Before I cry myself to sleep (did anyone hear me gasp in disbelief when JCWR quit!?):
JCWR: Just because he out-debated you and put more time and effort into it does not mean you were wrong in your intuitive understanding. I was cheering for you and lost my shirt at the betting table on this debate. You had truth on your side and you folded too soon. Don't just cave in because you thought AMR sounds like he knows what he is talking about. His views still have problems and can still be challenged by greater minds than you and I.
I found it ironic that your signature line accuses me of exactly what you did during this short debate. I think you and AMR do not like my informal, assertive style is because you have higher education and confuse a fun, simple forum with a doctoral thesis and defense in an academic setting. We can all make assertions with or without support. This does not prove or disprove their veracity. Knight does not like 'theology' and I do. This does not mean the length of posts or depth or logical argument proves what we believe is true or false. It might not persuade you if assertive (like your assertions did not dent AMR), but they still may be perfectly true and irrefutable.
AMR won the debate despite you having the truth:dead: Will I fall asleep tonight? Arggggg.
AMR: You have a straw man if you think the Open View limits God because we reject timelessness. God's experience of duration is not a limitation on Him like it is for us (God is God; we are finite). Neither love nor time is a limitation on God, but they are aspects of His experience.
You have a flawed view of the 'atonement' if you think Jesus/God had to be timeless in any sense in order to pay an infinite price for many people. I have heard TV evangelists say such things, but it is shallow thinking. His death is the issue, not whether He is timeless or not. It is not a literal payment, but a substitute for the penalty of sin (literal payment leads to universalism).
Verbosity, debating skill, intelligence was good for winning the debate, but still does not mean your views are correct or that a more informed opponent could not knock you down and out.
Bruce Ware, Calvinist and strident critic of Open Theism, rejects your view, but does not take it far enough. He uses a middle knowledge concept to retain determinism while rejecting free will and timelessness. The arguments are not as simple as you think. Have you refuted William Lane Craig's view of God being timeless in eternity and temporal after creation?
Gen. 1:1 is about the beginning of a unique measure of time for us, not the concept of time itself. The other proof texts have been answered by Open Theists (you may want to recheck expository dictionaries and the Greek).
I would not be willing to engage you and know you would be superior on many fronts.
However, I do assert that you are missing the boat on this and rely on proof texts to retain a preconceived theology (you are anti-free will...does not help). You also underestimate how philosophical vs biblical-logical your view is.