Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

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.

The mental gymnastics needed to this must be very painful. I have a feeling no matter what is presented you will not accept it.

Can you give us an example of the “fallac(ies), distortion of evidence and gross misinterpretation(s)”?

Oh here are a couple of his claims that Doherty touches on.
1) An unprecedented number of New Testament manuscripts can be dated extremely close to the original writings.

Truth
Small scrap of John is from early 2nd century, nothing else is before 200CE

2)Modern New Testament is 99.5% error free.
I guess this works for people who feel that their interpretation is the inspired interpretation.

Truth
There have been a lot of changes to the text.
Isaiah 7:14 used the word almah, which mean woman of a marriageable age.
A greek translation erroneously translated this as parthenos, which means virgin.
Matthew then used the wrong translation to claim a prophecy was fulfilled in Matthew 1:22-23.
Some translations use "virgin", some use "young woman". The correct translation is "young woman"

---

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

"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."

Really..? How about this...from 1 Chronicles 7:3

"And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men."

The sons of Izrahiah don't add up to five, only four.

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).

It looks as thought the "Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible" has faded into a discussion on general inconsistencies in the Bible.

I suggest starting a new thread if there is a continued desire to discuss inconsistencies, otherwise try to steer the thread closer to the topic.

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.

Rule #1: Follow all moderator requests.

The OP, Message 1, asks for claims within the Bible of omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

Are there any passages in the bible that explicitly make the claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. ? I'm curious whether this claim is actually made, just inferred from other passages, or is perhaps just a traditional belief that developed separately from the bible.

The originator wanted to know what is said in the text. The thread isn't about proving God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc. It is about whether it can be found within the text or not.

Please adjust accordingly.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Dear Theodoric,

Thank you for your post.

Theodoric writes: The mental gymnastics needed to this must be very painful.

Yes, it is always easier to just assume something ‘true’ or ‘Faults’ then it is to actually weigh out the evidence and come to a conclusion with as little conjecture and/or preconception as possible.

Theodoric writes: I have a feeling no matter what is presented you will not accept it.

I under your concern; I to have to face the fact that no matter what evidence I present many will still reject my arguments; however, please be assured that I do pay close attention to what each of you say, and I ponder and study these things before I respond.

(If you’ll look at my posts, I do not think I have ever posted a response the same day it was posted. There are two reasons for this. #1 I do not check EvC forum [or my E-Mails] every day; #2 I spend time on them.)

You have brought up some vary interesting points.

Theodoric writes: 1) An unprecedented number of New Testament manuscripts can be dated extremely close to the original writings. Truth Small scrap of John is from early 2nd century, nothing else is before 200CE

Truth in context:

I’m not going to quote all of the evidence here (It world -and does- take up several books), however, the manuscripts, and pieces of manuscripts that we have for all of the parts of (what we call) the modern day Bible out number (by far) the number of manuscripts, and pieces of manuscripts that we have for any other ancient document or group of documents (that aren’t chiseled in or painted on stone).

Not only that but, even though the oldest remaining peaces of what we have may be 200+ years removed from the original documents thy are closer to their originals than any other ancient document or group of documents (that aren’t chiseled in or painted on stone).

So when you say “An unprecedented number of New Testament manuscripts can be dated extremely close to the original writings.” It is in comparison with all other ancient manuscripts that we have copies of today.

Theodoric writes: 2) Modern New Testament is 99.5% error free. I guess this works for people who feel that their interpretation is the inspired interpretation. Truth There have been a lot of changes to the text. Isaiah 7:14 used the word almah, which mean(s) woman of a marriageable age. A Greek translation erroneously translated this as parthenos, which means virgin. Matthew then used the wrong translation to claim a prophecy was fulfilled in Matthew 1:22-23. Some translations use "virgin", some use "young woman". The correct translation is "young woman"

Truth in context:

6625 עַלְמָה (ʿǎl∙mā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 5959; TWOT 1630b—LN 9.34-9.40 young woman, i.e., sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active (Ge 24:43; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:26[EB 25]; Pr 30:19; SS 1:3; 6:8; Isa 7:14+), note: context will demand or suggest if the young woman is sexually active, note: for another interp in 1Ch 15:20; Ps 46:1[EB title], see 6628; note: see also DBLGrk 4221

Note here that the word means “sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active”

So Matthew did not “use the wrong translation”.

Also note the definition of vir⋅gin includes: “–noun 1. A person who has never had sexual intercourse. 2. An unmarried girl or woman.“ {Dictionary.com}

So, again, no mistranslation.

Now to the point of the “Modern New Testament being 99.5% error free.”

These “…variants are not as large as they seem. Remember that every misspelled word or an omission of a single word in any of the 5,600 manuscript would count as a variant.” {Taken from: History of the Bible: How the Bible Came to Us}

On top of that, none of these errors upsets any of the major doctrines taught in the Bible. Therefore we can be pretty confident that all though there are variations, that they are small; so the Bible comes to us pretty much as it was originally written.

One last point here; If you read about Bible Inerrancy you will see that we do not call the English ‘copies’ of the original manuscripts “Inerrant” or “God breathed”; Only the original manuscripts themselves. I.E. we accept that there are small errors in what we call the modern day Bible; that’s why we have 18+ English translations in circulation today.

However, here again, if you take 18 of the best English translations, put them side by side you could not find one that said “Jesus was raised from the dead” and another that said “No, He was not”. When allowing for ‘minor variations’ in wording there are no contradictions between these 18 English translations. You can also extrapolate that back to the ancient copies we have. Comparing the ‘ancient copies’ with the modern Bible variants, allowing for minor variations in wording, there are still no contradictions.

These facts strongly improve my faith (–noun 1. confidence or trust in a … thing{Dictionary.com}) in the reliability of the transmission of these documents through time. But these are not the only facts I find. There is contextual evidence, and predictive evidence that can be presented; However, in times passed, I have been warned about producing long posts so I will cut it off here and let you dig deeper.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
n. noun, or nouns
fem. feminine
Str Strong’s Lexicon
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
LN Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon
EB English Bible versification
+ I have cited every reference in regard to this lexeme discussed under this definition.
interp interpreted
DBLGrk Swanson, A Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (Old Testament)
Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. DBLH 6625
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear MFFJM2,

Welcome to our discussion.

I am the person you quoted from Theodoric’s post.

MFFJM2 writes: "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." Really..? How about this...from 1 Chronicles 7:3

If you have time, I would invite you to go over the things I have posted. (If you click on my name JRTjr anywhere in this forum it will take you to just the things I have posted.)

I have dealt with many of these ‘so called’ errors and or contradictions. Please at least look at my most recent response to Theodoric’s posting. (Message #307)

With that said I would like to respond to your point.

You should have used the “Rules of Interpretation” (See my post Message #298)

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.

son \ˈsən\ n
[ME sone, fr. OE sunu; akin to OHG sun son, Gk hyios] bef. 12c
1 a : a human male offspring esp. of human beings
b : a male adopted child
c : a human male descendant
{MW Collegiate Dict. (11th Ed.)}

"And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men."

So, ‘Izrahiah’ and the four sons of Izrahiah ‘Michael’, ‘Obadiah’, ‘Joel’, and ‘Ishiah’ are the five sons of their father/grand father ‘Uzzi’.

Thank you for your interest; I hope to deliberate with you further.

Dear AdminPD,

I posted two responses I had been working on before seeing this message. I will return to the topic at hand.

God Bless,
JRTjr

I’m not going to quote all of the evidence here (It world -and does- take up several books), however, the manuscripts, and pieces of manuscripts that we have for all of the parts of (what we call) the modern day Bible out number (by far) the number of manuscripts, and pieces of manuscripts that we have for any other ancient document or group of documents (that aren’t chiseled in or painted on stone).

You religious types love to just throw stuff up and see if it sticks.

Most of these "manuscripts" are just fragments.

Before the 9th century there is only one complete manuscript of the New Testament. It is the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century CE.
We are told repeatedly by fundies that that the number of New Testament manuscripts is 5664. Source:Lee Strobel, Case for Christ
Only 59 are complete or almost complete all but 3 date from 9th century CE or later.
All the rest are fragments. Some consist of only a few verses.

Now a lot of fundies love to compare this with the fact that the Iliad has only 643 surviving manuscripts. The problem here is that the Iliad is a single book by a single author. The numbers are not anywhere near impressive when you break down the New Testament to its individual books.

Contradictions in the bible.
I found these in The Rejection of Pascals Wager by Paul Tobin.

Who Conquered Hebron: Joshua or Caleb?
Who Slew Goliath: David or Elhanan?
Botany of the Mustard Seed.
What did Judas do with his 30 silver coins and how did he die?

These are contradictions.

---

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

spam deletion

Edited by AdminAsgara, : spam deletion

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.

Good Luck.

Yes, they are translation errors. Read the original texts.

What original texts..? There are no original texts. There are copies of copies, and no two are the same. The authors are anonymous and the texts are apocryphal.