God Is Not Omnipotent?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 34 times

God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #1

Post by JoeMama »

St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes for salvation are in vain. This is what he said:

"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books. If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which might be explained away as false"--St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.

With Augustine's warning in mind, consider the following statement by a writer in Judges:
"The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

God could handle the mountain inhabitants, no problem, but the God who was powerful enough to create the sun, moon, Earth, and the heavens, was impotent against warriors riding iron chariots? Is this true, or is the Judges writer declaring something that is false?

Also consider this:

Matthew says God can do anything: "With God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
But it was not possible for the impotent God to defeat the valley warriors with their iron chariots, so is Matthew here declaring something that is false?

If the answer is yes, how many other Bible statements can be "explained away" as false? Is perhaps the creation story not true?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #11

Post by brunumb »

1213 wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:26 pm
brunumb wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:23 pm
1213 wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:15 pm
JoeMama wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:11 am ...
"The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
Interesting, Green's literal says it like this:

And Jehovah was with Judah, and he occupied the hills, but did not expel the inhabitants of the valley, for they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19

Would be nice to know, where does the "could not" come from.
Would be nice to know exactly what is being conveyed in that passage.
That Judah did not expel the inhabitants?
By including for it is obvious that a reason is being given. What do you see as the significance of the reference to iron chariots?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #12

Post by JehovahsWitness »

1213 wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:25 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:55 pm
1213 wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:15 pmGreen's literal says it like this:

And Jehovah was with Judah, and he occupied the hills, but did not expel the inhabitants of the valley, for they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19

Would be nice to know, where does the "could not" come from.
The older bibles say "he" instead of "they"...I presume the change is based on more reliable manuscripts (or perhaps the grammar allowed for either rendition ). English imposes an auxiliary for negative of expel and arguably "could" (rather than did) is contextually more appropriate as Judah had either desired and /or attempted a takeover.
...
Thanks, that is a good point. Also, now that I read it again, it seems to be speaking of Judah, he could not expel the inhabitants.

Exactly, even if it were "he" there's no reason to presume the pronoun refers to God rather than Judah.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #13

Post by TRANSPONDER »

It doesn't, even if you read it as 'He', rather than they. The usage in the whole chapter is that 'Judah' or 'Simeon' or whichever tribe refers to 'they' - the 'children of 'Judah or Simeon. Thus Judah does refer to the tribe of Judah, even if 'He' is used, apparently incorrectly. It applies to Judah as a tribal entity rather than God.

That is not the point; the point is that God was with Judah, and whichever way you read it, the tribe of Judah could not beat the people of the plain with chariots of iron, even though God was with them. God apparently could not help them to do it. Thus God cannot do just anything. The story (for that is what it is) sees God as having limitations and is not omnipotent.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #14

Post by 1213 »

brunumb wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:36 pm ...
By including for it is obvious that a reason is being given. What do you see as the significance of the reference to iron chariots?
Significance of iron chariots seems to be that it is the reason why Judah could not expel the people.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #15

Post by TRANSPONDER »

1213 wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:50 am
brunumb wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:36 pm ...
By including for it is obvious that a reason is being given. What do you see as the significance of the reference to iron chariots?
Significance of iron chariots seems to be that it is the reason why Judah could not expel the people.
No. Significance is that even if the people of the plains had a panzer regiment of Abrams tanks, God should still (if He was omnipotent) have enabled the tribe of Judah, since he was 'with them', to push them handily into the sea. Which is what God signally fails to do, especially in cases where He is supposed to be on both opposing sides. The conclusion being (since the 'God is miffed with them' excuse won't wash here, as God is With Them) He is either unable to do any more than if He wasn't there at all or, of course, He isn't there at all.

Ps. :) I'm being as nice as pie here, since i could have said something about the evasion -ploy of just posting what it says and pretending that somehow it explains everything or indeed, anything.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #16

Post by JoeyKnothead »

If God's omnipotent, he oughta be ashamed of himself for seeing hungry, needy folks and not lifting a finger to help.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #17

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:44 am If God's omnipotent, he oughta be ashamed of himself for seeing hungry, needy folks and not lifting a finger to help.
Yes.This does come into the 'problem of evil' package. In Judges, the 'evil' of Judah not being able to prevail against the 'people of the plains' is excused because they had stronger chariots. The point is the problem of a god who is able and willing, we are expected to believe, does not do a thing to get Judah the win, any more than He intervenes to cure, feed or save anyone, not in the more godly past times to anything like the degree to which the worldly goddless technology of the age of lead has done; a far, far better job all round than was ever done by any culture of the past, Christian or not.

The Chariots of Iron is just a rather more striking and amusing Biblical slip that lets us see that there isn't really anyone behind the curtain.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #18

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to 1213 in post #10]

"The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

The point in stating that God was "with" Judah evidently was to imply that Judah's success in expelling the mountain-inhabitants came with the help of God.

So, if God was on Judah's side in the mountain fight, shouldn't we assume that God also was with Judah's side in the valley fight?

IF God was with Judah in the valley, but Judah still lost the fight, doesn't that imply that God didn't have the ability help Judah win?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #19

Post by JehovahsWitness »


WAS GOD WITH THE JUDEANS DURING THEIR DEFEATS?


JUDGES 1:19 NWT

Jehovah was with Judah, and they took possession of the mountainous region, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had war chariots with iron scythes.


Note that the verse links the VICTORIES with Jehovah [The LORD] but then goes on to speak of defeat without any further mention of Him; thus arguably, it can be read that that the Lord was not with them during their defeats.

Let's look at an example with a similar structure
A woman states "I loved him when I married him but I divorced him because he started beating me". What can we assume about the second clause? At the very least that the situation had changed and prior to the divorce. Granted, the wife could have still loved him and have divorced him because of his treatment of her but there is also the possibility that she stopped loving him because of his treatment and that the divorce was symptomatic of her changed feelings. In any case the second clause can stand alone ("I divorced him because he started beating me") and we are not obliged to link her initial feelings with the latter action

# Why would God not be with the Judeans during their latter battles ?

Because victory over their enemies was never a forgone conclusion; the bible indicates it would be dependent on several factors, including their confidence in God. On several occassions prior to the record above the Israelites suffered defeat because they were unfaithful or disobedient ( compare numbers 14:41, 42). NOTE the instructions recorded in the book of Deuteronmy
DEUTERONOMY 20:1

If you go to war against your enemies and you see their horses and chariots and troops that outnumber yours, do not be afraid of them, for Jehovah your God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt is with you.
The failure of the Judeans on that occassion then can be attributed to their own fear and self reliance rather than an inability of their God to defeat their enemies.





JW





RELATED POSTS
Does the bible indicate that God was unable to defeat the Cannanites because they had iron chariots?
viewtopic.php?p=835498#p835498

Why do some older bible use the pronoun "he" instead of "THEY" at Judges 1 verse 19b?
viewtopic.php?p=1123709#p1123709
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: God Is Not Omnipotent?

Post #20

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Try again. The passage says that God was with Judah, not that he wasn't able to help them because their faith was not enough. You are scrabbling for excuses.Now your links to your earlier explanation (I don't just ignore them) argues that God had helped tribes to overcome equally well - armed opponents so there must be some reason why they failed this time. Lack of faith is an easy get out. So God would not be with them if he wasn't going to help. What it looks like is that there were mundane reasons why the other battles succeeded but mundane reasons why that one didn't. God was nothing to do with it. That, not insufficient Faith, is the better answer.

Post Reply