Welcome to Gaia! ::

God goes for a stroll:

Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

God can not find Adam (not all-knowing):

Genesis 3:9-10 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where are you? And he said, I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." (from God?)

God does not know if Adam ate from the tree or not (not all-knowing):

Genesis 3:11 "And he (God) said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

God becomes tired and needs to be refreshed:

Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

Notice that the verse does not claim that God Almighty "abstained from work," but rather that He "rested." This implies that it is possible for God Almighty to experience fatigue and that He is not All-Mighty and All-Powerful since He sometimes needs to be "refreshed."

God is not cognizant and/or is not eternally aware (not all knowing, all seeing, attentive and aware):

Psalms 44:23 "Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever."

When God finally becomes cognizant attentive and aware, He acts like a drunkard:

Psalms 78:65 "Then the LORD awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine."

The above verses are responded to by the Almighty in the noble Qur’an as follows:

"And verily We (God) did create the heavens and the earth in six days and no fatigue touched Us."

The noble Qur’an, Qaf(50):38

"Allah! there is no god but He, the Living, the Sustainer and Protector. Neither slumber nor sleep overtake Him. His are all things in the heavens and the earth. Who can intercede in His presence except as He permits? He knows what is before and behind them. Nor do they encompass aught of His knowledge except as He wills. His throne does extend over the heavens and the earth and He feels no fatigue in preserving them. For He is the Most High, the Supreme."

The noble Qur’an, Al-Baqarah(2):255

Jacob wrestles with God. God can not win against Jacob. Jacob sees God face to face:

"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Genesis 32:24-30

Many people claim the Jacob wrestled with an angel. Does this sound like he wrestled with an angel? Did Jacob (pbuh) say "I have seen the angel of God"? Did he say "I have seen the light of God" or some other statement that might have had an abstract meaning? No! He said "I have seen God" and just so that there would be no doubt in anyone's mind he added the words "face to face." If Jacob (pbuh) had wrestled with an angel, then why would he need to say "my life is preserved"? Do people who see angels die? (Numbers 22:31, 2 Samuel 24:17, 1 Chronicles 21:16, ...etc.). If Jacob had seen the face of an angel then why would he name the place "the face of God"(peni-el), and not "the face of the angel"(peni-malak)? Indeed, this is how the great St. Augustine and many others understood this verse. This brings up another question. How do we reconcile this with point 25 in the table of section 2.2 (regarding seeing God)?

We are beaten over the head four times with the fact that a human (Jacob, peace be upon him) managed to out-wrestle God Almighty, but the translators realizing the fallacy of this concoction continually try to reinterpret this verse and make excuses for it. Notice how we are beaten over the head not once, but four times with the fact that this was GOD who was beaten by Jacob:

1) "I have seen GOD."

2) "FACE to FACE."

3) "And my life is preserved."

4) They called the place "Peniel" ("FACE OF GOD").

Are we now to believe that God wrestled with Jacob all night, He resorted to hitting Jacob (pbuh) below the belt, and in the end was still bested by Jacob ("I will not let thee go, except thou bless me")? When someone has you in a headlock and tells you: "do as I tell you," is he victorious or not?

God forbid! High exalted is He! Illustrious! Mighty! Magnificent! All-Powerful! Neither Moses nor Jacob would ever make such a claim. Nor would the other prophets of God. The great and noble prophets would never dare to claim that God had been reduced to a punching bag to further their own egos. Notice how we are encouraged to believe that it is not sufficient to humbly prostrate oneself before God, bowing down and beseeching Him for His favors in earnest prayer and in all submission. Rather it is necessary to slap Him silly and beat Him into the ground then force Him to bless the victor. Is this not preposterous? Does this not reek of tampering fingers? May God Almighty forgive me for even repeating these words.

God regrets his actions, God can not see the future, God can not change the past:

Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

It is not possible to regret doing something unless the result of this action was something bad that had not been foreseen and can not be changed. In Webster's New Dictionary (1990), the word "repent" is defined as follows: to regret, sorrow for, to wish to have been otherwise what one has done or left undone.

My grandfather did it (or: Is King David going to Hell?)

"A b*****d shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Deuteronomy 23:2

If we look at the genealogy of David the king (pbuh) we find:

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and (1)Phares begat (2)Esrom; and Esrom begat (3)Aram; And Aram begat (4)Aminadab; and Aminadab begat (5)Naasson; and Naasson begat (6)Salmon; And Salmon begat (7)Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat ( cool Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat (9)Jesse; And Jesse begat (10)David the king"

Matthew 1:1-6

Who is Phares, the son of Judas? Let us ask the Bible:

"And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez."

Genesis 38:24-28

(Note: For some reason, the Old and New Testaments tend to spell names differently)

King David's ninth father, Phares the son of Judas (Pharez the son of Judah), according to the Old Testament, was a b*****d. Does this mean that king David (pbuh), a great and pious messenger and the ancestor of Jesus (pbuh) (according to Matthew 1:1) shall not enter the congregation of the Lord? Try to remember this when you are told that Jesus (pbuh) inherited the kingdom of David (what then did he inherit?). This is not a Muslim’s view of David (pbuh) nor Jesus (pbuh). Does this not reek of tampering hands?

Who's will is stronger?

In Deuteronomy we read that Moses was not to disturb the children of Ammon nor attempt to take their land:

"That the LORD spake unto me, saying, Thou art to pass over through Ar, the coast of Moab, this day: And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession."

Deuteronomy 2:17-19

"Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto the cities in the mountains, nor unto whatsoever the LORD our God forbad us."

Deuteronomy 2:37

Yet Joshua tells of how Moses gave the land of Ammon to Gad as an inheritance:

"And moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad, even unto the children of Gad according to their families. And their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah;"

Joshua 13:24-25

God himself vowed to not give Moses (pbuh) even the smallest portion of the land of Ammon, yet Moses is now claimed to have taken it anyway (against God's will?) and given half of it to GC.E. Was this a slip of a scribe's pen? Is it a difference in "spelling"? Centuries of tampering with the word of God has left it's mark.

"Verily, those who purchase a small gain at the cost of Allah's covenant and their oaths, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter. Neither will Allah speak to them, nor (will He) look upon them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, and they shall have a painful torment."

The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):77

For us Muslims, many of the claims to be found in the Bible with regard to the prophets of God, and even God himself, are monstrous and preposterous. One is hard pressed to find a single prophet or messenger who was not a drunkard, an idolater, an adulterer, guilty of incest, a liar, and so forth. The Bible practically overflows with such stories from almost every Tom, d**k, and Harry. The messengers of God are even made to be guilty of multiple cases of adultery and worse. Abraham (pbuh) is alleged to be a liar and worse (Genesis 12:13). Noah (pbuh) a drunkard (Genesis 9:21). Lot (pbuh) a drunkard and guilty of incest (Genesis 19:30-3 cool . Solomon (pbuh) a worshipper of idols in his old age (1 Kings 4-9), King David (pbuh) commits adultery with Uriah's wife and then murdered her husband (2 Samuel 11:3-4,15-1 cool , David's son Ammon is guilty of incest and the rape of his half sister (2 Samuel 13:14). Aaron (pbuh) fashions an idol (the golden calf) for the Jews to worship (Exodus 32:1-4), to name but a very few of the many allegations to be found in the current Bible.

Muslims believe that God protects his messengers from erring in matters of faith. They can only err in matters of livelihood. For instance, a prophet can make a mistake in selecting which season to plant crops but he can not make a mistake in doctrine and worship. Why? Let us take the example of the most benign of these allegations, that of lying. When a prophet is sent by God to a group of people, he can expect the deck to be stacked severely against him. They will justly assume him to be a liar until proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be otherwise. They will call him a liar even if they have no proof. A prophet's message rests solely on his truthfulness. If he were ever to lie, even to save his life, then this would prove that he is capable of lying and that he has established for himself guidelines under which it is permissible to lie. This would undermine his whole message as no one could then be sure he had not convinced himself that the end justifies the means, and that in order to get them to become decent people he might be willing to fabricate lies against God himself.

How much worse to drink oneself into a stupor. Alcohol is the door to all evils. Once a person loses control of his faculties he will be capable of anything. Just look at the allegations presented against Lot* (pbuh). He who is willing to drink in such a fashion must realize that he will be accountable for his subsequent actions. It is not an acceptable excuse to say "I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing." If your neighbor drinks himself into a stupor and then runs down your mother with his car, will you say "It's not your fault. You were drunk"? Think about the other allegations for a while and you will understand what we mean. Muslims believe that the prophets of God are above such actions.

A Muslim believes that when God selects a messenger, He chooses the best of the best. He chooses men who will be an inspiration and a good example for their followers. Why the insistence in the Bible that God has such poor judgment? If my prophets, which God sent to guide and teach me, are sinful people, can I not say "What is good enough for my prophet is good enough for me"?

The claim that God wanted to prove the fallibility of humans is quite flimsy. When we elect a congressman, do we look for a man of weak character who we know will use his position to steal and then say: "we did this to prove that thieves are people too," or do we look for the man with the most impeccable character? If this man then steals, do we say "he is only human, don't worry, we might have done the same," or do we say "Kick the son of a gun out of office and throw him in jail!"? When a government sends an ambassador to another country to represent them, do they select a man who they know will bring their country disgrace and dishonor? Since God knows what is in our hearts (Deuteronomy 8:2), does this not make him the supreme judge of character? God's prophets are human, and thus, imperfect. However, they are not this low.

Even in this age of indulgence, we can find individuals of sterling character who rise above allowing themselves to become falling-down drunk. There are monks who spend their whole life without a mate much less committing adultery. Incest is such a filthy word that even the most brazen criminal would be disgusted at such a thought. Are our highest examples of humankind less than these men?

Let us now look at another allegation against Jesus (pbuh). In John 2:1-10 we read about Jesus' (pbuh) alleged treatment of his mother. In these verses, Jesus (pbuh) is alleged to have said to his mother John 2:4

"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Is this how a good Christian talks to his mother? The same mother who carried him in her womb for nine months and endured the pains of labor and birth for him. The same mother who endured the lies, accusations, and injuries of many with regard to her chastity because of him? The same mother who suckled him and raised him? Is this how the meek lamb of God is alleged to have responded to his mother's question? Can he find no better manner to address her than that which he used to address the adulteress in John 8:10: ".....Woman, where are those thine accusers?"?

In the Qur'an we read the story of the miraculous birth of Jesus (pbuh) wherein we find a defense of Jesus (pbuh) against such claims:

"Then she (Mary pbuh) brought him (Jesus pbuh) to her own folk carrying him. They said: 'O Mary, you have truly come with a most wicked innovation. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a wicked man nor was your mother a harlot'. Then she pointed to him. They said: 'How can we speak to one who is in the cradle, a young child?'. He spoke: 'Lo! I am the servant of God, He has given me the Scripture and appointed me a prophet. And has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me prayer and charity so long as I live. And (has made me) dutiful toward my mother and not overbearing or miserable. So peace upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive(the hereafter)"

The noble Qur'an, Maryam(19):27-33.

I think you point out several important things, but i'm not really sure why.
You obviously question the bible, but you do not seem to question the qur'an in the same way.
I'd question them both in similar manner.

You aren't thinking in the divine way, nor in the possibility of alternate timelines, so often used in sci-fi variants.

The divine solution is to ignore what may seem to be "logical" to mere humans ... but i won't dwell on that, since i really don't belive that option either.
No. i find the second more probable:
That God, if all-powerful, also omniscennt, and able to see what each action may result in.
Considering that, God decide what to do and what not according to which results in what.
So, God may do anything, but if God wants a certain result, then god is limited to the variants that gives the intended result.

But, it is possible that neither true omnipotence nor true omniscence is possible, at least not if one applies known logic to it.

Practically omnipotent, but technically limited once deciding to stick to a decision, or a plan.
There may still be some leeway even inside some plans, or if God don't care about plans at all very much and/or doesn't take any responsibility, then God might act on whims anyway, seeing what may happen, but not caring.
But then it would be like having omnisence and not using it.
So, back to the decision resulting in limitation.

One may need to differ between Potential Omnipotence and Practical Omnipotence.
As you pointed out, Practical Omnipotence is not working fully with Full Omniscence, if God is then also knows God's own actions.
However, if God stands outside of the Omniscence, then the tesult of alternate decisions appears, and God then also keeps the Omnipotence.
But, if God then decides to stick to a decision, or to a plan, then the potential power do not get limited, but the possible choises do get limited.