Is god almighty?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
There are two words for "all" in the bible. One is all without exception.
The other is all without distinction. I don't know the greek words off hand, but the difference is obvious.

🙂

I'm always amazed at the blind references to "the Greek" or "the Hebrew."

"All" in this passage is the standard neuter plural form, panta (from pas, pasa, pan). It carries with it the basic meaning, "all things," just as it was quoted.

As an aside:
We ought to have a "Spiritual Forum Weekend Getaway," where we could all brush up on our biblical languages and have a basic seminar in reading context. Of course such a weekend would also have a refresher bringing us all up to speed on basic logic principles and the most common (as can be seen in any given thread) fallacies.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I'm always amazed at the blind references to "the Greek" or "the Hebrew."

"All" in this passage is the standard neuter plural form, panta (from pas, pasa, pan). It carries with it the basic meaning, "all things," just as it was quoted.

As an aside:
We ought to have a "Spiritual Forum Weekend Getaway," where we could all brush up on our ...[text shortened]... ed on basic logic principles and the most common (as can be seen in any given thread) fallacies.

The word “all” can be used in a universal or limited sense.

The word “all” or “every” is used in the Bible just as it is used in everyday speech and writing, either to mean “all without exception” or “all within a particular category.” The context will determine the meaning.

1. Sometimes general statements are contradicted by particular experiences or other scriptures. There are many proverbs that indicate that the righteous will prosper, but other verses say that sometimes the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper. The general statement is a “truism,” though not necessarily true in every case.

2. For example, the statement that “all men are liars” should not be taken to mean that Jesus, as a man, was a liar, or that women are not therefore liars.

BTW.. The Bible was written for believers, not for skeptics.

The Bible was not written for unbelievers, but for those willing to search diligently for the truth. Some of the language of Scripture is written with the specific intent of confounding those who either do not have ears willing to hear or who are unwilling to be diligent in their study (Prov. 2:1-5; 25:2; Matt. 13:10-13). To arrive at the truth, one must have faith in God and trust in the integrity of His Word. It is important to be diligent in study and realize that God does not honor study for study’s sake. God will not open the understanding of those who are merely curious. The Christian must have a heart both to know and act on the knowledge he finds in Scripture. Prayer and faith that God will work in us are necessary for properly understanding the Bible and seeing its awesome precision and harmony.....


Acts 16:14
14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
(NKJ)

She was humble and wanted to know God and His word. As a skeptic you will never learn or come to know God....but there is still time..😉

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The word “all” can be used in a universal or limited sense.

The word “all” or “every” is used in the Bible just as it is used in everyday speech and writing, either to mean “all without exception” or “all within a particular category.” [b]The context will determine the meaning.

1. Sometimes general statements are contradicted by particular exp ...[text shortened]... d His word. As a skeptic you will never learn or come to know God....but there is still time..😉[/b]

Your first part about language usage is fine. It's a better argument than blindly appealing to "the Greek."

Your last part is bogus though. It sounds an awful lot like "God's helps those who help themselves." First someone MUST.... Before God can help, you MUST...
I'm convinced that although man can resist God's truth, the burden does not rest with the individual person. It's not up to me. God creates faith. I don't HAVE to DO anything first.

Originally posted by checkbaiter



BTW.. The Bible was written for believers, not for skeptics.

Some of the language of Scripture is written with the specific intent of confounding those who either do not have ears willing to hear or who are unwilling to be diligent in their study (Prov. 2:1-5; 25:2; Matt. 13:10-13). To arrive at the truth, one must have faith in God and trust in the integrity of His Word.

Surely these things are not the case. This is taking the stereotypical circular reasoning behind believing the Bible to be the Word of God to a whole new dimension.

What you describe is deadlock. To arrive at the truth, one must already have faith and trust the Word. But how can you trust the Word and have faith in God if you haven't already arrived at the truth? Moreover, if the Bible is only written for those who believe in it, how did they come to believe in it in the first place?

Do you really believe that God designed the Bible to confound those who don't have willing ears? This is the first time I've encountered this claim. What motive could God have for confounding anybody?

Originally posted by kingdanwa
Your first part about language usage is fine. It's a better argument than blindly appealing to "the Greek."

Your last part is bogus though. It sounds an awful lot like "God's helps those who help themselves." First someone MUST.... Before God can help, you MUST...
I'm convinced that although man can resist God's truth, the burden does not re ...[text shortened]... individual person. It's not up to me. God creates faith. I don't HAVE to DO anything first.

I disagree, when God calls you and you reject God's calling you
should have answered, "Yes Lord!" We cannot do anything to add to
our righteousness, but we are to obey God. Our righteousness is
complete in Christ, so we are not working to earn God's love and
forgiveness. It isn't that God does not require us to do things, we are
to obey our Lord God. We cannot do anything to add to our
righteousness and salvation, as a matter of fact, trying to really
diminishes the work of Jesus on our behalf by saying it wasn't
enough, but we are to obey Him in all He desires. He tells us to love
God and we should, God tells us to love each other, which too we
should do!
Kelly

Originally posted by kingdanwa

I don't think these texts relate to God's ability to perform logically inconsistent tasks.

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but I fear that this discussion is quickly becoming a theoretical discussion about a possible god besides the God revealed in history and in the Bible.

My point is that it's not clear what Jesus intended to convey. I understand the context of the verse. In context, what he is saying is, "Without God, it would be impossible to enter heaven [where impossible is illustrated by a camel passing through the eye of a needle]. With God, even this seemingly impossible feat is feasible. Worry not about how difficult it seems; God will take care of it."

Now, Jesus could have said, "With God, even this [entering heaven, an otherwise impossible task] is possible." But he said that "all things" are possible. Obviously I don't think he meant that logically inconsistent tasks are possible with God, for then he'd be speaking in contradictions and in effect saying "With God, some things are both possible and impossible," so we can quickly dispatch with that. I'm interested in whether he actually intended to convey something more general by "all things," or whether it was meant, as you suggest, as reassuring, but imprecise, counsel.

Perhaps 'all things' is best interpreted as 'anything that God's plan requires,' and 'possible' as 'not to be thwarted.'

Originally posted by checkbaiter
God will not open the understanding of those who are merely curious.

Why not? If God loves all of his people, why would he close the door to understanding to any of them, especially to those who are at least curious and not completely indifferent or guilty of rejecting Him out of hand?

Does God value love from those with blindly accepted faith more than love from those who arrive at faith through rational contemplation born out of mere curiosity? Why would God not want or allow the latter to join him in heaven?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why not? If God loves all of his people, why would he close the door to understanding to any of them, especially to those who are at least curious and not completely indifferent or guilty of rejecting Him out of hand?

Do you really expect a coherent answer to this question?

Originally posted by bbarr
Do you really expect a coherent answer to this question?

I know that kingdanwa can give one, if he believes the claim, which I doubt. Hopefully he hasn't fled in disgust.

Do you have any thoughts on what, if anything, Jesus intended to denote by 'all' and 'possible'?

Originally posted by kingdanwa
Your first part about language usage is fine. It's a better argument than blindly appealing to "the Greek."

Your last part is bogus though. It sounds an awful lot like "God's helps those who help themselves." First someone MUST.... Before God can help, you MUST...
I'm convinced that although man can resist God's truth, the burden does not re ...[text shortened]... individual person. It's not up to me. God creates faith. I don't HAVE to DO anything first.

If you had looked up the verses posted, you would see that God is not interested ( for lack of a better word for the time being) in skeptics.

Prov 2:1-5
1 My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commands within you,
2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, and apply your heart to understanding;
3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment, and lift up your voice for understanding,
4 If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
(NKJ)
What He is saying is clear.
Nature clearly shows God's attributes. Look at the beautiful sunrise/sunset...the beauty in nature. They were put there to show God's glory. I can go on and on with the spledor of the human body, the heavens...how the earth rotates on it's axis, at precisly the right angle, etc. How He gave us seasons, crops, etc. This is stated in Romans.

Rom 1:20-21
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(NKJ)

So what does the skeptic do? He turns to "evolution" and self reasoning. But it is not really reasoning, it is looking for escape or finding ways to disprove God's existence. He is saying that people who don't see God's glory in His creation, will not find Him.
That is why Jesus spoke in parables...

Luke 8:10
10 And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.'
(NKJ)


Prov 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
(NKJ)

Here it is again...it takes believing that God is, THEN we see. It takes work....

Heb 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
(NKJ)

How? First we look at His works...then He rewards with knowledge, wisdom, etc.

And the best part is ...we have nothing to loose and all to gain..
🙂

Originally posted by kingdanwa
Your first part about language usage is fine. It's a better argument than blindly appealing to "the Greek."

Your last part is bogus though. It sounds an awful lot like "God's helps those who help themselves." First someone MUST.... Before God can help, you MUST...
I'm convinced that although man can resist God's truth, the burden does not re ...[text shortened]... individual person. It's not up to me. God creates faith. I don't HAVE to DO anything first.

the burden does not rest with the individual person. It's not up to me. God creates faith. I don't HAVE to DO anything first.

Here is where you are wrong....God has already done His part. He gave His only Son for you. The ball is in your court, so to speak....😉

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I know that kingdanwa can give one, if he believes the claim, which I doubt. Hopefully he hasn't fled in disgust.

Do you have any thoughts on what, if anything, Jesus intended to denote by 'all' and 'possible'?

I think Jesus was just expressing the proposition that God can make any logically possible world the actual world.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
If you had looked up the verses posted, you would see that God is not interested ( for lack of a better word for the time being) in skeptics.

Prov 2:1-5
1 My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commands within you,
2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, and apply your heart to understanding;
3 [b]Yes, if you cry out for discernmen ...[text shortened]... nowledge, wisdom, etc.

And the best part is ...we have nothing to loose and all to gain..
🙂[/b]

Yes, the appendix is quite splendid, as is cholera.

Originally posted by bbarr
I think Jesus was just expressing the proposition that God can make any logically possible world the actual world.

Is there a term that denotes this variety of possibility?

EDIT: Hmmm. That question doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is there a term that denotes this variety of possibility?

Talk of possible worlds is just a way of fleshing out the notion of logical possibility.