Jack the Bodiless

From the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000299&p=4" target="_blank">Challenge to Theists Who Buy the Moral Argument</a>:
...So I've created this thread to address the Biblical passages which contradict the notion of the "omnimax" God.

A note of caution: Dave is a Biblical inerrantist who believes that everything God does is "good" by default. So don't bother to appeal to "common sense" in pointing out that (for instance) the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn was evil: he will need contradictory Biblical verses. Such as:
Therefore God fails God's own standard for omnibenevolence.

God's alleged omnipotence is supported by three general comments:
...And contradicted by:
God's omniscience and omnipresence are both contradicted in the Bible:

Someone7

This verse appears to be saying that the people of Judah could not drive out the people in the valley because they had chariots of iron, not that Yahweh couldn't.

Jayhawker Soule

No "could not" here; these read as if Judah was simply making a tactical decision.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, it's Judah's failing. But the reason he prevailed against the hill people (according to the Bible) is because God was with him. And the reason he failed against the valley people (according to the Bible) is because they had chariots of iron. So having an omnipotent deity on your side isn't as effective as having iron chariots on your side.

Another attribute of the omnimax God is that he's supposedly "eternal and unchanging". So can he change his mind? According to Dave and other inerrantists, God's unchanging nature is necessary for the Universe to exist. From the SAB, <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/repent.html" target="_blank">Does God repent?</a>:
And yet he does:
Of course, for an omniscient God who knows everything that will ever happen, all this "repenting" is rather odd behavior. Especially if he's also omnipotent, and can therefore do everything perfectly, hence no regrets.

Someone7

RD, I noticed that myself while checking the other translations, but most of them do have a "could not" or something equivalent to that; Webster's, RSV, NASB, NKJV, ASV, HNV and the NIV all imply that the people of Judah (and/or possibly Yahweh) were unable to drive them out.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Someone7 ]</p>

Someone7

It's not exactly clear what it means by Yahweh being "with" the people of Judah, but it doesn't appear to be suggesting that Yahweh was actually physically there. It would be odd to think that the author of Judges thought his god could be defeated by people in iron chariots...

Of course, it still poses difficulties anyway. If an omnipotent god was "with" you (guiding you), you should still probably be able to defeat a bunch of dopes in iron chariots.

I think Genesis is a better example of Yahweh not being omnipotent, since an omnipotent being would not need rest.

DaveJes1979

Jack the Bodiless

Dave: where is the contradiction here? These verses all affirm the same thing - God is commanding civil authorities to dole out punishment on the basis of personal sin, ruling out punishment on the basis of "sins of the father." If this is supposed to be contradictory to the Christian doctrine of original Sin, I would just point out that this is in reference to God's relation to mankind (concerning the representative solidarity in Adam), not referring to the basis of civil justice.

Dave: the NIV says "but THEY [referring to Judah] were unable..." This is referring to Judah's inability, not God's. Nor is there a reason why we must infer that the phrase "God was with them" that God intended on having Judah conquer to a greater extent than they did.

Dave: you are misunderstanding the use of the word "presence." There are some times and places where God is "present" in a way He is not at other times. This particular verse is referring to God's "presence" as a personal manifestation who walked and talked in the Garden. Any perusal of the context would have made that clear.

Dave: once again, this is referring to a particular manifestation of God's presence as He was conversing with Cain.

Dave: same thing here. Notice how this "Lord" who came down later on called out to the "Lord" in heaven?

Dave: once again, this only implies that there was an extraordinary manifestation of his presence on earth. I would also point out that nothing here supports the idea of God gaining knew knowledge - only that He is going to see it as a judicial manifestation (in the likeness of a human) on earth. The language used here is anthropomorphic in nature - not meant to be understood as we would use language of a normal human being.

This is shown to be true because of the pile of verses (both old and new test.) that explicitly teach or assume God's omnipresence. The Psalmist asks rhetorically "where can I flee from Your presence"? Isaiah says that heaven is His throne, and earth His footstool. Paul says that humanity lives, moves, and has its being in God. Jeremiah 23 says:

23 "Am I only a God nearby,"
declares the Lord ,
"and not a God far away?
24 Can anyone hide in secret places
so that I cannot see him?"
declares the Lord .
"Do not I fill heaven and earth?"
declares the Lord .

Dave: a better translation (NKJV) reads:

4"They set up kings, but not by Me;
They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.
From their silver and gold
They made idols for themselves--
That they might be cut off.


-----------------------------------------
These are some sorry-ass "irrefutable examples."

Dave G.

Jayhawker Soule

... "the other translations"
... "imply"
... "and/or possibly"

This is hardly the language expected of a conclusive proof of errancy. Judges 1:19 may be a problem, but its not an insurmountable one.

Someone7

The fact remains that only Young’s and Darby’s imply that it was a tactical decision. The rest of those translations do insist an inability of the people of Judah to drive out the inhabitants of the valley because of their iron chariots. Christians generally interpret this as a failure of the people of Judah to trust in Yahweh.

The doctrine of inerrancy is irrefutable. There are many very clear contradictions in the bible (the genealogies of Jesus), inerrantists will accept any ludicrous ‘explanation’ that harmonizes the contradictions. There is no way to refute “While it appears to be saying this, it is really saying this”.

ex-preacher

Dave,

Why do you suppose the first son of David and Bathsheba was killed by God because of David's sin, when God had specifically stated the son would not die for the sins of the father?

Also, explain why David and Bathsheba were not put to death as the law clearly commanded.