Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

- 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.

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.

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?

I think I've found the web-page i was looking for, and it's rather interesting, as it seems to have quite a few inconsistencies within it, the least of which is the four resurrection accounts.The page is here.I rather think JTRjr and others would have their work cut out for them proving that either there are no inconsistencies, or somehow working around the problem of saying some copies of the bible are bad copies, without implying that the bible itself when "uncorrupted" (we don't seem to HAVE that copy) is still correct (which is seriously an argument I've heard).