conditions are that:
a. the prophet's word's are TRUE
b. he says "follow other gods"i agree with the sentiment of your post, but i don't think that's the best example.

no, god is telling the truth. the importance of the passage is not whether or not what the prophet says is true, or whether god is being decietful, but that you should not follow other gods, even if there are signs that they might be real or true.god is being decietful and tricky (and petty and jealous), yes, but he's not lying. you can decieve with the truth.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-05-2005 16:26 AM

no no the prophet tells the truth, but suggests something against god's wishes. neither is telling a lie, but one is asking the israelites to do something wrong. the essential meaning of the verse is that sometimes the prophesies and sayings of other religions are true, but that you should not go chasing them just because they sound like they know what they're talking about. it's decietful, yes. but there is no lie here. no, again. the requirement is that prophesy is NOT false. yes, fixed. thanks.

no. i mean, yes, but that's not what THIS verse is talking about. it's talking about TRUE prophesies that are said to come from another source. the prophesy itself is true. they're talking about that first set of conditions: "Therefore, the prophecy could come true but if the prophet says that it came from Chemosh, then the prophet was to be killed" i disagree. the test lies in prophesies claimed to be of other sources. however, the point is moot, since there is other evidence in the bible that they did think god could (and did) lie. and god is most certainly decietful, as this verse indicates.look at it in the context of genesis 3. god told the lie there. the serpent told the truth, but did it decietfully. precisely. deuteronomy is a STRONGLY isolationist text. it damns even israel, in favor of judah. the primary goal of the text, i would say, is the expulsion of foriegners and their religions. we're dealing with two sets of conditions.is the prophesy true?is the prophet speaking in yahweh's name?if either answer is no, you kill him. the verse in question deals with TRUE prophesy not spoken on yahweh's behalf. simple concept here. there is no lie, except possibly on the part of the prophet. whether god lied to him or not is not stated. i'm just saying this is a weak point, especially since the prophesy is TRUE in this case, not FALSE. i never said it couldn't. just that that's not the case in the verse in question. good question. here's a better one: what of all the unfilled and broken prophesies in the bible? i dunno, i'm not sure you do. i'm not saying god is incapable of lying, or that he does not. far from it, actually. i'm just saying that the original verse in question was not a good example of it, since the prophesy is true, just in the wrong name.

*sigh*one more time. there are two qualities of a true prophet:
1. his prophesies come true
2. he claims to speak for yahweh.now, if he claims to speak for yahweh, and his prophesies fail, you kill him. if his prophesies are true, but he does not speak for yahweh, it's yahweh testing israel. if neither is the case, well, he's not a very good prophet.the verse in question deals with the second set of conditions: his prophesies are true, but he does not speak for yahweh. this is not the same are god lying to the people of israel. god is not lying to anyone (except maybe the prophet). god is sending a valid prophet from another religion. part of the requirement for this set of conditions is that his prophesies come true. the test is that his prophesies are completely valid and indeed happen, but that he is not speaking for yahweh. it is god tempting israel away from the true faith, as a test.how is this hard to understand?now, the more appropriate indictment here is that god tests us, and tempts his children. in later books, we have satan for this, an increasingly separate and stronger entity. yeah, there's lot of stuff about god lying in the bible. i'm just saying that THIS example was not one of them. it's decietful and tricky, sure. but not a lie. the truth can be misleading.who told the truth in the garden of eden, god or the serpent?

well, who told the truth?god said, "don't eat it, or you'll day that same day"the snake said, "god's lying. you won't die, you'll become like god, with your eyes open knowing good and evil."what happens at the end of genesis 3? what god said, or what the snake said?

that's nice, where in genesis does it say that? see, god says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." it's DIE as in "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." is this verse talking about spiritual death too, because it's all the same word. god even says "SURELY die." as in DIE die, which is what the hebrew says: it emphasizes things by repetition.the verse is clearly talking about physical death. this spiritual death thing was invented to explain god's lie, because according to the text he doesn't fulfill his word. the authors of the ot didn't seem to think so. or perhaps he's just like any parent who says "don't do that or i'll KILL you" meaning punish severly. not actual death of any kind. some people would consider that a fault in an earthly judge. however, you've dodged the original question.god says "you'll die."the snake says "you won't die, your eyes will be opened and you'll be like god."who told the truth, according to the text? where does god say he changed his mind? in fact, i'll go one step further, where does god say it's a punishment? it only says eat it, and you'll die. as in it will kill you. no, now you're making stuff up. what's the tree called again? reading the passage in question would help:

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

---

when did we start talking about satan? i never mentioned satan. it's a serpent, a snake. the story is even an etiology of why snakes have no legs, and stick their tongues out. does satan do that? yes, but as indicated by the end of genesis 3, they were going to anyways.

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 ...and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

---

also, eventually is not the question:

quote:

---

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

rebutted.also,

quote:

---

1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

​

2Ch 18:21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And [the LORD] said, Thou shalt entice [him], and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do [even] so.

---

i'm sure a few other examples will be found too. god also fails to punish lies (or rather half truths) on the part of abraham regarding his "sister" sarah. this scheme seems to work so well and reward abraham to such an extent that he does it three times if i recall, and isaac even does it once.

thus the reason why they are put in the same quote box. and i wouldn't call them separate accounts. one is clearly plaigarizing the other. yes, and that god is making them lie.

yes, but there's what the story says, and there's "just making stuff up." this whole spiritual death thing? it's just making stuff up. the whole idea of man as an entity existing after death is completely anachronistic for the writing of genesis. there was just death, and the grave. possibly some kind of underworld (ala hades) but not in the sense of even being who you were in life. the surely, or the extra "die" in hebrew, is there to emphasize that god is serious. he means DEATH. not disconnection from him, DEATH. the same kind of death adam had several hundred years later. it matters a lot if it's a punishment. everyone reads it that way. he might have just been saying the fruit was poisonous. show me the spiritual death? you're making it up, i know you are.and as for not becoming like god, well. i've caught you on that one. if they didn't becoming like god, then god's lying when he says they did.

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us

---

and my original question was "who lied, god or THE SERPENT." please show me where this satan guy comes into play? i think you're making stuff up again.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-19-2005 04:04 AM

i've heard a suggestion that the bible is truly the greatest test of faith, and that satan had more to do with it's authorship than god. why else would god be painted a liar and cruel dictator in the opening, outwitted by a lowly serpent who is then punished for his subtlety -- as god created him.

and it is the serpent in genesis 2 and 3, NOT satan. same word for the kind of serpent moses's staff becomes.and the bronze serpent (not the same kind, venomous) is not a reminder of sin's penalty, it was used to heal the israelites -- "just like jesus!" except for good old job. he didn't sin. not read much of it, have we? i can't get more than a chapter into the first book without spotting inconsistencies. if there's one thing the bible is NOT it's consistent. good and evil. as in awareness, and the ability to judge between the two. the story is about the origin of moral choice, and conciousness (and human emotion). it explains the tradeoffs for conciousness: a lifetime of work, pain and heartache in raising children, and marital strife.if you missed that aspect to the store -- well, you missed the point. the point is that there is something of god in us, and we are like god in some way that makes us special, and that it is worth the pain and sacrifice and separation from god's paradise.whoever told you it's about guilt and death is trying to sell you a religion. "satan" MEANS adversary. and it's STILL not satan in the story. it's a serpent. satan is an angel, probably a son of god. a serpent is an animal that goes about his belly licking the dust. does satan do that? no.it is also completely possible, indeed very effective, to decieve with the truth. politicians do it all the time. that's written somewhere between 2000 and 800 years after genesis was written, depending on the dates you believe in. it's an editorial opinion of the text. and paul... well. he's another discussion.