I can tell you what the English words mean in that phrase, but why would that matter? Who reads those words? Almost nobody in my world. They're reading the various English versions of Exodus 8:11. One version translates that as, "If she please not her master" and three others have "If she does not please the master" My point is that I'm not going to defer to any motivated-reasoning apologist's opinion. If he wants to tell me that means something other than what the words say to me, he'll need to make a compelling, evidenced argument.
And this applies to a tri-omni deity how? Just wish the pan clean, or blink a new one into existence, or just will your food cooked without pans. You talk about it as if it only has human capability.
Not by the standards of many, including the poster you quoted: "sounds like your God is either weak or incompetent." But then you probably don't have any standards for your deity's behavior. Whatever it says and does is assumed to be good, right, true, and effective because it said or did them, so saying that it knows how to go about doing things the right way is assumed before examining the evidence by those who think that way, but rejected by those who evaluate the words and acts without prejudice apart from their innate sense of what is good, right, true, and effective.
Have you seen any of the discussions with the Baha'i and their messengers? The criticism was that a tri-omni deity with a message it wanted the world to know would not have sent a man carrying a mundane message written in mundane language to 19th century Persia, and the rebuttal was that since God chose that method, it must have been the most effective one possible.
No, empiricists are not looking for proof.
What he asked for was, "Specific evidence that Bible's stories about Adam and Eve and it's genealogy to Abraham etc are actual history and not myths." You say you have it, but where? Not in your reply.
