Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[DFT_Dave]

I've pointed out that your argument that God can be either "in time" or "out of time" is a false dilemma.

This has never been my argument!

I have always stated that God cannot be "in time" and "out of time" at the "same time".

My point is not a false dilemma, by eliminating "at same time" you have created a "strawman".

--Dave

 

[Shasta]

Even if nothing existed moments would still pass.

The next question is how you define moments.

 

[Shasta]

Is there nothing in you that is non-material?

If so, then there is no soul or spirit and no God. If there exists as part of us that which is non-material, spirit or soul, then your whole argument breaks down.

If there is movement in God, movement of spirit, then there is also time in God.

--Dave

i never said that we do not have a soul and a spirit or that we are entirely material creatures.

"Movement" means change. If God has been changing for an infinite amount of time already what kinds of changes has He been making in Himself?

 

[Shasta]

(1 Kings 8:27) God does not have to go from one part of the heavens to another. According to this He is already there.

“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!"

The earth has it's limits, as does the temple, as do the heavens, but God is "free" to go outside of and beyond them. He is free to go where ever he wants. The God who is everywhere and in everything is "not free" not to be everywhere and in everything.

--Dave

I actually think we agreed on something.

 

[Lighthouse]

The next question is how you define moments.

Each now is a moment.

 

[Dialogos]

Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc. are not units of time; they are units of measurement.

They are units of measurement that measure exactly what?

And in the end, they too are not physical.

In the end of what?

You could prove that they are not physical by telling us what non-physical processes, phenomenon or aspect of non-physical reality those things (minutes, hours, days, weeks etc...) measure.


Oh but wait, you can't keep your thoughts consistent enough to avoid contradicting yourself in your own post.

And there it is; these units of measurement aren't actually measuring time, but rather physical actions by which we know time has passed.

And that's the point, they measure physical actions. In fact, there is no other way by which we know that time has passed other than to measure them in physical actions, is there? Which makes the case, quite strongly, that time is intricately bound up in the physicality of the universe and there is absolutely no evidence that time was anything like it is now prior to the creation (if it even existed at all) and there is no evidence that time will not be radically altered after the creation of the new heaven's and the new earth.

Time is a concept, as are all measurements of it. None of them are dependent upon the physical as even if the physical actions ceased time would continue passing.

Being able to conceptualize something does not make it an ontological reality reality. Atheists are very good at conceptualizing a universe with no Creator, but The Creator exists nonetheless.

Not once have I argued that God has a beginning.

No, you just like to argue, even if there isn't a point to be made.

Non sequitur. Outside of God and His attributes everything has a cause; and God is the first cause, yet this does not disprove my statement.

You mean this statement?

Having a beginning does not equate to having a cause.

Yes, yes it does.

Here's a basic philosophical truism of a theistic worldview.
"Everything that has a beginning, has a cause, and everything that has a cause has a beginning."

I am simply asking you to show your argument from evidence that supports itself. I am not actually arguing anything, except that the passages upon which you are relying do not support your position.

I think you are mistaken. You have many arguments, you appear to be quite fond of arguing, it’s just that you don't have a point. Deuteronomy 33:27 does, in fact support the position that God has no beginning and I think that for most, this doesn’t actually need a great deal more explanation. No doubt, you will continue to argue this point.

These passages do not say what you claim,

Non-responsive. Until you can show us otherwise, we will all continue to believe that they mean what they say on face value. Which is that God knows what all men are doing (Proverbs 5:21) and that there is no place where the deeds of men go unnoticed by God (Proverbs 15:3). This is, of course, in contrast to your silly interpretation of Genesis 18-19 where God is unsure of the truth of the cries that have come before Him concerning the behavior of the residents of Sodom.

and you have yet to provide a passage showing that God definitively knows the future, let alone exhaustively.

Pay attention.
In post #211 I referenced Psalm 139:16, John 6:64 and Acts 4:27-28.
In post #222 Paulos brought up Ps 147:5 and Isa 57:15.
Your response was the following:

In the verses provided, the only one that says anything about infinite is in regard to God's understanding, not His presence, form or existence. The next verse states that He inhabits eternity, which says nothing regarding infinite existence. And the third refers to His power as eternal, which, again, means nothing toward being infinite.

To which I replied:

So you now agree that God's understanding is infinite then right? Just as a matter of clarification, just how far into the future is infinity?

Do you remember how you replied?

Do you not know what a figure of speech is? Understanding is not a tangible thing; to say intangible things, such as concepts, are infinite does not mean those who hold them are as well. In fact, a concept cannot be physically infinite, for it is not a physical thing. (Post 236)

That’s convenient. Everything that you disagree with in scripture becomes a “figure of speech” so that you don’t have to take it literally, right?
How about this, figures of speech are common, they are figures of speech because they are demonstrably common in the language of the day. We know that “raining cats and dogs” is a figure of speech because we can see or hear it spoken in a variety of different places all of which speak to the intensity of the rain. So the burden is really on you and the OV crowd to demonstrate that each of these is a “figure of speech” and that they shouldn’t be taken literally. You can do that by showing other places in the scriptures or in other literature of the same time that the phrase was meant to be taken in a figurative fashion. Unfortunately for you, you haven’t and even more unfortunately for you, the context is about magnifying God’s might, understanding and power rather than pointing out God’s limitations.
Until you can prove otherwise, good exegesis assumes that Psalm 147:5 means that God’s understanding is, in fact, infinite. Which logically necessitates that He can see infinitely into the future, and thus provides for you your coveted demonstration that God knows the future exhaustively.
I’m sure that If I haven’t brought up Isaiah 46:10 someone has and that definitely gives you proof that God knows the future definitively.
The problem is not that you haven’t been shown the scriptures it’s that you refuse to rightly understand them and believe them.

 

[Lighthouse]

They are units of measurement that measure exactly what?

The passage of moments.

In the end of what?

:doh:

It's a turn of phrase.

You could prove that they are not physical by telling us what non-physical processes, phenomenon or aspect of non-physical reality those things (minutes, hours, days, weeks etc...) measure.

I've already told you. Are you too stupid to pay attention and recall?

Oh but wait, you can't keep your thoughts consistent enough to avoid contradicting yourself in your own post.

Quit smoking pot.

And that's the point, they measure physical actions. In fact, there is no other way by which we know that time has passed other than to measure them in physical actions, is there? Which makes the case, quite strongly, that time is intricately bound up in the physicality of the universe and there is absolutely no evidence that time was anything like it is now prior to the creation (if it even existed at all) and there is no evidence that time will not be radically altered after the creation of the new heaven's and the new earth.

:Slippery: Call Harry Potter, I've found a stoned philosopher!

Being able to conceptualize something does not make it an ontological reality reality. Atheists are very good at conceptualizing a universe with no Creator, but The Creator exists nonetheless.

Just how much cannabis have you had?

Do you smoke it, vaporize it or eat it?

No, you just like to argue, even if there isn't a point to be made.

So you're making assumptions and accusations now?

You mean this statement?

Yes, yes it does.

Tu son loco.

Here's a basic philosophical truism of a theistic worldview.
"Everything that has a beginning, has a cause, and everything that has a cause has a beginning."

Prove it.

I think you are mistaken. You have many arguments, you appear to be quite fond of arguing, it’s just that you don't have a point. Deuteronomy 33:27 does, in fact support the position that God has no beginning and I think that for most, this doesn’t actually need a great deal more explanation. No doubt, you will continue to argue this point.

Those of us in Christ have eternal life; that life had a beginning.

Non-responsive. Until you can show us otherwise, we will all continue to believe that they mean what they say on face value.

I'm the one taking it at face value; you're reading your preconceptions into it.

Which is that God knows what all men are doing (Proverbs 5:21) and that there is no place where the deeds of men go unnoticed by God (Proverbs 15:3). This is, of course, in contrast to your silly interpretation of Genesis 18-19 where God is unsure of the truth of the cries that have come before Him concerning the behavior of the residents of Sodom.

Prov. 5:21 does not say what you claim; you're reading into it.

Prov. 15:3 The eyes of God are His people.

Pay attention.
In post #211 I referenced Psalm 139:16, John 6:64 and Acts 4:27-28.
In post #222 Paulos brought up Ps 147:5 and Isa 57:15.
Your response was the following:

To which I replied:

Do you remember how you replied?

That’s convenient. Everything that you disagree with in scripture becomes a “figure of speech” so that you don’t have to take it literally, right?
How about this, figures of speech are common, they are figures of speech because they are demonstrably common in the language of the day. We know that “raining cats and dogs” is a figure of speech because we can see or hear it spoken in a variety of different places all of which speak to the intensity of the rain. So the burden is really on you and the OV crowd to demonstrate that each of these is a “figure of speech” and that they shouldn’t be taken literally. You can do that by showing other places in the scriptures or in other literature of the same time that the phrase was meant to be taken in a figurative fashion. Unfortunately for you, you haven’t and even more unfortunately for you, the context is about magnifying God’s might, understanding and power rather than pointing out God’s limitations.
Until you can prove otherwise, good exegesis assumes that Psalm 147:5 means that God’s understanding is, in fact, infinite. Which logically necessitates that He can see infinitely into the future, and thus provides for you your coveted demonstration that God knows the future exhaustively.
I’m sure that If I haven’t brought up Isaiah 46:10 someone has and that definitely gives you proof that God knows the future definitively.
The problem is not that you haven’t been shown the scriptures it’s that you refuse to rightly understand them and believe them.

And again, none of those passages state that God has exhaustive or definite foreknowledge.

And I do take it literally that God's understanding is infinite. I don't agree with you on the definition of understanding, nor the extrapolation that one with infinite understanding must also be infinite, not that they must also have EDF. Neither of those logically follow; no matter how much you want to argue that they do.

And Isa. 46:10 Says that God declares things that are not yet; it does not state that He simply knows them. Of course God knows what He declares. And the fact that it states these things are not yet means that they do not yet exist as they would have to for God to know them apart from declaring them.

 

[Shasta]

This has never been my argument!

I have always stated that God cannot be "in time" and "out of time" at the "same time".

My point is not a false dilemma, by eliminating "at same time" you have created a "strawman".

--Dave

Does this mean you believe He was out of time and now is?

 

[Dialogos]

The passage of moments.

Define moments.

Is it a definite unit of time or an indefinite period of time?

Which do you mean?

What unit of time is equal to a single moment, a minute, second, millisecond?

Does a moment with God equal a moment with humanity?


Now, for a litany of ad hominem attacks that show you to incapable of carrying on a serious conversation.

I've already told you. Are you too stupid to pay attention and recall?

Quit smoking pot.

:Slippery: Call Harry Potter, I've found a stoned philosopher!

Just how much cannabis have you had?

Do you smoke it, vaporize it or eat it?

Tu son loco.

Grow up.

To my assertion that everything that has a beginning has a cause you said:

Prove it.

It’s a truism, I am not deluded enough to think that you can be persuaded of even the most basic philosophical premises so I won't be wasting my time trying to prove what is true prima facie.
If you'd like to disprove what is true on its face then just give us an example of something that has a beginning, but no cause.
Otherwise, you might consider that this truism is not only philosophically true it is biblically true for if there was something that could have a beginning without a cause, then God did not cause it, and therefore God did not create it, which falsifies John 1:3.

Do you believe John 1:3 Brandon?

Regarding Eternal you said:

Those of us in Christ have eternal life; that life had a beginning.

And?

Just because eternal sometimes means having a beginning but not end, does not mean it always means having a beginning but not end. It can also mean having no beginning and no end, as it demonstrably does in Deuteronomy 33:27 as it does in Hebrews 9:14 and as it does in Romans 16:26. If you'd like to argue suggest that they don't mean this, then do as you please, you will only prove yourself a heretic.

Why don't you tell us what eternal means in those verses Brandon?

Prov. 5:21 does not say what you claim; you're reading into it.

Nope, I just believe what it says. The same goes for Prov 15:3, to which you say.

Prov. 15:3 The eyes of God are His people.

Which version are you using, none of the versions I have access to say anything about "his people" in that verse.

HCSB Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, observing the wicked and the good.1 ESV Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good. KJV Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. NAU Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. NET Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on those who are evil and those who are good. NIV Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.c NKJ Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good. NLT Proverbs 15:3 The LORD is watching everywhere, keeping his eye on both the evil and the good. NRS Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.

Back up your interpretation Brandon, I am getting tired of abiding your unsupported assertions.
If this verse means that God only sees the behavior of His people then why does the verse say that God’s eyes are in every place (or everywhere)? Why does it say that his eyes are upon both the evil and the good?

Regarding the passages I cite for God's foreknowledge, you state:

And again, none of those passages state that God has exhaustive or definite foreknowledge.

They all state that God has definite foreknowledge. To the extent that God can know anything of the future He knows it definitely or he doesn’t know it at all. Definite foreknowledge is a redundant phrase. If God’s foreknowledge isn’t definite then it really isn’t foreknowledge at all, it’s just an educated guess.

And I do take it literally that God's understanding is infinite.

That’s a lie. The OV necessarily limits God’s understanding to the present and the number of present facts are finite. It’s also a lie in that your interpretation of Genesis 18 limits God’s understanding to that which He can see with physical eyes.

I don't agree with you on the definition of understanding, nor the extrapolation that one with infinite understanding must also be infinite,

You don’t agree with the bible on the definition of understanding. It is used to describe the object of knowledge, discernment, intelligence and skill. And you don’t agree with the bible as to the breadth of God’s understanding because your theology assumes that God’s understanding is finite.

not that they must also have EDF. Neither of those logically follow; no matter how much you want to argue that they do.

First, a being with infinite understanding must necessarily have an infinite existence. Again, if you’d like to expose yourself as a heretic, then go ahead and argue for a finite existence for God. Second, a being with infinite understanding cannot have his understanding limited to either geographically or temporally. A God with infinite understanding necessarily knows every present fact and must also know all future facts or it is a farce to call that understanding infinite.

And Isa. 46:10 Says that God declares things that are not yet; it does not state that He simply knows them.

Right, God declares what will happen. Incidentally, here we see the linkage between God’s omnipotence and God’s omniscience. A God who doesn’t know the future isn’t all powerful. Unlike the Arminian, I have no problem seeing the future in terms of God’s active and God’s permissive decrees. All that happens occurs because God brings it about or allows it to happen.

Of course God knows what He declares. And the fact that it states these things are not yet means that they do not yet exist as they would have to for God to know them apart from declaring them.

And those things that God declares come to pass because they exist as facts in the mind of God. Or God is no different from the idol He mocks for not knowing the future.

 

[Lighthouse]

Define moments.

Is it a definite unit of time or an indefinite period of time?

Which do you mean?

What unit of time is equal to a single moment, a minute, second, millisecond?

Does a moment with God equal a moment with humanity?


Now, for a litany of ad hominem attacks that show you to incapable of carrying on a serious conversation.

Grow up.

To my assertion that everything that has a beginning has a cause you said:


It’s a truism, I am not deluded enough to think that you can be persuaded of even the most basic philosophical premises so I won't be wasting my time trying to prove what is true prima facie.
If you'd like to disprove what is true on its face then just give us an example of something that has a beginning, but no cause.
Otherwise, you might consider that this truism is not only philosophically true it is biblically true for if there was something that could have a beginning without a cause, then God did not cause it, and therefore God did not create it, which falsifies John 1:3.

Do you believe John 1:3 Brandon?

Regarding Eternal you said:


And?

Just because eternal sometimes means having a beginning but not end, does not mean it always means having a beginning but not end. It can also mean having no beginning and no end, as it demonstrably does in Deuteronomy 33:27 as it does in Hebrews 9:14 and as it does in Romans 16:26. If you'd like to argue suggest that they don't mean this, then do as you please, you will only prove yourself a heretic.

Why don't you tell us what eternal means in those verses Brandon?



Nope, I just believe what it says. The same goes for Prov 15:3, to which you say.



Which version are you using, none of the versions I have access to say anything about "his people" in that verse.

HCSB Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, observing the wicked and the good.1 ESV Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good. KJV Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. NAU Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. NET Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on those who are evil and those who are good. NIV Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.c NKJ Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good. NLT Proverbs 15:3 The LORD is watching everywhere, keeping his eye on both the evil and the good. NRS Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.

Back up your interpretation Brandon, I am getting tired of abiding your unsupported assertions.
If this verse means that God only sees the behavior of His people then why does the verse say that God’s eyes are in every place (or everywhere)? Why does it say that his eyes are upon both the evil and the good?

Regarding the passages I cite for God's foreknowledge, you state:

They all state that God has definite foreknowledge. To the extent that God can know anything of the future He knows it definitely or he doesn’t know it at all. Definite foreknowledge is a redundant phrase. If God’s foreknowledge isn’t definite then it really isn’t foreknowledge at all, it’s just an educated guess.


That’s a lie. The OV necessarily limits God’s understanding to the present and the number of present facts are finite. It’s also a lie in that your interpretation of Genesis 18 limits God’s understanding to that which He can see with physical eyes.

You don’t agree with the bible on the definition of understanding. It is used to describe the object of knowledge, discernment, intelligence and skill. And you don’t agree with the bible as to the breadth of God’s understanding because your theology assumes that God’s understanding is finite.

First, a being with infinite understanding must necessarily have an infinite existence. Again, if you’d like to expose yourself as a heretic, then go ahead and argue for a finite existence for God. Second, a being with infinite understanding cannot have his understanding limited to either geographically or temporally. A God with infinite understanding necessarily knows every present fact and must also know all future facts or it is a farce to call that understanding infinite.

Right, God declares what will happen. Incidentally, here we see the linkage between God’s omnipotence and God’s omniscience. A God who doesn’t know the future isn’t all powerful. Unlike the Arminian, I have no problem seeing the future in terms of God’s active and God’s permissive decrees. All that happens occurs because God brings it about or allows it to happen.

And those things that God declares come to pass because they exist as facts in the mind of God. Or God is no different from the idol He mocks for not knowing the future.

I'm done with your equivocation.

 

[Desert Reign]

First, a being with infinite understanding

What do you mean by these words? What is 'understanding', how is that infinite?

must necessarily have an infinite existence.

How does that apply to existence, what do you mean by 'infinite existence'?

Again, go ahead and argue for a finite existence for God.

No thanks. But as is usual in debate, you might like to first answer what all this 'infinite' stuff means before putting words into anyone's mouth.

Second, a being with infinite understanding cannot have his understanding limited to either geographically or temporally.

See above - what do you mean by 'infinite understanding'?

A God with infinite understanding necessarily knows every present fact and must also know all future facts or it is a farce to call that understanding infinite.

Ah, so you finally begin to make your presuppositions known. What, then is a fact?

 

[Dialogos]

First, a being with infinite understanding

What do you mean by these words? What is 'understanding', how is that infinite?

I mean what Psalm 147:5 means.

God is a being whose understanding is infinite. God's understanding has no limit, it is infinite. Really, that's not that tough a concept to wrap one's brain around. It just frustrates your theology so you are forced to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

How does that apply to existence, what do you mean by 'infinite existence'?

It applies to existence in that all sentient beings must either derive their understanding from their own experience or from the experience of another sentient being. A being with an infinite understanding must therefore be an infinite being which, incidentally, is disharmonious with the Open View because God's experience is limited to prior knowledge and present knowledge. Any future knowledge on the part of God is really a guess in the OV.

 

[Desert Reign]

Thanks for your answer.

The literal translation of Ps 147:5 says that of God's understanding there is no narration.

And if this is so then how do make the assertion that he knows every present fact? Because if there is no narrating his understanding then you contradict yourself by narrating it.

Once again, what do you mean by a fact?

 

[Dialogos]

Thanks for your answer.

The literal translation of Ps 147:5 says that of God's understanding there is no narration.

No it isn't. First of all, Young's was written in the late 1800 and so you have to take into account that language has morphed from then to now. Young means to convey that God's knowledge is much larger than you are allowing Him to be. Second, Young's is a single person translation and so it isn't as reliable as most of the contemporary word for word versions that have translation committees of linguistic scholars assigned to each book.

The Hebrew term that is translated "infinite" is ayin mispar which literally means "without number" or "without measure."

And if this is so...

It isn't.

then how do make the assertion that he knows every present fact? Because if there is no narrating his understanding then you contradict yourself by narrating it.

???

You appear very fond of trying to create contradictions where there are none. First, even if Psalm 147:5 means what you think it does (though it doesn't), your argument is nonsensical here. If you are right about Young's translation, then the very fact that you are able to "narrate" that God is limited in his present knowledge means that you have contradicted yourself.

Oops.

What Young was probably getting at is that God's understanding exceeds our ability to narrate. God's knowledge is greater than my ability to explain, not smaller. In your theology however, God appears not to be able to ascertain every present fact, and so the knowledge of your god is much easier to narrate than the God of the bible Who knows all things.

 

[oatmeal]

In a nutshell: The belief that possibilities are real. God created a world in which the future is, to some degree, open; open to possibilities.

http://reknew.org/2012/11/video-qa-what-is-open-theism/

That certainly is easily supported by scripture.

God has given us options to just accepting what is handed to us.

All His promises are available.

Receiving those promises is contingent upon our believing to meet the prerequisites.

Ie, Proverbs 3:5-6

God shall direct our paths if and when we meet the three prerequisites listed

1. Trust God (by trusting his words - scripture)

2. Lean not to our own understanding

3. In all our ways acknowledge him

 

[Desert Reign]

No it isn't. First of all, Young's was written in the late 1800 and so you have to take into account that language has morphed from then to now. Young means to convey that God's knowledge is much larger than you are allowing Him to be.

As you say, Young's was written a long time ago. So he can't be making any comment whatsoever on my theology. You are the one making those comments, not Young, so don't draw him for your support!

Second, Young's is a single person translation and so it isn't as reliable as most of the contemporary word for word versions that have translation committees of linguistic scholars assigned to each book.

100% Bias.

The Hebrew term that is translated "infinite" is ayin mispar which literally means "without number" or "without measure."

And by saying that God knows all present facts, you are contradicting this. Young was right. The writer was not interested in mathematics. Numbering meant recounting. You're just clutching at straws.

If you are right about Young's translation, then the very fact that you are able to "narrate" that God is limited in his present knowledge means that you have contradicted yourself.

See above. I DID NOT NARRATE THAT GOD IS LIMITED IN HIS PRESENT KNOWLEDGE. YOU INVENTED THAT.
And if this the kind of misrepresentation it takes for you to get your point across then you have lost this argument already.

Oops.

Yes indeed.

What Young was probably getting at

Not so sure now are we?

is that God's understanding exceeds our ability to narrate. God's knowledge is greater than my ability to explain, not smaller. In your theology however, God appears not to be able to ascertain every present fact, and so the knowledge of your god is much easier to narrate than the God of the bible Who knows all things.

You still don't get do you? Apart from misrepresenting Young as well, you add nonsense to your beliefs. Which one of the supposedly infinite number of present facts is impossible to narrate?

That was a rhetorical question, in case you didn't get. Every present fact (to use your phrase) can be narrated. It was you who made the jump from 'understanding' to 'knowledge of present fact'. It is clear that you have no understanding of what the text is actually saying and not only that but given your eagerness to make it mean something completely different, it is obvious that you have no interest in what it actually does say. And you are obviously embarassed at not having an answer to what is a 'present fact?' You have a bankrupt theology and you use bankrupt arguments in support.

 

[Dialogos]

As you say, Young's was written a long time ago. So he can't be making any comment whatsoever on my theology.

Nor did Young come to the conclusions regarding Psalm 147:5 that you have (since he wasn't an OVer). The bottom line here is that you are taking a single word from a translation from a single author and using that as a diving board to jump to conclusions that the author of that translation didn't support and cannot be proven from the context of the verse.

And by saying that God knows all present facts, you are contradicting this. Young was right. The writer was not interested in mathematics. Numbering meant recounting. You're just clutching at straws.

Forget Young, he made a poor translational choice here.
The Hebrew term mispar is often used to speak of quantitative measure.
Like it does in:
Ezra 1:8 where the treasure was counted, not narrated.
Isaiah 22:10 where the houses of Israel were counted not narrated.
2 Samuel 24:10 where David's heart was troubled after he numbered the people. David didn't narrate the people.
Leviticus 23:1 where God commands that the days be numbered from the day after the Sabbath.
Hosea 1:10 where it says that the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sands of the Sea.
And, to be clear, the author uses the word “mispar” in the preceding verse where it refers to the “number” of the stars.
Psalm 147:4
Do you realize that the vast majority of the time “Mispar” is translated, even by young, it is done so to speak numerically?
Do you have an answer for why the Psalmist would jump from using the word to numerically in verse 4 to narratively in verse 5?
Do you have an answer for why every reputable translation (note, Young’s is just the translation of a single man) considers Mispar in verse 5 to be referring to God’s unquantifiable understanding?
Do you have an answer for why the LXX translates "mispar" as the Greek word arithmos (which means number) in verse 5?
Finally, do you realize that the way you choose to interpret that verse causes you to hold that verse in contradiction to the many passages where God’s knowledge is, in fact, “narrated?” You do get that any time someone speaks in the bible about what God knows they are “narrating” God’s understanding, don’t you?

 

[Desert Reign]

Do you realize that the vast majority of the time “Mispar” is translated, even by young, it is done so to speak numerically?

You're avoiding the questions. If it is not about Young then why have you spent an entire post attempting (unsuccessfully) to refute him?

I repeat, where did I say that 'God is limited in his present knowledge?

If you can't prove I said that or intended it, then you have a straw man.

And again, what do you mean by a present fact? Your failure to answer, instead diverting on to other issues, confirms that you accept you are simply wrong.

 

[Dialogos]

You're avoiding the questions.

I'm avoiding the questions?

I asked, "Do you realize that the vast majority of the time “Mispar” is translated, even by young, it is done so to speak numerically?"

Your response was??

Nothing.

I asked, "Do you have an answer for why the Psalmist would jump from using the word to numerically in verse 4 to narratively in verse 5?"

Your insightful response was?

Nothing.

I asked, "Do you have an answer for why every reputable translation (note, Young’s is just the translation of a single man) considers Mispar in verse 5 to be referring to God’s unquantifiable understanding?"

Your analysis was??

Nothing.

I asked, "Do you have an answer for why the LXX translates "mispar" as the Greek word arithmos (which means number) in verse 5?"

Your linguistically informed rebuttal was??

Nothing, nothing at all.

I asked, "Finally, do you realize that the way you choose to interpret that verse causes you to hold that verse in contradiction to the many passages where God’s knowledge is, in fact, “narrated?” You do get that any time someone speaks in the bible about what God knows they are “narrating” God’s understanding, don’t you?"

Your answer??

Again, nothing.

I've an idea, when you can start answering questions, then you have a right to start demand answers.

If it is not about Young then why have you spent an entire post attempting (unsuccessfully) to refute him?

I think the fact that you don't have an answer to my questions proves that I have refuted Young's translation pretty soundly.
I think the only reason Young's translation entered the conversation was because you went on a fishing expedition through bible translations to try and find something to rescue a failing theology and rather than come to terms with the fact that both you and lighthouse had no ground to stand on, you have come up with some pretty flimsy arguments to prop your errant theology up.

I repeat, where did I say that 'God is limited in his present knowledge?

Post 336 of this thread, you said:

Actually, the issue was not whether I believe God exists in heaven as three human beings. The issue was why did God need to find out what was going on in Sodom if he was already omniscient? You haven't answered that except to pass it off as an obscure passage.

Do you believe that God spoke the truth to Abraham in saying that he needed to go down to Sodom to get first hand knowledge of what was happening, Dialogos?

I've an idea, why don't you answer your own question.

Do you believe that God told Abraham that he needed to go down to Sodom to get first hand knowledge of what was happening?

Do you agree with Lighthouse that God didn't know what was going on in Sodom until He did?

If you can't prove I said that or intended it, then you have a straw man.

I've no problem letting you clarify your own position, if I have missed your position then I have no problem accepting your clarification. Theological discussion isn't a game to me, is it to you?

Your responsibility then, is to be clear.

Do you think that God has a universal knowledge of the present or not?

And again, what do you mean by a present fact?

That which is true in the present.

I think we all pretty much agree that God universally knows the past. I think I am pretty clear that the OV position argues that God does not universally know the future. Lighthouse appears to believe that God also does not universally know the present as there are some things that have occurred that God was unaware was happening at the time (specifically, what was going on in Sodom).

I think that's a moronic way to look at that passage and I've proven why.

What do you think?


Does God know the present universally or not?

 

[Desert Reign]

Not knowing something is not necessarily a limitation. I have never said that God is limited in any way.
God was perfectly able to find out the information that he wanted to know and did find it out. How was that a limitation?

What is a present fact. Your answer is vague: 'that which' is not saying anything at all. All you are doing is restating that present fact means present fact. I'm asking for meaning and explanation, not another set of words that still mean nothing. Do you mean a statement which is true? If so, who decides whether it is true or not? How is truth determined in general? Are you falling foul of the Euthyphro dilemma by implying that God is subject to some kind of absolute criterion of truth which is outside of himself? In other words if God says something, who decides whether it is true or not? Is the statement sharable, i.e. is it in a language that some beings at least can understand, verify and appreciate as truth? I don't want to put words in your mouth but c'mon, use a little imagination!