Limitations of God

I have a question to pose for people who both believe that God created everything in the universe and that the bible is 100% accurate.How do you fit the passage in Judges 1:19 in with your world view of an omnipotent God?

Just to clarify.[sarcasam]Obviously, iron is only metaphorical, it represents the steelie will of satan. And couldn't is metaphorical for didn't want to, and the reason he didn't was because he wanted Judah to be punished for their sins at mans hand. etc... It's all very simple realy.[/sarcasam]

So how do you know when the bible is being metaphorical and when it isn't? The whole creation story could be metaphorical.

exactly my point [This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-12-2003]

Perhaps it is too much to assume that people with an agenda which drives them to think the bible is a source of inspiration would ever consider questioning absurdities in the bible that are in direct conflict with the belief they maintain they follow.I think a God who existed and was watching the world tear itself apart over words while turning a blind eye to deeds would surely be shaking its head and going back to the drawing board.

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.Just to clarify.[sarcasam]Obviously, iron is only metaphorical, it represents the steelie will of satan. And couldn't is metaphorical for didn't want to, and the reason he didn't was because he wanted Judah to be punished for their sins at mans hand. etc... It's all very simple realy.[/sarcasam]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(more sarcasm)Thou art very wise, Grasshopper. Continue to study, therby showing thyself "approved" before God.(not sarcasm)The passage you have wrenched (sorry that's a bit harsh) from its context would appear to be contradictory, but is cogently explained in Chapter two and following. The obvious implication to the reader (Israelites) of the passage is, "if you obey, you shall be blessed." If you chose disobedience, however, you will be delivered into the hands of your enemies.The ebb and flow of these battles was directly linked to the obedience, or lack thereof, of God's people. On many occasions, individual battles are described; consequently, one must read the entire book (judges), or at least a large portion thereof, to understand the contextual meaning of these scriptures. Victory against a certain enemy does not preclude a defeat when facing a second, because of this disobediance. This is clearly the case here. (God had, before, wiped out similar opponents with relative ease, chariots of iron, notwithstanding.).I suggest you continue reading through chapter four, to help you understand this Biblical "phenomenon." This apparent contradiction (impotence of God) quickly dissapears upon further study.[This message has been edited by Shimbabwe, 09-15-2003]

The bible has no problems letting the reader know that when the Israelites fail in their obedience training that they are going to get spanked. See: Judges 2:14, Amos 3:2, Ezekiel 4:16. It just so happens that in this instance it is not clear. Why would god admit to being incapable when it would simply suffice to say he was punishing the Israelites yet again?

Awinkisas I must agree about this text being unclear since it is nonsensical to punish transgressions before you impose the rules.The passage says the defeat was due to chariots of iron and not to transgressions against God.He can confuse tongues but is incapable of clarity? We make the rules we can change them Eh? (sarcasm in the extreme)Such is the nature of arguements against the bible.

Note 'he', not 'He', the he refered to is Judah. Judah couldn't drive the inhabitants out of the valley because they had chariots of iron, not 'the LORD' couldn't drive them out.

Then what is the point of mentioning that God was with him? He is obviously mentioned because God represents the power that is given to Judah as the means for overcoming enemies in battle.You don't suppose that God would be against aiding Judah in overcoming steel do you?

The support god gave Judah strengthened him, but it was not his full power; just as Israelites still died in the big battles mentioned in the bible when god could have simply turned all the foe into pillars of salt. The power of the lord allowed Judah to triumph over his foes in the mountains, but there is a limit to what can be acheived through a human vessel. God was with Judah but he was not actively smiting Judah's foes himself.Note: I am playing Devil's Advocate here.

If god could part a sea with a human vessel he could have just as easily opened up a crack in the earth and had the steel chariots fall in. God is omnipotent.The point is that god provided some help but not enough for victory. What's up with that? Why offer any help at all? If his intention was to punish the Israelites all along why offer some help at first and then back off?P.S. It's fun playing Devil's Advocate. It always helps to see things from another perspective.

If we look further down in the text (This is the only other reference to the valley/mountain inhabitants I can find. Both instances are rendered hill country/plains in some versions, which seems to make more sense.) We find here that the valley peoples were defeated but not at the time of the earlier action. So, you see, the lord chose not to take a great act of violence against these people for he knew they would later become tributaries (some versions: taken into forced labour) and thus benefit the Israelites in other ways.Honestly I don't think this is really that much of a problem verse. The whole "let's butcher the peoples of the world" context seems far more problematic to me.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Honestly I don't think this is really that much of a problem verse. The whole "let's butcher the peoples of the world" context seems far more problematic to me.
___________________________________________________________________________________
It dosen't seem problematic at all, when read in context. The subsequent three chapters further explain the issue. Because these "valley dwelling" individuals were spared, they became a "thorn in the flesh" to the israelites. The fact that this was not the best possible solution for God's people, is quite clear. Regarding "let's butcher the people's of the world," one must consider the circumstances during this time of war and struggle to fully appreciate God's plan for his people. There were certainly (other) violent nations during this time, who's people would love to have seen the children of Israel annihilated. The Israelites were to "inherit" the promises of God, and therefore must strike an opponent pre-emptively, thereby gaining advantage or eliminating an obstacle, altogether. The Old Testament portrays the struggle by what the Apostle Paul calls "according to the flesh/promise." After the law was fulfilled (ressurection of Christ) this struggle becomes spiritual. Bloodshed becomes unecessary, after the Supreme Sacrifice.

Excuse me it does not say "chose not to" it said "could not" drive out the inhabitants.Why would God say in "his" book what he does not mean?