SURVEY: IS the BIBLE RELIABLE?

It is my belief, to be sure. But I was hoping to have the proposition judged on its own merit.

You've been here long enough to know better than that.

neo,
The point I am getting at is that you infer a lot more into the name 'he who causes to become' than what is actually in that phrase. Since we and other things have the power 'to cause to become', that name really doesn't mean much.

You are reading free will and lack of physical limitations into the name 'he who causes to become'. You are emphatic about pointing out the fact that the term 'omnipotent' doesn't appear in the bible, yet you infer through your quote of the name "he who causes to become" exactly such a quality that, in fact, isn't there.

How, then, do you come to "free will" and "lacking physical limitations"as qualities of 'having the power to cause'?

What merit? At root, what is there to the proposition you forward beyond self-proclaimed, self-referential authority? By what legitimate, objective criteria may Christianity, or for that matter any other religio-spritual belief construct, be accorded primacy over any of the others?

Stipulating to the proposition there may and might be a god or gods in no way entails there is or must be any such thing or condition, and in no way validates any presumption of the existence of same, nor does it afford primacy to any deistic concept or mythopaeia drawn therefrom.

We come back, irresolvably, to the conundrum entailed by the presumption there be any such thing as a "Divinely Revealed Truth"; as no "Divinely Revealed Truth" uniformly is recognized and incontravertably, uncontestedly accepted - in that question and dispute exist - is circumstance which by logic terminally invalidates the central proposition.

LOL! What legitimate, objective criteria was used to give your religion primacy over all the others?

Now there's an exquisitely absurd question.