On the omniscience of God

[annabenedetti]

You don't have to be to understand the argument.

Then you should be able to sum it up in your own words. I'm listening.

All of it. Hence me sharing the link to the entire article.

I'll rephrase the question, in the hope that you'll have an answer:

Which specific part of my post did you reply to with this interminably dense link?

1. God is outside of time
2. He's omniscient
3. He knows what choices you will make, and how He will work in your life according to those choices.
4. It may seem like He changed His mind in answer to your prayers, but it's more that He knew you would ask A or B or C - or choose A or B or C - and He knew outside of time how He would respond to your free will choice.

5. I grapple with the idea of how much our free will is constrained by determinism (not in a Calvinist sense though, in a biological/environmental sense)
6. if God is all powerful, that He cannot be limited by His own power
7. if God decides to change His mind, He'll change His mind.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you should be able to sum it up in your own words. I'm listening.

To correct what I said:

You don't have to be to understand the argument.

You don't have to understand everything that was said, but you should understand the basics of what is being said.

Reason is a good thing. The article makes a rational argument, presenting logical statements in order.

I'll rephrase the question, in the hope that you'll have an answer:

Which specific part of my post did you reply to with this interminably dense link?

1. God is outside of time
2. He's omniscient
3. He knows what choices you will make, and how He will work in your life according to those choices.
4. It may seem like He changed His mind in answer to your prayers, but it's more that He knew you would ask A or B or C - or choose A or B or C - and He knew outside of time how He would respond to your free will choice.

5. I grapple with the idea of how much our free will is constrained by determinism (not in a Calvinist sense though, in a biological/environmental sense)
6. if God is all powerful, that He cannot be limited by His own power
7. if God decides to change His mind, He'll change His mind.

1. Being "outside of time" is an irrational concept. God is not irrational.

2, 3, 4, 5. If God is infallibly omniscient, then man does not have free will. The reason you grapple with how free will relates to God being omniscient is that the two are mutually exclusive.

6. God is certainly powerful, but He does not have all power, as he has delegated power to earthly authorities, not to mention certain angels.

As for 7, there is no logical reason for God to change His mind if He knows everything beforehand. He would simply proceed in the way He knew would come about, because He would have already been influenced by His knowledge of future events. I hesitate to proceed further past this point, because in all likelihood, I'll end up talking in circles just trying to explain what God being omniscient would look like. So to summarize, the concept that God has all knowledge, past, present, future, etc, in essence, "omniscient," is irrational, and not only that, but countless times in the Bible God is described not as knowing everything, but instead as a God who interacts with people and other beings, learning about them through those interactions.

https://opentheism.org lists 33 different categories of Bible verses that show God to be free and that the future is open, as opposed to having the omni-s and im-s as attributes and that the future is settled.

Category 6 lists verses where God says things happened that never entered His mind.

Catgory 7 lists verses where God says the future is uncertain.

11 lists verses where God expects that something will happen that doesn't happen.

12 lists verses that show God increases and learns.

14 lists verses that shows that God wants to see what men will do.

15 has verses where God does not have all present knowledge.

17 lists verses where God indicates that certain prophecies will go unfulfilled.

19 lists verses where God more explicitly says He does not know what will happen.

23 lists verses that show that God's people believe God can change His mind.

24 lists verses where God's people believe they can change His mind and they do change His mind.

25, God's people believe that a prophecy does not have to come to pass.

26 lists verses where some things happen by chance.

27 lists verses describing men as omniscient, unchanging, having sovereignty and foreknowledge.

29 lists verses that show that prayer can change what would otherwise be the future.

30 lists verses where God gains experiential knowledge.

31 lists verses that show that certain prophecies were not fulfilled as given.

32 lists verses that show that things could have been different.

Feel free to look through the categories for ones that you think I might have missed.

 

[Clete]

The Bible does not say God is immutable. It says God changes not.

Exactly! That's just exactly the whole entire point!

Plato, Augustine, Luther and Calvin all said that God is immutable, not the bible. And they meant exactly that, by the way. The doctrine of immutability goes way way beyond a belief that God's character (i.e. The traits related to His personality and manner - "who" God is) remains the same. They absolutely mean just what I've been describing to you and the whole doctrinal system that we call Calvinism today is based on and logically derived from that single premise. Your two sentence post is sufficient to blow their entire theological construct into dust.

If God became a man and died and rose from the dead (or any one of those things) then Calvinism is false.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Then you should be able to sum it up in your own words. I'm listening.



I'll rephrase the question, in the hope that you'll have an answer:

Which specific part of my post did you reply to with this interminably dense link?

1. God is outside of time
2. He's omniscient
3. He knows what choices you will make, and how He will work in your life according to those choices.
4. It may seem like He changed His mind in answer to your prayers, but it's more that He knew you would ask A or B or C - or choose A or B or C - and He knew outside of time how He would respond to your free will choice.

5. I grapple with the idea of how much our free will is constrained by determinism (not in a Calvinist sense though, in a biological/environmental sense)
6. if God is all powerful, that He cannot be limited by His own power
7. if God decides to change His mind, He'll change His mind.

Try this as a response to your position...

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

That is one of a hundred different ways to logically prove that Classical Christianity (i.e. Christian doctrine derived from Aristotle and Plato) is self contradictory. So much so, in fact, that if the bible actually taught it, then it would be proof that the bible is false and all of Christianity with it. The point being that the bible does not teach it. Your preacher teaches it but the bible does not.

Clete

 

[annabenedetti]

Try this as a response to your position...

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

That is one of a hundred different ways to logically prove that Classical Christianity (i.e. Christian doctrine derived from Aristotle and Plato) is self contradictory. So much so, in fact, that if the bible actually taught it, then it would be proof that the bible is false and all of Christianity with it. The point being that the bible does not teach it. Your preacher teaches it but the bible does not.

Clete

I read that in JR's link, but it seems to me an attempt to lock God into "necessarily" doing something, which can't be right. I can see God acting based on any one of my decisions, letting me make the decision, yet knowing ahead of time how He would respond to any action I took. That doesn't take away free will, and it doesn't lock God into "necessarily" doing anything to fit our human logic.

 

[annabenedetti]

Reason is a good thing. The article makes a rational argument, presenting logical statements in order.

You realize the article presents more than one approach the idea of foreknowledge and free will? Compatibilism and Incompatibilism?

And the ideas of more than one philosopher/theorist (Aristotle, Augustine, Nelson Pike, William of Ockham, Duns Scotus, Luis de Molina, Joseph Runzo,Richard Purtill, J.R. Lucas, Alan Rhoda, Gregory Boyd, Thomas Belt, Dale Tuggy, Patrick Todd, D.K. Johnson, and Dean Zimmerman for example)?

1. Being "outside of time" is an irrational concept. God is not irrational.

Why is being outside time irrational for an eternal being with no beginning and no end?

2, 3, 4, 5. If God is infallibly omniscient, then man does not have free will. The reason you grapple with how free will relates to God being omniscient is that the two are mutually exclusive.

You're saying God isn't infallibly omniscient?

Is he infallible? That is, do you think He makes mistakes?

Do you believe He doesn't know everything?

6. God is certainly powerful, but He does not have all power, as he has delegated power to earthly authorities, not to mention certain angels.

You don't believe God is all-powerful?

Why do you limit God in this way?

As for 7, there is no logical reason for God to change His mind if He knows everything beforehand. He would simply proceed in the way He knew would come about, because He would have already been influenced by His knowledge of future events. I hesitate to proceed further past this point, because in all likelihood, I'll end up talking in circles just trying to explain what God being omniscient would look like. So to summarize, the concept that God has all knowledge, past, present, future, etc, in essence, "omniscient," is irrational, and not only that, but countless times in the Bible God is described not as knowing everything, but instead as a God who interacts with people and other beings, learning about them through those interactions.

I appreciate you took the time for this post, but I also hesitate to proceed further. I don't have any arguments someone else hasn't argued before me, and better than me, but I simply cannot see limiting God's power in this way.

 

[Clete]

I read that in JR's link, but it seems to me an attempt to lock God into "necessarily" doing something, which can't be right.

Why can't it be right?

Logical Necessity​

​

1 That state of things which obliges something to be as it is because no alternative is logically possible.​

Further, it doesn't lock the real God into anything anyway because the real God doesn't actually know the entire future! That's the whole point!

In other words, the argument isn't about God it's about the consequences of holding certain beliefs. It wouldn't matter whether it was God who infallibly knew your future action or it was someone else. It is the fact that it known in advance that the argument is based on, not who knew it.

I can see God acting based on any one of my decisions, letting me make the decision, yet knowing ahead of time how He would respond to any action I took.

It doesn't matter what you can "see". I can "see" polka dotted unicorns flying at mach 2.5 in my mind's eye; that does mean that they exist or that they are even possible. I can "see" water solidifying at 40° instead of 32° and I could choose to believe that it does so, if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that my belief wouldn't have consequences. It doesn't mean that I won't get wet if I try to walk on top of a body of 38° water.

Do you see my point? What we belief about about one idea has consequences that related to other ideas. That's why reason works and why we can use sound reason to think through certain concepts to see if they are consistent both with themselves and with other concepts.

That doesn't take away free will, and it doesn't lock God into "necessarily" doing anything to fit our human logic.

There is no such thing as "human logic". To whatever extent the term "human logic" refers to anything it refers to faulty logic and / or outright irrationality. Actual logic cannot be done without. You could not read this sentence if real logic (i.e. sound reason) didn't work. Reason is the ONLY tool your mind has by which to understand ANYTHING whatsoever.

READ THIS!!!....
The Nature and Necessity of Logic by Craig S. Hawkins (President of APOLOGETICS INFORMATION MINISTRY)

As for the argument, the fact is, that it has now been established that infallible foreknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive ideas. Meaning that they cannot both be true. If you wish to rationally reject this fact then the burden falls to you to demonstrate a flaw in the argument. Which premise is false? Which arguments do not follow from those premises? If you have no answer and you refuse to permit the argument to persuade your mind then that's fine. Just don't pretend that you hold a rational worldview and maybe check yourself the next time you find someone who believes the Earth is flat or that L. Ron Hubbard was a great man because you can't refute an syllable of what they believe using the very logic that you believe doesn't work.

Clete

 

[Derf]

While it is true that Jesus is a man it is also true that Jesus is God. While it is true that God is not a man, it is true that God has also taken upon Himself the form of a man. It is also true that God appeared in human form to men at specific instances in the OT. When Moses sang that the Lord is a man of war he was talking about God and in the present.


Exodus 15:3
The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

??

 

[marke]

??
View attachment 2274

Jesus is not a jellyfish, as His enemies will find out quickly enough when He returns to earth to judge sin and wickedness.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus is not a jellyfish,

Neither is a Man of War...

 

[DLH]

Does the uninspired translation of the infallible word present the idea of the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God? That depends upon your strictness in observing what those things are. An omnivore doesn't eat everything in the strictest sense of the word. The concept of an omnipresent God isn't supported by scripture. God is said to have a fixed position in heaven. He is mentioned as going from one place to another which would be redundant if he were omnipresent. He can go anywhere he wishes, though. The concept of God being omniscient and omnipotent are, though not as obviously as omnipresent, limited nonetheless. To suggest omnipotent in the strictest sense would conclude with God being able to do anything, but God can't lie. It isn't really that God isn't capable of lying it is that he can't in the sense that legend has George Washington saying he can not tell a lie. Although the legend is nonsense because George was a politician and cheated regularly on Martha, and so he lied, the sentiment remains the same. God can't lie in the sense that it is contrary to his moral principals. Is God omniscient in that he knows everything? Not in the strictest sense. He sends messengers to see if what is being said about Sodom and Gomorrah is true, he asks Adam and later Cain what they had done. It isn't that he is incapable to determine these things, but it isn't presented as if he already knew the answer or outcome.

 

[DLH]

I read that argument and don't accept it. Why? Because it ignores that we humans are finite, and that God's knowledge is not limited to what we finite beings are capable of understanding. What we know of God has been revealed to us. We didn't figure any of this out on our own.

Well, now this is interesting. In context I'm not sure if I agree or not. We can't firmly establish if God is infinite; we can't really establish that we are finite, given the apostate adoption of the immortal soul (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) from Greek philosophy (Socrates), but then we can't establish that this fact would confirm or disconfirm the proposition. To me it seems like saying the rooster always crows before sunrise so roosters summon it to rise.

But what's really interesting about your statement is that God's knowledge is not limited to what we are capable of understanding. In most cases this is undoubtedly true, but there are exceptions if you are using the term understanding as having intimate knowledge. I can understand that it would suck to be run over by a Buick, but I can't understand it in the sense of having intimate knowledge of that scenario. God can't understand sin and life on Earth in that sense of intimate knowledge.

The tree of knowledge of good and bad, for example, represented God's rightful sovereignty, not his intimate knowledge of what was bad. After all, what bad could Adam do in a practical sense, aside from touching or eating the tree and it's fruit, not filling and subduing the earth? The tree was symbolic for God's authority to establish what was good and what was bad for his creation. Adam decided to challenge that.

How did God speak our universe into existence? Can anyone explain that to me?
How did God speak life into existence? Can anyone explain that to me?
How could God have no beginning and no end? Can anyone explain that to me?

The answer to the first two is obvious. The holy spirit. Holy means sacred or belonging to God and spirit means invisible active force from the Greek pneuma, which the English pneumatic and pneumonia comes. God's invisible active force. Hands and fingers are often used metaphorically in scripture in application to the holy spirit. On the third question you might as well ask the cat. I can't wrap my head around it, but what is the alternative? Everything just appeared out of nowhere from nothing?

Just so how do we think we can explain God's capabilities completely with finite reasoning when God's ability to reason and the infinite extent of His knowledge stretches so far beyond ours that we cannot even comprehend it? Both of those attributes of His are infinite: without end.

We were created in his image. Adam had the potential of everlasting life. Jesus is what Adam, what we were meant to be. That's the goal.

 

[Derf]

Does the uninspired translation of the infallible word present the idea of the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God? That depends upon your strictness in observing what those things are. An omnivore doesn't eat everything in the strictest sense of the word. The concept of an omnipresent God isn't supported by scripture. God is said to have a fixed position in heaven. He is mentioned as going from one place to another which would be redundant if he were omnipresent. He can go anywhere he wishes, though. The concept of God being omniscient and omnipotent are, though not as obviously as omnipresent, limited nonetheless. To suggest omnipotent in the strictest sense would conclude with God being able to do anything, but God can't lie. It isn't really that God isn't capable of lying it is that he can't in the sense that legend has George Washington saying he can not tell a lie. Although the legend is nonsense because George was a politician and cheated regularly on Martha, and so he lied, the sentiment remains the same. God can't lie in the sense that it is contrary to his moral principals. Is God omniscient in that he knows everything? Not in the strictest sense. He sends messengers to see if what is being said about Sodom and Gomorrah is true, he asks Adam and later Cain what they had done. It isn't that he is incapable to determine these things, but it isn't presented as if he already knew the answer or outcome.

In general, I agree with your post, but not with the last part. God is presented as already knowing about Cain.
Genesis 4:10 (KJV) And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Now, whether God knew about Able’s fate because He saw it happen, or because He actually heard some noise made by blood spilled on the ground that we can’t hear, or some other reason, is not provided. And because He knew about Able before He talked to Cain, we can easily presume He knew not only where Adam was, but also what he had done, though not how He knows.
2 Chronicles 16:9 (KJV)
For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of [them] whose heart [is] perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Zechariah 4:10 (KJV)
For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel [with] those seven; they [are] the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Revelation 5:6 (KJV)
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I recommend, as often as possible, that you find scripture to back up your claims, else it’s just your opinion against someone else’s.

 

[DLH]

In general, I agree with your post, but not with the last part. God is presented as already knowing about Cain.
Genesis 4:10 (KJV) And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Now, whether God knew about Able’s fate because He saw it happen, or because He actually heard some noise made by blood spilled on the ground that we can’t hear, or some other reason, is not provided. And because He knew about Able before He talked to Cain, we can easily presume He knew not only where Adam was, but also what he had done, though not how He knows.

That's good reasoning from the scriptures. I'm not sure I agree. He asked, what had Cain done. We are talking about omniscience which would suggest God had known what he had done before he had seen or heard anything.

2 Chronicles 16:9 (KJV)
For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of [them] whose heart [is] perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Zechariah 4:10 (KJV)
For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel [with] those seven; they [are] the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

What I'm suggesting is that Jehovah can get to know anything he wishes to know, but that he doesn't know everything. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for him to look, for his eyes to search through the whole earth, or to search the heart and kidneys.

Revelation 5:6 (KJV)
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

And the seven candlesticks. The congregations at the time Revelation was being written. They are named. For what use are eyes to see what is already known?

I recommend, as often as possible, that you find scripture to back up your claims, else it’s just your opinion against someone else’s.

Good advice, but I did that already and it has only caused more confusion. We aren't on the same page. Before there were chapters and verses all that was said is that it is written. For it is written. I need to start a new thread about what the Bible means. Not bits and pieces of theology. I will do that.

 

[Derf]

That's good reasoning from the scriptures. I'm not sure I agree. He asked, what had Cain done. We are talking about omniscience which would suggest God had known what he had done before he had seen or heard anything.

I think we’re in agreement that omniscience doesn’t provide the how, it only supplies the what—and then some may extrapolate too far on the what when they assume the how. If the Bible is exhaustive in its description of the how, which I doubt, then it helps us determine the what, and why.

What I'm suggesting is that Jehovah can get to know anything he wishes to know, but that he doesn't know everything. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for him to look, for his eyes to search through the whole earth, or to search the heart and kidneys.

Depends on what you mean by “everything”. If everything includes what I create tomorrow, as well as thirty years from now, then I agree He doesn’t know everything, because He made us to be creative, and not locked in to only do what someone determined for us before we existed. But if “everything” only includes the things that exist now, along with what He plans to create/do, plus whatever actions started before now will result in after now, then I’d say He’s omniscient.

And the seven candlesticks. The congregations at the time Revelation was being written. They are named. For what use are eyes to see what is already known?

Acknowledged above.

Good advice, but I did that already and it has only caused more confusion. We aren't on the same page. Before there were chapters and verses all that was said is that it is written. For it is written. I need to start a new thread about what the Bible means. Not bits and pieces of theology. I will do that.

That’s up to you, but if you’re going to write a whole treatise on it, I probably won’t have time to stay with it. Try starting with bite-sized chunks.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In general, I agree with your post, but not with the last part. God is presented as already knowing about Cain.
Genesis 4:10 (KJV) And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

That would be present knowledge, and is easily reconcilable with what was said, as all it would take would be for God to investigate what had happened (or even watch it as it happened) before confronting Cain about it. That doesn't indicate "omniscience" in the purest sense of the word, but learning.

Now, whether God knew about Able’s fate because He saw it happen, or because He actually heard some noise made by blood spilled on the ground that we can’t hear, or some other reason, is not provided. And because He knew about Able before He talked to Cain, we can easily presume He knew not only where Adam was, but also what he had done, though not how He knows.

I mean, it wouldn't be very difficult for God to figure out what Adam had done by the witnesses to his sin, especially since God has a much keener eye than any human. The very fact that Adam and his wife were hiding indicates guilt, and it would be a simple matter for God to, as the verses you quoted below show, look at the tree, and see if any of the fruits are missing, and see the inedible parts (if any) are laying on the ground nearby, all of that instantly, but then you have Adam who basically admitted his sin:

Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” - Genesis 3:9-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3:9-13&version=NKJV

2 Chronicles 16:9 (KJV)
For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of [them] whose heart [is] perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Zechariah 4:10 (KJV)
For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel [with] those seven; they [are] the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

Revelation 5:6 (KJV)
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I recommend, as often as possible, that you find scripture to back up your claims, else it’s just your opinion against someone else’s.

 

[ttruscott]

I recommend, as often as possible, that you find scripture to back up your claims, else it’s just your opinion against someone else’s.

Every interpretation of the meaning of a verse is an opinion...

The KJV opinion of Job 38:7 is that the angels were singing the praises for GOD when it clearly says ALL THE SONS OF GOD sang, not angels. The KJV is also of the opinion that the word RETURN in Psalm 9:17 should actually be its opposite, ie, are turned into.

So if words matter then we must be very careful to take our opinion from the verse, what it actually says, and not put our opinion into the verse, what we believe it should say.

 

[Derf]

Every interpretation of the meaning of a verse is an opinion...

The KJV opinion of Job 38:7 is that the angels were singing the praises for GOD when it clearly says ALL THE SONS OF GOD sang, not angels. The KJV is also of the opinion that the word RETURN in Psalm 9:17 should actually be its opposite, ie, are turned into.

So if words matter then we must be very careful to take our opinion from the verse, what it actually says, and not put our opinion into the verse, what we believe it should say.

At least when we start from the same scripture, we have a chance of ending up with the same conclusion. Starting without scripture, it’s all opinion.

 

[Clete]

Does the uninspired translation of the infallible word present the idea of the omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God? That depends upon your strictness in observing what those things are. An omnivore doesn't eat everything in the strictest sense of the word. The concept of an omnipresent God isn't supported by scripture. God is said to have a fixed position in heaven. He is mentioned as going from one place to another which would be redundant if he were omnipresent. He can go anywhere he wishes, though. The concept of God being omniscient and omnipotent are, though not as obviously as omnipresent, limited nonetheless. To suggest omnipotent in the strictest sense would conclude with God being able to do anything, but God can't lie. It isn't really that God isn't capable of lying it is that he can't in the sense that legend has George Washington saying he can not tell a lie. Although the legend is nonsense because George was a politician and cheated regularly on Martha, and so he lied, the sentiment remains the same. God can't lie in the sense that it is contrary to his moral principals. Is God omniscient in that he knows everything? Not in the strictest sense. He sends messengers to see if what is being said about Sodom and Gomorrah is true, he asks Adam and later Cain what they had done. It isn't that he is incapable to determine these things, but it isn't presented as if he already knew the answer or outcome.

Excellent!

The omni doctrines are actually derivations from Greek philosophy, not the bible. It's a rather rare find to discover someone willing to allow the bible's plain teaching to over ride the popular doctrines.

To sum up what you've said...

• God has the power, skill, intelligence and wisdom to do anything doable that He desires to do. He cannot do the rationally absurd.

The other two are corollaries of this same idea...

• God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know. He cannot know the rationally unknowable, nor is He required to be a first person witness to every event that occurs.
• God is everywhere He wants to be, when and if He wants to be there. God cannot be in, or go to, a place that does not exist.

Note that these attributes of God are quantitative in nature. They have to do with how much power God has, how much God knows and how big God is. The more important attributes of God are those that have to do with His quality. God is alive, He is living, personal, relational, loving and righteous. And it is important to keep in mind that these qualitative attributes are the more important because whether you place the qualitative over the quantitative or vise versa has big implications on how you read, understand and interpret scripture.

I think you would very much enjoy reading the following debate which revolves around this exact issue....

Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X Samuel Lamerson vs. Bob Enyart

 

[Red Wave Rising]

My two cents: I am in the uncomfortable position of saying that annabenedetti's posts here make the most sense of them all. Especially this:

1. God is outside of time
2. He's omniscient
3. He knows what choices you will make, and how He will work in your life according to those choices.
4. It may seem like He changed His mind in answer to your prayers, but it's more that He knew you would ask A or B or C - or choose A or B or C - and He knew outside of time how He would respond to your free will choice.

We cannot fully explain God's omniscience using human language because we are just incapable of fathoming the enormity of it. Much like the Trinity, we cannot fully understand His nature, so too with His Knowledge, we cannot fully understand that either.

All we can do is offer up a number of analogies and adjectives that attempt to reach such heights that are beyond out ability to see.

God IS outside of time. He is in the eternal "present", no future, no past.

Since time is a measurement of change, there can be no time for God because there is no change in God. The slightest bit of change would introduce an imperfection.

We see leaves turn color and seasons change and we know that time goes by. If God was something a minute ago that he is not now, then God would be missing something now that he had a minute ago, and that is not possible for the perfect simple Being.

From the Burning Bush God says, "I AM".

God is. That's it. He IS.

He is pure being, pure existence. He knows all at once, which explains why he can know the free will choice that man makes within man's timeline.

Who is like unto thee, O LORD
from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God