Buster Dobb's Ark Theory
JAlw@aol.com JAlw@aol.com
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:53:01 EST (00917848381, 2c10c340.36b4ecdd@aol.com)
<< Subj: Re: Buster Dobb's Ark Theory
Date: 99-01-31 16:15:44 EST
From: mlbakke1@earthlink.net (Mark Bakke)
Sender: owner-errancy@infidels.org
Reply-to: mlbakke1@earthlink.net
To: errancy@infidels.org
> BAKKE
> Needless to say, this begs a much larger question. To wit, if God is
> omnipotent and could magically transport a plethora of creatures, why
> did he need a 600-year-old man to build an ark to protect those same
> creatures from the flood? For that matter, why did he need the flood to
> wipe out all the doomed creatures? Seems to me that he could have
> eliminated them "supernaturally" as well.
> =================
> Joe Alward:
>
> I hope it's not begging the question. I assume for the sake of argument
that
> there is an omnipotent god. If you mean to say that my statement *leads*
to a
> larger question, I agree.
BAKKE
That would be a fair interpretation in this case. However, I hope that
we realize that the assumption of an omnipotent God (even for the sake
of argument) is often distorted by believers into ultimate support for
inerrancy. By examining the problems inherent in the very concept of an
omnipotent God, I believe that we can enhance arguments about the
errancy of the Bible. Gross philosophical and logical errors should be
at least as damning as errors of fact.
> Joe Alward
> Of course, the question Mark asks is completely reasonable, but why
> stop there? Why not just end the whole Bible debate once and for all and
ask,
> Why didn't God just hard-wire into the DNA of every human everything He
wished
> for them to know about Him? That way, we wouldn't have needed to give us a
> bible. Why didn't he do that? Doesn't the fact that He didn't show that
> there is no omnipotent god? If there is no omnipotent god, what's the
point
> in discussing the Bible?
BAKKE
The point is that God might still exist even if his omnipotence can not
be supported. In the case of the "animals to the Ark" story, the power
of an omnipotent God was invoked in a defense of the events portrayed in
Genesis. Therefore, I feel that is reasonable to take that assumption
of omnipotence and show how it doesn't jibe with those events. If
omnipotence can not be defended, it makes the inerrancy of the story
that much harder to demonstrate.
====================
Joe Alward:
In your first sentence, above, you say, "The point is that God might still
exist even if his omnipotence can not be supported".
The God desribed in the Bible would not exist if it were true that He was not
omnipotent. The verses below show that if it the Bible is inerrant, God is
omnipotent:
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and
said unto him, I am the Almighty God"(Genesis 17:1).)...And God said unto
him,I am God Almighty...."(Genesis 35:11)....Thine, O LORD is the greatness,
and the power...in thine hand is power and might..."(1 Chronicles
29:11-12)....For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1:37).
Now, in the remainder of your comment, above, you say that you can show God's
omnipotence. I don't believe that can be done. If you point to something
that God did which was seemingly done in a manner less efficiently than could
be expected from an all-powerful being, I will just say that God can do
anything He wishes, including doing things imperfectly. (No, I don't think
the act of performing imperfectly proves that the being is not perfect.)