I'm not sure there's a difference. If the Bible as represented is the inspired word of God, then everything in it is either an example of his omniscience or his failure at omniscience. To say God is omniscient, and then suggest that Biblical errors and inaccuracies don't reflect on the creator, seem a bit inconsistent. Either the Bible is the inspired word of God or it is not. If it is not then it is untrustworthy as a moral base and nothing in it can be trusted as it is just the superstitous writings of Bronze-Age goatherders. If it is the inspired word of God then every detail has to be correct, and errors and inconsistencies show the deity without any clothes, to coin a phrase.
Here are a few of the textual references that imply that Jehova is omnipotent:
Job 42:2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
Mark 10:27 "Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”"
Ephesians 1:19-20 "And what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,"
Jeremiah 10:12 "It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens."
quote:If you had, you mite have figured out that ‘Izrahiah’ is also one of ‘the sons of Uzzi’. Considering that, in Hebrew, the word we translate as ‘Son’ means ‘Son’, ‘Grandson’, ‘Great Grandson’, etc
If you had used spell check you might have realized how to spell "might". The usual apologist nonsense that the English translation of the Hebrew provides the explanation, even though this translation is still in use. Is that also the problem with Jesus and the virgin birth..?
So how about these contradictions and errors, are they all just translational errors..?
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit. GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
GE 11:7-9 God sows discord. PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.
GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God. JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.
Really..? How is it that not a single Biblical scholar mentions these tablets supporting biblical text..? There are between half a million and two million cuneiform Sumerian clay tablets extant in the world, but only about 100,000 have been translated. Are you perhaps one of the few hundred qualified cuneiformists in the world..? Why haven't you shared your discovery with everyone else..? Sumerian civilization doesn't go back 8,000 years. "Although the earliest forms of writing in the region do not go back much further than c. 3500 BCE, modern historians have suggested that Sumer was first permanently settled between c. 5500 and 4000 BCE by a non-Semitic people who spoke the Sumerian language." Now, let's see some evidence for this nonsense.
Not exactly. The term "cuneiform" is a bit deceptive, in that people tend to think it's some type of writing system. Cuneiform denotes several kinds of writing systems. The word "cuneiform" came from Latin cuneus, which means "wedge". Therefore, any script can be called cuneiform as long as individual signs are composed of these wedges. The written Sumerian cuneiform system does not date prior to about 3500 BCE. Clay "tokens" go back much further, and were apparently used for counting agricultural and manufactured goods. This does not support a claim that they would provide credence for scripture. My previous post was to point out the absurdity of claiming that there are Sumerian clay tablets that support scripture from 8,000 years ago.
So, where is your evidence that these Sumerian clay tablets "contain the original historical data of our creation, the formation of the solar system and the purpose of our existence." The web site uses words like "myth" and "debated". This is hardly conclusive evidence of anything. It does point out that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the story of Noah's Ark by thousands of years though.
So, let's look a little closer at the qualifications of Mr. Martell to understand anything about Sumerian cuneiform. He has a an AA degree from Mira Costa Community College, and studied Computer Science at San Marcos State University afterwards, but never earned a degree. Wow, pretty slim academically. He is the founder of GodTube.com, and made a documentary video placed on You Tube about an ancient "battery", which has been debunked by scientists around the world. Martell claims specialization in the Sumerian culture—corroborating his findings with scholars such as Zecharia Sitchin (Sitchin's ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudo-history.) Okay, so that's your evidence is it. ROFL
I apologize in advance for the length of this reply, but the post referenced needed to be deconstructed.
djufo wrote:"Well, based on those low intellect replies, we can question anything."
Questioning and using critical thinking i.e. reason has nothing to do with having a low intellect, as you call it. It is part of the method we use to determine truth from falsehood.
djufo wrote: "And I go back again to the same example. Why in the world should I "believe" that George Washington and the founding fathers really existed? The next generation can perfectly consider them mythological figures created to unify the nation under one ideal and nothing more. You can provide me thousands of pages to prove me that they existed. But, where is the real proof? I don't see them. I never met them."
There are thousands of proofs of the existence of George Washington and the founding fathers, including thousands of letters written in their own hands, as well as to and about him that are contemporaneous, and eye-witnessed. But explaining this to someone who thinks one can only believe what one sees with their own eyes is kind of a waste. That is not empiricism, but rather a "strawman" of empiricism created by fundamentalists. Try reading any biography or history and you will find plenty of evidence for the founding fathers.
djufo wrote: "On the other hand, the repulsive theory of human evolution created by slaves of a religion called "mainstream science", cannot prove or show why in the world do we have 46 chromosomes while our allegedly recent ancestors (or their cousins as they prefer) have 48."
Wrong. The fact that we have a fused chromosome that exactly matches that of the chimpanzee should be all the proof you need. That can be found here...http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
djufo wrote: "Either way, any time that happens by natural ways, mother nature does not allow the replication of that faulty copy. Humans mysteriously have chromosome 2 fused and voila! that gave birth not only to a new creature, but a radical change in intelligence happened. Completely un-adapted to this planet, but smarter than any other species in the world. In the blink of an eye. one day to the next."
Nonsense, the evolution of human beings was not overnight, or in the blink of an eye. It took millions of years of evolution, from Austrolpithicus Aforensis to Homo Sapien Sapien. Human beings are marvelously adapted to this planet, or we wouldn't be able to breathe, consume food, or any of the other biological processes.
djufo wrote: "By the way, judging somebody by his "qualifications" is just an emotional excuse when you have no more arguments to prove your points."
Nonsense, judging someone claiming to have some academic credibility by their academics is exactly to the point. I did not write that you or Mr. Martell shouldn't be entitled to your ridiculous beliefs, just that he can hardly be cited as an expert in anything having to do with Sumerian Cuneiform or Sumerian culture.
djufo wrote:" If having qualifications means earn a degree to make 50k a year with a student loan of another 50k, and work for a technology firm and be called "scientist", I am sorry but that shows an individual with barely average iq."
Now who's being judgmental..? How much someone earns is not at all representative of their intelligence, and one look no further than the Duck Dynasty for that proof. Professors earn considerably more than $50k/yr at major universities.
djufo wrote: "You do not need "qualifications" or degrees to use logic, reason and common sense."
An advanced degree is just evidence that you have done a certain amount of work in a particular field, and it provides you credibility among others in that field. A lack of a degree means zero credibility. The taxi driver in Baltimore certainly has an opinion about cancer treatment, but that doesn't mean his opinion is as educated or as valuable as that of the Oncologist from Johns Hopkins, just because they both live in the same city. Without education, which the degree demonstrates, you cannot possibly understand the nuances of reason or logic. And common sense is very often wrong, like the common sense notion that the earth was flat or that the sun moved around the earth..
djufo wrote: "You are born with those attributes, and like it or not, those attributes makes people think out of the box and not follow the same stupid doctrines that the "experts" try to impose on people who posses your "qualifications"."
So the opinions of the truly ignorant are to be considered as having the same value as the educated, because they are born with an attribute that makes them think out of the box..? Congratulations, this is the stupidest thing said on the internet today. it was a close call, but after the balloting it was clear that yours was the winner.
You don't have an intelligible point. The founding fathers wrote thousands of letters in their own hand. They were observed by thousands of eyewitnesses, who then wrote about their observations. Contemporaneous writers and historians mention and in some cases quote them. Only an idiot would continue to insist the only proof of existence is when djufo meets them in person. Are you incapable of understanding that sworn statements by living witnesses are the least reliable evidence available..?
quote:I'm pretty sure that djufo's point is neither that he does not believe in George Washington, nor that he requires direct evidence. His point is that all of those contemporary writers are dead. What we have left at this point is writings and artifacts. Yet we all believe in George Washington and disbelieve that the Sumerians were taught by aliens.
I don't know what djufo thinks except by what he writes. If he meant to use this as an analogy it was poorly constructed. The contemporary writers of the Founding Fathers are dead, but we have their original works in their own hand. We have the letters of the Founding Fathers in their own hand. We have contemporary painters and sculpters who fashioned likenesses of the Founding Fathers while they lived. We have eyewitness testimony corroborating these events. The preponderance of the evidence for their existence is overwhelming. Now please apply that same standard to Jesus Christ, for example. There are no independent verifications of his existence. There are the anonymous and apochryphal Gospels, but they are without verification or corroboration. There are no contemporaneous historical accounts, although there were historians living in and around Jerusalem at the same time as the events depicted in the Gospels. There are no paintings or sculptural renderings of anything equated with Jesus that were contemporaneous with him. Bart Ehrman has made a study of this issue and as a historian has come to the conclusion that the Jesus figure in the Bible is mostly mythical. In fact there is as much evidence for Hercules as there is for Jesus Christ, but few people suggest that he existed.
First, you yourself denigrated the value of eye witness testimony in your post. Not sure what the purpose is of trying to re-elevate it here.
No, I denigrated uncorroborated and unverified eyewitness testimony, and the reason for that should be obvious. Also, eyewitness corroboration of letters and paintings/sculptures made at the time are a means of verification, and not held as the primary evidence.
quote:Second, the comparison at hand is not to Jesus Christ, but to whoever djufo claims informed the Sumerians.
The inclusion of Jesus was another analogy, in this case to show the unreliability of "eyewitness" accounts that are unverified. However, djufo claimed he had evidence that Sumerian cuneiform supported Biblical events, and I am still awaiting that evidence. The attempt by djufo is not the first attempt to use the Epic of Gilgamesh as evidence for a worldwide Flood, and it has always been refuted by historians, as well as the sciences of archaeology, geology, biology, botany, hydrology.