Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

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

hi again, thanks for following the link - did you read ALL of it or stop at #2 (which is the weakest example, imho)?I think far stronger is the accounts of the resurrection - all four are different.I can try to tell you why atheists make these "blunders": it's because theists tell us that the bible is literally true.The bible is, they say, the word of god from cover to cover.So then, we argue, being literally minded it should be at least self-consistent if not historically accurate (at least about what it DOES talk about as historical fact). Being essentially written by god, it should be correct. Always. Especially the pieces that we are told were written by people like (for example) Moses (even the bits that say "and so he died").The book is no longer supposed to be subject to the vagaries of human thought - it is supposed to be inerrant, historically accurate and allegedly written by the people in it in places.What we see is (as you say) viewpoints changed so that parts have to be read "in context" because they do not literally agree.That may be fine (I'd actually give you a pass on the second account of Genesis for that reason, even though there are theists out there who would heartily disagree in your interpretation) but when you bring that up, then it changes from "the inerrant word of god" to "the inspired word of god" which is really a whole other ballgame.If it is merely inspired, then it is NOT literal. It becomes a tale told by humans, for humans (even if it's source is ultimately god), and as such can be wrong and inaccurate, mistranslated, added to, abridged, altered, recombined and generally mashed up according to the human hands it passes through (otherwise, it is THE word of god and we're back to square one).The point wouldn't be historical accuracy because it would no longer serve that purpose - the point would be the message.Now that's something I could find more agreeable - because then we'd be freed of the pieces of the bible that are no longer relevant for our lives 1500 years after it was written.We'd be able to say "even theists agree that both accounts of creation were attempts to explain how it all began to stone aged goatherders - all this fighting over the big bang and the age of the universe is pointless" and we could have evolution taught in schools without the right wing fundies getting their drawers in a twist because it disproves a literal creation by god - because it wouldn't matter.If that's where you sit, then you're my favourite type of creationist.Please understand, these two viewpoints are mutually exclusive - either it CAN be allegorical or it CAN'T.If it CAN, then we just disagree over which parts ARE, and without a truly independant measure, your insistence in it's accuracy and inerrancy where apparently not warrented (because it's NOT) is foolish.

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot we're living in a world where differing memories of a single event can all be true at the same time despite being different. My mind won't doublethink like that, and though it may seem double plus ungood to you, I'm sorry.* There are four different stories of the same simultaneous event.
* The bible is accurate, always
* Therefore one of these two statements is untrue.You may send for minitrue now. I give up. Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania. does the rule say that if it's not consistent, then it's a parable or something?I'm not a bible scholar, obviously, but the four differing accounts of the resurrection (for example) aren't internally consistent, historically we cannot even be sure happened and are most certainly not in accordance with the established laws of nature.If the bible itself cannot be relied upon when talking about the accuracy of the bible, what use is it? I thought you said it was accurate and inerrant and literal?If you can't believe the holy spirit when talking about the bible, what sort of holy spirit is it? Some sort of cut-price bargain basement holy spirit?Now, believer's and the church's testimony I have no qualms with - obviously that means that you can be wrong and even members of the church can be wrong.Now, for "reliable" witnesses, we get "divinely commissioned messengers", whatever they are - and I have a distinct lack of those down the shops.So, what am I left with?You're telling me that I need divine messengers to tell me if the bible is accurate.Failing any showing up (do I put up a sign? does it have to be aramaic?), I'll have to demand that the first rule is bunk - if the bible is not self-consistent, then logically it follows that it is not literally always correct, and that it can be allegorical and poetic, at best.If you expect me to mean that a parable about people never named is literal for people who tell me that the bible IS always literal, then you're just being deliberately obtuse. Even those blockheads know a parable when they see one.It's the rest they don't believe in, and as you've told me, believers and the church get it wrong.

- Guidelines for Interpreting Scripture:
(oh, so it's not so easy - it's not literal if it needs to be interpreted!)1) Establish the correct frame of reference.
(again, that means it's not ALL literal - some may be, and we're left to argue about how much)2) Make no conclusions without examining and considering the whole Word of God. {I.E. The Bible}
(harder to pin down, but kind of tells me that the Word of God is not LITERALLY in the bible - the map is not the territory is a fine way of putting it. I'd agree with that)3) Accept only those conclusions that are consistent with the whole Word of God.
(right, but how do we KNOW the whole word of god? If the bible isn't, as you've just agreed, literally always literal? And that obviously means that some parts of the bible do not or no longer apply)4) Interpret narrative passages in light of the didactic, or instructive, passages and illustrations in light of principles.
(ah, but how do we know what's narrative, instructive or factual without a signpost? Who decides if I'm right and you're wrong or vice-versa? Assuming this isn't multi-pantheistic-solipsism, only one interpretation should be right)5) Take any passage literally unless its context clearly indicates that it should be taken figuratively or symbolically.
(so we can still disagree, but who is right? I'd say that Genesis I & II clearly indicate they should be taken symbolically at best)6) Accept a symbol definition only if it is defined as such elsewhere in Scripture
(sorry, I don't get this one)7) Recognize that many prophecies are fulfilled more than once.
(or not at all?)8) Be prepared to draw more than one message or application from a passage.
(pfft, fine, it's not literal if there's more than one way to read pieces)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 }
(so it's NOT the inerrant word of god? I see...)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....You know, none of this proves me wrong, and lends credence to proving me right, since you're a believer and you're not to be trusted when dishing out interpretation, I'm just using the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion.

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?

The issue here is two-fold.1) the entries are not identical
2) the book is the (approved) work of god and is always right and trueThank you for posting the definition of "consistency" - the fact there are four differing accounts puts the bible at inconsistent under points 3) and 5) regarding differing statements and differing facts.If the bible is the (approved) word of god, why is it subject to the foibles of the human memory/imagination?The witnesses to the resurrection were watching the same event at the same time - why do they not match in several very important places?IF you tell me that it's just because it's a human memory thing, then you are telling me that the bible can be wrong about certain "facts" but that we don't really know which ones because, quite simply, there's not a book saying what is allegory, what is fact, what is error and what is mistake.If that's so, just say so - I'd be amongst the first to agree with you that the book is written by man and is inconsistent. I don't get what you mean. so far you're just agreeing with me. If you're trying to prove a point, you'll have to make it easier on me.What you're saying is that IF I can prove the bible is wrong on something, then (that part of) the bible is useless? but the rest isn't?Well, what facts do you have? I thought you said the whole bible was true? I don't recall anywhere in particular that couldn't be construed as written by man and therefore subject to the vagaries of human thought. that's a bad as link-spam. Can you sum it up?As for breaking the laws of the universe, well - if you count reversing death as "natural" then we should see a lot more of it happening.People "come back from the dead", but not after three days.

You cannot be serious. This book is one of the most blatant attempts by an apologist to present fallacy, distortion of evidence and gross misinterpretation to make "The Case for Christ".I challenge you to read also Challenging the Verdict, Earl Doherty, Age of Reason Publications.I have read both.I do find it very interesting that most fundies demand non believers read all of their tracts, but refuse to read anything that counters their own beliefs.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hello JRTjr, JRTjr, it seems like you're not getting something.ALL FOUR OF THE GOSPELS HAVE CONTRADICTIONS, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION!!!For example, Mathew and Mark say: In other words, first thing after resurrection, they all met up in Galilee. Ok.However, John and Acts beg to differ: Hmmm... sounds like he went to Jerusalem instead...
Any alarms going off JRTjr? I can post inconsistencies and contradictions like this all day.You say that if one piece of the bible is inaccurate, then the whole thing is crap? Look back at my quotes. Obviously it can't be "allegorical:" either he went to Galilee or he went to Jerusalem. You can't have both.(If you want, I can post the inconsistencies of other things, such as who saw him first: was it Mary #1, Mary #2, Luke, John, etc., etc....)T&U

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

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?

Hi JRTjr, JRTjr, this is what we're saying: If John says x happened and Mark says, no x didn't happen, y did, then how are they not contradictory. Only one can be right. (See my above post) Dude: is the whole Bible to the nth degree absolutely and factually true? If not, then we're making progress. If yes, then we're back to square one.Also, don't go for the "Science proves the Bible right" angle. Yes, some claims in the Bible may seem to match up with modern day science, but there are many other issues and false claims than there are those that you can hold up. Dude, it would have to be true to the tenth degree. Either all the Bible is a true and infallible allegory, parable, history, or whatever (or some combination thereof); or none is. That is your own argument, yes? (See below) Alright, JRTjr: Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John all contradict each other on certain details. Do all of them get taken out circulation? I know this is a weak answer and such but... what the hell.Why did God make natural laws when he had every intention of breaking them later?Bye
T&UEdited by Teapots&unicorns, : Some grammar and quote issues.

Well, not identical means they are different (duh, I know) - but that's the problem.I contend that if the bible is to be held up as "authorized by god" (if not written by) then the accounts should NOT be different. They should at least be complementary - they're not, they get increasingly supernatural and several key differences are found. I will point you to a webpage that has these issues - when I find the one i read a long time ago. Almost all of the links I've found so far are apologetics.Otherwise, you are telling me that the bible is not always literally 100% correct, and can infact be affected by human interpretation.If the four accounts are differing memories, and we know how bad human memory is, how do we know they are true at all and not just fanciful stories?How do we know anything else isn't misremembered - maybe there weren't 5000 people but five who were just *really really hungry* and Jesus just portioned out the food?How do we know he really walked across the water, maybe he just waded out into the shallow pool?When to one of the viewers there were no angels, no resurrection, and the other two angels, and the other a host, and to the fourth it was an obvious (to some) amalgam of all the others (yet still distinct), what are we supposed to think?

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’.