Palin said humans and dinosuars walked the earth together

[Dr.Who]

The question was about omnipotence

My mistake. Here is the amended answer.

Yes.


Because the bible never uses the word "omnipotent" which was not even a word when the bible was written. The bible does not claim that God is omnipotent. It does claim that he is more capable than you though.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

and omnipotence and omniscience both derive from latin words that were in existence around the time of the bible

 

[robert hawkins]

to obamanation,

you have incorrectly stated the democratic motto. better research on your part would have revealed that the correct motto is...ABORT A REPUBLICAN AND SAVE THE NATION.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Indeed

The republicans are taking America down.

 

[Stalin]

Anything that gets Raquel Welch back on the tube in a bikini gets my vote..

Has anyone seen Larry Flint's film using a look-a-like ?

Das Kameraden Stalinismus

 

[Andy]

This bolded statement is not a biblical statement I am familiar with. Does the bible state that no other humans were created other than the line of Adam?

In a round-about way yes. Romans 5 says that through one man, sin entered the world. Through one man a sin nature passed to all men. And even that 'just as by one man did all become sin, through one man [Jesus], all will be saved'.

Since the sin nature is passed on or inherited, if God created another person, or group of people, they could possibly be sinless. This would also pose a problem that if both sinned, Chirst would have to die twice for both human lines. Or it would violate 'for all have sinned' statement since one linage would be without sin.

Further, if there were other people created, it would be logical that at least one of the genealogies in the Bible would be traced back to a different.. "adam".

 

[Dr.Who]

and omnipotence and omniscience both derive from latin words that were in existence around the time of the bible

The earliest known use of latin was in 753 BC. The Old Testament was written long before that. As far as I know the New Testamant does not say anything about God's level of power while the Old Testament does.

So I stand by my statement that the latin words omni-... did not exist when the OT was written and are never used in either the OT or the NT.

Does it feel good when you get these minor victories and I have to amend what I said to clarify that it is only the OT that was written before the words existed? It is a meaningless victory.

Meanwhile, the existence of the language is irrelevant since it is still true neither of those two words were ever used in the original bible. The authors never said that God was either omniscient nor omnipotent so you arguing that He is not contradicts only a strawman.

 

[Dr.Who]

In a round-about way yes. Romans 5 says that through one man, sin entered the world. Through one man a sin nature passed to all men. And even that 'just as by one man did all become sin, through one man [Jesus], all will be saved'.

Since the sin nature is passed on or inherited, if God created another person, or group of people, they could possibly be sinless. This would also pose a problem that if both sinned, Chirst would have to die twice for both human lines. Or it would violate 'for all have sinned' statement since one linage would be without sin.

Further, if there were other people created, it would be logical that at least one of the genealogies in the Bible would be traced back to a different.. "adam".

You have persuaded me. The bible says Adam and Eve must have been the ancestors of all in one way or another.