God's Omniscience

[fruit_loup]

Good search you made!

not really, I have made a regular study of the bible for many years and have mounds of notes. It was a matter of pulling the proper notes.

God tries to persuade and disuade - many examples from Moses and the Pharoh to Saul and Peter, it would be contended that He never takes away free will. He tests but doesn't tempt.

Perhaps you failed to read the verse. You see it said "decieved" which holds a meaning rather different from dissuade.

Regards failing tasks, God was with Samson but left him and finally returned but he still died. Whilst God was finally with him God must havbe been very disappointed as Samson was largely a very bad role model.

[Point of interest on discrepency. It was a custom (Nazarite vow) for Samson to grow his hair long and God specifically used it for his strength. In the N.T. it says "doesn't even nature itself teach us that it is a shame fo a man to have long hair." No doubt there will be an alledged answer to this apparent contradiction, but I find it strange to say the least.]
God's spirit smote 10,000 in a sitting and destroyed the whole world in the flood, so God would seem to be ABLE to destroy the army you quoted. Interesting that Jesus was UNABLE to heal those in some places due to their unbelief. The task is failed due to the will or lack of faith of the people, not God's power but free will again. Remember, it was just a man that couldn't win that battle you quoted, albeit a man who had God with him. God was supposedly with those victims in WWII but they died. If God is with both sides in a battle of Christians, what happens? Death or not having a job or whatever is no determining factor as to whether God is with someone or not.

Again read the passage. It did not say god was "supposedly" with Judah or that the people of Judah "thought" god was with them but that he "was" with them.
As an ineteresting aside on the long hair and iron. Both can be found in magico-religious shamanic traditions throughout the world. Long hair symbolises a person's "power" and iron is supposed to repel various spirits. once again it looks like Christianity has hijacked bits and pieces of pre-existing belief systems.

Finally God created or allowed the possibility of evil, He doesn't do evil.

You sure do like throwing words into the bible don't you? Because I do not recollect the passage containing the words allowed or possibility. To me "create evil" is a rather explicit way of wording it and does not need throwing in additional words.

I am just speaking off the cuff here and would need to look a bit deeper to get a more detailed or sufficient answer if I haven't really helped

Will this sufficient answer include not adding words that are not there?

but providing you accept my point that by finding Biblical errors does not discount God, then I don't think we really disagree,

Biblical errors are in enough excess that they discredit the Christian god. That is unless his inspirations skills are as poor as my typing skills. By the way, if you are building up to "agree to disagree" nonsense, I do not buy that whatsoever and will never agree to disagree on anything.

A lot of timewasting occurs is debates between theists and non theists (or between theists and theists over what the Bible is) and it ends up with semantics or minor issues or hurt or similar

I would imagine a Christian would think it time well spent as the book holds all of their religion within its pages. But I may be assuming too much. I know I would put the utmost import on being sure I had my holy book correct.

God kills children just for laughing at a prophet. I call that evil of the highest order.



If the bible is supposed to be inerrant, then any single mistake it makes destroys the entire edifice. If, however, it's NOT meant to be inherant, then there is nothing we can learn reliably from it and, again the entire idea of the christian god is suspect.

Much better said than I could make it. I would like to add to your last point that discrepencies within the book that founded the doctrine should be especially intolerable since the book has warned not to obey the doctrine's of men and to not add or take away from the books(what then of the apocrypha I wounder). I have to ask how do you know which way to interpret which verses since you are forbidden from forming an interpretation of the verses or at the very least share those interpretations? I do not thinkt his would be a problem if the Christian god would simply clarify and elaborate, not contradicting himself would work as well. Perhaps god needs a few public speaking lessons?

 

[teacher]

Great point about the camera Iacchus.
Belz. Yes, a single genuine error in the 'original' manuscripts discounts the accuracy (and legitimacy) of the Bible. Note the conditions though. We probably have no originals and how would we know if one were an original parchment or first copy etc?
If the history of Rome documentary has a mistake, does it make the book or research or film worthless? Many scriptures offer great insight and if some (non innerent or not inspired) man made ones say something and maybe some offer genuine interaction or knowledge with God, they are valuable.
You have a good point though. If something has no auithority or claim to perfection, how are we to know what to believe. We can't just take out the bits we don't like or don't believe, that's no logical way forward. And I really do have no satisfactory answer to this. This is a strong argument against knowledge of God as little can be estsablished. We are just left with the Jesus of history, what liuttle we know of Him.

 

[teacher]

Fruit loop.
My (I think) last post for now. Getting unacceptably out of hand and a bit nasty for me but I hope we can talk more another time. Discussion and debate needn't have sarcasm and I don't even disagree with anything you say, let alone agree to disagree. I am happy to hold a discussion on Christianity and its validity but not now please.

1. My 'supposedly' was the equivalent of 'allegedly' and referred not to the passage but to whether the Bible and its account were true. Rather like saying 'according to the Bible' does not mean that the Bible may not say it, but whether the Bible is actually true.

2. Remember that the OT is written in Hebrew and you are just looking at one modern English interpretation, so don't assume that (andnote I'm still on your side) THEY will accept the particular modern version you use as gospel. By all means ask for a version you can both use though! That will stump them.

Now in Ezekiel, the NIV says 'entised' and 1 Kings 22:23 explains more as I'm sure you'lll agree that perspectrive and the full story and giving people a fair opportunity to respond is important. God put in a lying spirit to their mouths - into the mouths of those who were against Him. Like Job. It shows the devil tempting him but it clearly explains that God allowed it. Similar with Pharoah and other examples, it is God allowing the devil to work. As verified here and with Peter, Christrians would say that the devil can do nothing without God's permission, so God does and allows everything that happens (including the Holocaust). I certainly don't want to go further into this (or any other of the mirriads of alledged discrepancies that would take forever) thank you, other than to say that out of respect for searching for answers, ask (another) theologian or scholar to do a study or evaluiation oir give an explanation for you. You can't dismiss a text without a full response. I can direct you if needed.

I don't throw words into the Bible and I don't rely on set English translations and before I examine a verse, I look at the context any other relevant passages, cultural differences or trends etc. I think non theologians make a lot of mistakes because they haven't been traiuned to do this. If you are genuine in trying to disprove Holy texts, great, but be fair, patient, look at all angles and responses and give a fair chance of response until concluded, then decide.

Le me ask you one. What is the best respoonse(s) that scholars can offer to the 'creating evil' dillema you have. Feedback to me a fair, unsarcastic evaluation afdter asjking them and then comment, don't take things at face value (like the work of psychics?) IF there is likely to be another interpretation or perspective.

Innerentists would strongly dispute the idea of any errors, so don't assume they are in vast numbers and unwothy of challenge or have all but been disproven. I agree with you my friend, and quietly laugh as well you might, but proof is everything!

Mocking a supposed God's inspiration skills is like portraying YOU in a digitally created embarrasing pose for th public. The pose may be a lie but it puts you in a bad light. We don't need to laugh at god. A silly thing to do for an atheist anyway if He doesn't exist. It is not God that claims inspiration but 2 Timothy 3:16 and many Chistians. Baby and bathwater again.

You mean Judaism rather than Christianity I think regarding hijacking. The vow was a cultural one I believe, not religious and there are many examples of using good ideas across religious and non relgious bounderies. Atheism included.

To repeat. Time well spent would be picking a couple of controvertial scriptures and going through them with a scholar. If the patient response and going back and fro does not convince you, you can write your fair and reasoned response.

Finally, speaking lessons for God. Not helpful.
Apocrypha. A long story about how the early church evaluated books for the canon of scripturte. Mainly a difference between Protestant and Catholic, but this is based on an extra biblical notion of God inspiring and communicating to people, an even more difficult obne for Christians to answer.
As for cxlarifying the Bible. I challenge you to write a short novel or even biography without appearing to be in error. Any 2 accident witnesses will always differ in detail, often in big ways, hense police hold eye witness reports with the utmost caution. Many discrepencies have been claimed and responded to. You could try but I think most Christians would be too slippery to actually catch. Same for the book of Mormon, another prime candidate to try.

We are still friends aren't we? And we are on the same side I think. Just want to encourage a more targetted, straight, fault free approach to this. You'll be even more effective than you are already. Well done - seriously.

 

[Iacchus]

God kills children just for laughing at a prophet. I call that evil of the highest order.

Kids can be quite cruel themselves.

If the bible is supposed to be inerrant, then any single mistake it makes destroys the entire edifice.

Either that, or you're looking for "perfection" in the wrong place.

If, however, it's NOT meant to be inherant, then there is nothing we can learn reliably from it and, again the entire idea of the christian god is suspect.

But then again, maybe it's more about man's "folly," than anything else.

 

[teacher]

Oh, good point, you are right.

"I would imagine a Christian would think it time well spent as the book holds all of their religion within its pages. But I may be assuming too much. I know I would put the utmost import on being sure I had my holy book correct."

but God, being immanent and personal and the Holy spirit imparts wisdom and knowledge and gifts and communication beyond the ability of science to detect. Logical if God is beyond 3D or convenient if He doesn't exist. A great idea to have a leader like the pope as authority - in theory. The Bible doesn't contain everything though, no. We have church history, the conscience, religious leaders, prayer, God's presence, reason etc. All things that seem logical or consistent with the religion but decidedly difficult to assess.

 

[teacher]

Wise observations in your 11.52 post Iacchus. I respect people who, of whatever persuasion, respect good viewpoints and discussion, even from the opposition when given rather than just bombarding negativity or aggression. This does not relate to any conversations I've had here yet.

 

[Iacchus]

Thanks. Oh, the post says 8:52 AM over here by the way.

 

[Belz...]

Kids can be quite cruel themselves.

Irrelevant. Killing people for beign vocally cruel is wholly disproportionate.

Either that, or you're looking for "perfection" in the wrong place.

I think you are beign overly apologetic, here. Either the book is perfect, litterally, or it isn't. If you mean "moral" perfection, then there's a lot left to be desired, too. If you're talking about "spiritual" perfection, I don't see how it's better than any regular cookbook.

But then again, maybe it's more about man's "folly," than anything else.

How so ? God does the exact same thing man does. Maybe the book's about GOD's folly. I've always said God was insane.

 

[Ryokan]

God tries to persuade and disuade - many examples from Moses and the Pharoh to Saul and Peter, it would be contended that He never takes away free will.

Exodus 4, 21 : And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt, see that thou do all these wonders before Pharao, which I have put into thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

 

[Iacchus]

Exodus 4, 21 : And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt, see that thou do all these wonders before Pharao, which I have put into thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Or, maybe it was more a matter of perspective, than anything else. Perhaps God was just communicating that He knew Pharoah's ways? And, since God is often construed as being all-powerful and all-knowing, being the "Creator" after all, then it could just as easily be miscontrued that He hardened Pharoah's heart. Which, would be one the accounts where the Bible has become "more" anthropomorphized. Similar to what I was saying above ...

Yes, I understand that the scorching heat of the sun is very "nasty" in the middle of the desert.

Which is to say, where on earth does the sun shine any differently? The sun hasn't changed its position relative to the earth. The earth has changed its positon relative to the sun.

 

[Ryokan]

Or, maybe it was more a matter of perspective, than anything else. Perhaps God was just communicating that He knew Pharoah's ways? And, since God is often construed as being all-powerful and all-knowing, being the "Creator" after all, then it could just as easily be miscontrued that He hardened Pharoah's heart. Which, would be one the accounts where the Bible has become "more" anthropomorphized. Similar to what I was saying above ...

Indeed, Iacchus, that is actually most likely. But then, with this in mind, what parts of the bible should we trust and believe in?

 

[Iacchus]

Irrelevant. Killing people for beign vocally cruel is wholly disproportionate.

Or, perhaps it was more in the manner of this, where "the prophet" had to deal with his own anger? ...

15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

17 And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's house. ~ 2 Samuel 24:15-17

I think you are beign overly apologetic, here. Either the book is perfect, litterally, or it isn't. If you mean "moral" perfection, then there's a lot left to be desired, too. If you're talking about "spiritual" perfection, I don't see how it's better than any regular cookbook.

I mean in terms of getting from point A to point B, it is and has been effective. Nothwithstanding that it has been subject to a lot of misinterpretation and abuse.

How so ? God does the exact same thing man does. Maybe the book's about GOD's folly. I've always said God was insane.

If so, then you had better not start believing in Him.

 

[kmortis]

Or, maybe it was more a matter of perspective, than anything else. Perhaps God was just communicating that He knew Pharoah's ways? And, since God is often construed as being all-powerful and all-knowing, being the "Creator" after all, then it could just as easily be miscontrued that He hardened Pharoah's heart. Which, would be one the accounts where the Bible has become "more" anthropomorphized. Similar to what I was saying above ...

Um...no. If we look at this in an "inspired" POV, then God told the author to write "I will harden Pharoah's heart". He doesn't say "I know this guy, he ain't letting you go until we show him that My Kung-fu is stronger than his Kung-fu", the line is that He (God) is taking an active role to make Pharoah less likely to let Moses et al go. I have a really hard time seeing where a person sympathetic to JHVH's cause would attribute Pharoah's lake of compliance to anything other than a) Pharoah not wanting to let free labor disappear or b) God meddling.

The "inerrantist" POV is obvious. It Is Written, Therefore It Happened Just Like That.

 

[Iacchus]

The "inerrantist" POV is obvious. It Is Written, Therefore It Happened Just Like That.

No, the question is, how much of this involves "creative license?"

 

[Iacchus]

Indeed, Iacchus, that is actually most likely. But then, with this in mind, what parts of the bible should we trust and believe in?

Indeed, why should you believe me?

 

[Ryokan]

Indeed, why should you believe me?

Huh, where did that come from?

Believe you about what?

 

[kmortis]

No, the question is, how much of this involves "creative license?"

No, the inerrantist dosn't recognize "creative license" when it come to scripture. Hence the title "inerrantist".

 

[Iacchus]

Huh, where did that come from?

Believe you about what?

You just asked me to tell you what to believe in didn't you?

 

[Ryokan]

You just asked me to tell you what to believe in didn't you?

Well, I did specify that I was talking about the bible.

Indeed, Iacchus, that is actually most likely. But then, with this in mind, what parts of the bible should we trust and believe in?

 

[Belz...]

Or, perhaps it was more in the manner of this, where "the prophet" had to deal with his own anger? ...

Huh ?

I mean in terms of getting from point A to point B, it is and has been effective. Nothwithstanding that it has been subject to a lot of misinterpretation and abuse.

INERRANT means you can't interpret it in any way besides that way in which it is written. Clearly this isn't the case, first because there are many interpretations, and second because there are CLEAR errors in it. I call foul.

If so, then you had better not start believing in Him.

Indeed.