Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Firstly the example in Scripture you quote to support your position, that God does not know for certain whether Israel would not change their mind, is double-edged. Because the same passage makes out God believed that Israel would face war. So doesn't such omniscience go against your belief that God can't know with certainty future events? There must be a solution, and I believe the solution lies on my side of the fence.

If you read further, the Egyptians caught up with the Israelites anyway, and the Israelites were indeed going to face war. Thus, God perhaps knew whichever way Israel went that they would face war.

But you mised something so it seems the solution is not on your side. Did you carefully read Exodus 31:17? Herre it is again: “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." The war God was thinking about was a war with the Philistines and not with the Egyptians.

If you read further, the Egyptians caught up with the Israelites anyway, and the Israelites were indeed going to face war. Thus, God perhaps knew whichever way Israel went that they would face war.

Well, if God was certain that Israel wouyld face war with the Philistines, why did he used "IF" and "MIGHT"? These are used only when talking in terms of possibility and not certainty.

Kurieuo wrote: I obviously believe that God in His omniscience knew exactly what Abraham would do, because He knows all things about us (Psalms 139:1-6; Jeremiah 17:10; Acts 1:24; Hebrews 4:13). So how do I reconcile such with God? Well, what God knows by cognition is different to what He knows by demonstration. Grasping this resolves every passage you quoted above. Understanding this concept seems to be where you always come unstuck, as it seems you often fall into thinking God's knowing is equivalent to the action taking place. So after Abraham had obeyed God, he demonstrated what God always knew, that he had faith in and feared God.

Always KNEW when God said, "NOW I know..." and the Bible said, "IN ORDER TO know..." Are you telling me that God lied? That he always knew it but said, "Now I know..." and that He always knew yet the Bible said, "IN ORDER TO know..."?

Also at play is that God is addressing finite human beings here, and so God speaks from a human perspective. To more convincingly illustrate this, allow me to provide an example I read which also resolves every passage above. There is a maths teacher who is teaching a class of students. He says, "Let's see whether we can discover the square root of 49." Then once working it out, he declares, "Now we know that it is 7." Does this necessarily mean the maths teacher did not know the answer from the beginning? Of course not.

Read Genesis 22:12 again: "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." The reason God came to know it was because of Abraham not withholding his son Isaac. And because God came to know that Abe's fear of God was genuine trhe blessing goes in v. 16: "I swear by myself, declares the LORD , that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son."

In Gen. 22:12 it was God who personally said, "Now I know..." but in your inllustration it's obviously not a personal knowledge of the teacher that is the issue. The teacher cannot genuinely said, "Now i know the square root of 49 is 7 BECAUSE of your answer."

But when there are passages in Scripture which obviously contradict a Christian's theological position on something, then that Christian should revise their beliefs in order to make them compatible with Scripture.
Kurieuo.

The contradiction is only apparent because of your traditional belief of omniscience which heavily influenced by platonic phiosophy. In fact, I dont see any real contradiction with my view regarding God's omniscience (biblical).

By the way, my view does not say God DOES NOT KNOW FUTURE EVENTS. My view says God knows the future as partially setled and partially open. Thus, with regards to man's future decisions, God knows it as open (not settled) unless he determines it from eternity.

Jac wrote: just want to ask TO a general question: if God doesn't know the future decisions of men (based on the idea that such knowledge is unknowable, and therefore outside the realm of omniscience), how is it that we find prophecy in the Scriptures? Daniel 11 is a great example. We have references to certain men who will choose to do certain things. God certainly does that. And what about the Antichrist? God certainly knows about him. God has even told us some of that man's decisions (forcing a mark, calling people to worship himself, etc.).

If, then, God can know the future decisions of some men, why can God not know the future decisions of Adam? It doesn't do any good to argue that God couldn't hold Adam accountable for an action He knew Adam would commit, because, in the same way, God knew the actions of the previously mentioned men and has already condemned them. So, we see that we ARE held accountible for our actions.

How do you reconcile these facts?

Jac, not every decision is not known to God. There are future decisions that are known to God because God decreed them and because past and present causes made them known to God.

In OV, God knows the future as partially settled (known already to God as such) and partially open (known to God as such). God cannot know as certain what is possible only. The question is dos God knows possible decisions or not? The fact God used terms such as IF, MAYBE, MIGHT, etc, God knows those things as possible.

With regards to prophecies. Some prophecies are etermined by God to happen and some are conditional prohecies.

BavarianWheels wrote:Really? So if you have children, will you not allow them to play outside, ride a bike...knowing they will hurt themselves? Knowing your child will one day disobey you and touch that which is hot and burn themselves, will you not have a stove in your house? Will you not have a set of rules in your home knowing the day will come when your child will rebel against the rules as you set them?

If i am CERTAIN that all these will hapen to him I would certainly not allow him to go outside. The thing is I am NOT CERTAIN whether this will happen to my son or not so I do hope for the best that he will not be hurt even if i alow him to go outisde. The same with God, God was not certain whether Adam would eat of the fruit and so he created him and commanded him not to eat of it. God knew it was possible that Adam might eat of the fruit but at the same time knew the possiblity that Adam might NOT eat of the fruit and so God went ahead. In dhort, God took risk. If God did not take risk then what happened (the fall of man) was his intended plan for man.

Heck, ask yourself why Lucifer was allowed to live knowing he would be the cause of sin to enter.

I have a good news for you. God did not know for certain that Lucifer would be the cause of evil. He knew that Lucifer MIGHT become the cause of evil and at the same time knew that Lucifer MIGHT NOT be the cause of evil and so he went ahead allowing Lucifer to live hoping that everything would be fine. But as it turned out. Lucifer used his freewill to rebel against God.

Had God kept Lucifer from living because of knowledge of His coming death, God would be guilty of stealing. Stealing freewill. There is no true love when the freedom to love or not love is taken away. Likewise there is no true obedience when the ability to truly obey is taken away.

True, freewill is one of the most important aspect of true and personal love, that's why God had to take risk. Without risk then there is no fredom on the part of the creatures. Without risk it means God intended for his creatures to rebel against him. But if God intended for Adam and Lucifer to rebel against him, then that is not love either on the part of God.

ThirdOption wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Really? So if you have children, will you not allow them to play outside, ride a bike...knowing they will hurt themselves? Knowing your child will one day disobey you and touch that which is hot and burn themselves, will you not have a stove in your house? Will you not have a set of rules in your home knowing the day will come when your child will rebel against the rules as you set them?

If i am CERTAIN that all these will hapen to him I would certainly not allow him to go outside. The thing is I am NOT CERTAIN whether this will happen to my son or not so I do hope for the best that he will not be hurt even if i alow him to go outisde. The same with God, God was not certain whether Adam would eat of the fruit and so he created him and commanded him not to eat of it. God knew it was possible that Adam might eat of the fruit but at the same time knew the possiblity that Adam might NOT eat of the fruit and so God went ahead. In dhort, God took risk. If God did not take risk then what happened (the fall of man) was his intended plan for man.

You can be certain. Every child gets hurt one way or another in childhood! THAT IS A FACT!

ThirdOption wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Heck, ask yourself why Lucifer was allowed to live knowing he would be the cause of sin to enter.

I have a good news for you. God did not know for certain that Lucifer would be the cause of evil. He knew that Lucifer MIGHT become the cause of evil and at the same time knew that Lucifer MIGHT NOT be the cause of evil and so he went ahead allowing Lucifer to live hoping that everything would be fine. But as it turned out. Lucifer used his freewill to rebel against God.

And your proof to back up this statement? Or is it just an opinion?

ThirdOption wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Had God kept Lucifer from living because of knowledge of His coming death, God would be guilty of stealing. Stealing freewill. There is no true love when the freedom to love or not love is taken away. Likewise there is no true obedience when the ability to truly obey is taken away.

True, freewill is one of the most important aspect of true and personal love, that's why God had to take risk. Without risk then there is no fredom on the part of the creatures. Without risk it means God intended for his creatures to rebel against him. But if God intended for Adam and Lucifer to rebel against him, then that is not love either on the part of God.

Risk...that is an interesting word you're attributing to God and his actions. God, knowing the end from the beginning, takes no risk in his action. He already knows the actions taken before they are taken.

How is it we have genuine prophecy in Scripture? How is it Daniel was given the same dream as Nebuchadnezzar and was able to accurately interpret the dream...that foretold the history of the world?
.
.

TO,

2 Timothy 1:8-10
So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Tell me, if God didn't know that Adam would fall, why did God already plan to give us grace through Jesus Christ, before He even started creating the universe? Explain that passage...

Greetings to you all.

TO, now that I have established that you are dealing directly with Sin, I have a few more questions.

-Do you believe the Bible when it clearly states that Adam sinned?

-Do you believe that YOU have sinned?

-Do you believe that we would have the free-will do disobey God; if God had not commanded Adam?

-Is it rational to not command someone not to commit a crime when you know they will commit it anyway?

Doc

ThirdOption wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If you read further, the Egyptians caught up with the Israelites anyway, and the Israelites were indeed going to face war. Thus, God perhaps knew whichever way Israel went that they would face war.

Did you carefully read Exodus 31:17? Herre it is again: “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." The war God was thinking about was a war with the Philistines and not with the Egyptians.

Firstly it's Exodus 13:17 (get it right ), and I thought I left it plainly at Israel facing war either way without stating who they'd war. But now you bring it up, I see it as reasonable that the Egyptians could have caught up with them either way.

TO wrote:

K wrote:If you read further, the Egyptians caught up with the Israelites anyway, and the Israelites were indeed going to face war. Thus, God perhaps knew whichever way Israel went that they would face war.

Well, if God was certain that Israel wouyld face war with the Philistines, why did he used "IF" and "MIGHT"? These are used only when talking in terms of possibility and not certainty.

Because they ended up allowing God's words to guide their decision to go the longer journey. As such they didn't actually face war, but only a war situation. God fought their battle for them. If they had chosen to go the shorter path, then God may have allowed them to war. Yet, God had a plan, and his words were all apart of His omniscient plan to get Israel where He wanted them to be.

Kurieuo.

ThirdOption wrote:Always KNEW when God said, "NOW I know..." and the Bible said, "IN ORDER TO know..." Are you telling me that God lied? That he always knew it but said, "Now I know..." and that He always knew yet the Bible said, "IN ORDER TO know..."?

What part of my reply didn't you get? I'll try again. God's knowing by cognition is different to what He knows by demonstration. After Abraham had obeyed God, he demonstrated what God always knew, that he had faith in and feared God. The Strong's dictionary for the word "yaw-dah'" (translated "know") has the following definition:

A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively instruction, designation, punishment, etc.): - acknowledge, acquaintance (-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, [un-] awares, can [-not], certainly, for a certainty, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be [ig-] norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to, let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have [knowledge], (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have [understanding], X will be, wist, wit, wot.

An example, is also Adam and Eve. If they did not know about sin (i.e., know good and evil) until after they ate the fruit, then how could they know not to eat the fruit (a sin)? The answer is that although they knew it was a sin (i.e., going against God) to eat the fruit, they didn't actually know what sin was as they never experienced it. There are a variety of ways one can know, and you have your work cut out for you to show that by "know" above God was meaning He didn't "cognitively know."

TO wrote:

K wrote:Also at play is that God is addressing finite human beings here, and so God speaks from a human perspective. To more convincingly illustrate this, allow me to provide an example I read which also resolves every passage above. There is a maths teacher who is teaching a class of students. He says, "Let's see whether we can discover the square root of 49." Then once working it out, he declares, "Now we know that it is 7." Does this necessarily mean the maths teacher did not know the answer from the beginning? Of course not.

In Gen. 22:12 it was God who personally said, "Now I know..." but in your inllustration it's obviously not a personal knowledge of the teacher that is the issue. The teacher cannot genuinely said, "Now i know the square root of 49 is 7 BECAUSE of your answer."

If I say "we" do I not mean "I" also? Yet you missed my point by focusing on the example which was, "God is addressing finite human beings here, and so God speaks from a human perspective." If God didn't relate to us on our own level, then I doubt we could ever really understand Him.

TO wrote:

K wrote:But when there are passages in Scripture which obviously contradict a Christian's theological position on something, then that Christian should revise their beliefs in order to make them compatible with Scripture.

The contradiction is only apparent because of your traditional belief of omniscience which heavily influenced by platonic phiosophy.

So I am wrong because what I've come to believe is the traditional belief which was heavily influenced by platonic philosophy? There is a fallacy for this kind of argument. It is called the genetic fallacy.

TO wrote:In fact, I dont see any real contradiction with my view regarding God's omniscience (biblical).

What—besides all the previous passages I've cited? Besides Christ's knowing, "tonight--before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times." (Mark 14:30). Besides Psalms 139:1-6 where God knows what we'll speak before we speak it? Where God knows the path we plan on taking? Not to mention Felgar's passage, and the many passages I've quoted like it elsewhere?

TO wrote:By the way, my view does not say God DOES NOT KNOW FUTURE EVENTS. My view says God knows the future as partially setled and partially open. Thus, with regards to man's future decisions, God knows it as open (not settled) unless he determines it from eternity.

Sounds like Gregory Boyd's theology on foreknowledge. While I can admire his attempt for trying to provide a solution over a "problematic" issue (i.e., getting God off the hook for being responsible in any way for sin), I think such theology takes away God's omniscience. And I think there are other solutions to this issue, so it isn't necessary to downplay God's knowledge and take away His omniscience. You might say that's just "your view of omniscience" (as you have previously). However, this is just playing with words. If God doesn't know all man's future decisions (future truths) than God doesn't know all truths. Therefore God is not omniscient, simple as that.

Kurieuo.

Yeah i think Kurieuo pretty much pounded this argument to the ground. I love the math teacher analogy you gave on a previous post, great stuff. That analogy pretty much sums up this whole discussion and its becoming really really repetitive. It

BavarianWheels wrote: You can be certain. Every child gets hurt one way or another in childhood! THAT IS A FACT!

No you cannot. My children play outside everyday and they don't get hurt many times. I could not be certain that when they go outside they would be or wont be hurt. The best for me to do is to hope and believe that they wont be hurt which happens most of the times. But there are times that they come home crying and have wounds on their knees. Honestly, If Im 100% sure that they would be hurt when they go outside of the house on a certain day, I would never allow them to go outside. THAT'S A FACT.

And your proof to back up this statement? Or is it just an opinion?

Well, I don't have any scripture for that just as you don't have any scripture for “Trinity.” If God was 100% sure that Lucifer would be the cause of sin, then God created something evil. He created something that would morally devastate his entire creation which would lead to damnation of majority of souls in hell. I don't think a holy and wise and omnipotent God would do such a thing.

Risk...that is an interesting word you're attributing to God and his actions. God, knowing the end from the beginning, takes no risk in his action. He already knows the actions taken before they are taken.

Like I said, if God did not take risk, Adam's rebellion and its result (i.e., bringing billions of people to hell) including the rape and murder of a 4-year old girl is God's plan at work. If he did not take risk, it was really his plan for Adam to fall into sin.

How is it we have genuine prophecy in Scripture? How is it Daniel was given the same dream as Nebuchadnezzar and was able to accurately interpret the dream...that foretold the history of the world?

Who gave the dream to Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel? It was God! What would happen in the future as far as those dreams were concerned was God's sovereign orchestration of things to come. So why couldn't he know it? It was not as if somebody dreamt and God took a role of fortuneteller interpreting the dream through Daniel. No, it's not like that. Rather, he planned something in the future then he gave the dream to king Nebuchadnezzar which was interpreted (given also by God) by Daniel for the king. Both the dream and the interpretation were from God.

Prophecies are declarations of what God would do in the future. They are not something that God WOULD TRY TO KNOW as if know the persons involved in the prophecy were to plan something and God merely saw what's on their mind.

IOW, there is no certain future outside the one that God ordained as certain. If God ordains future decision as certain, then God knows it as certain. If God does not ordain future decision as certain, then that future decision does not exist - it's NOTHING and therefore there is nothing for God to know as certain, only pos
sible.

Felgar wrote:TO,

2 Timothy 1:8-10
So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Tell me, if God didn't know that Adam would fall, why did God already plan to give us grace through Jesus Christ, before He even started creating the universe? Explain that passage...

Felgar, let me give you a bit long answer to your short question. I have given this to somebody who asked me the same question you asked. You might find this very pedantic or even naí¯ve but please bear with me.

God perfectly knew that Adam might possibly fall or might possibly not fall. He perfectly knew these possibilities and He also perfectly knew the entire ramifications of these possibilities and He also perfectly knew what He needs to do to all these possibilities in mind. As it is, one of the possibilities was that Adam would fall and one of the ramifications of this fall was man's rebellion and then hell. Because of these possibilities (fall or no fall) God predestined Christ's death in case of a fall. IOW, the Christ's death is contingent on the fall of Adam (which is one of the possibilities). All these possibilities and all the possible ramifications and all moves God would make are in the eternal mind of God who is infinitely intelligent to mentally conceive all these things as if He's mentally conceiving only one certain event!

Now, let's go back to Adam. God perfectly knew that Adam might possibly fall (possibility A) or might possibly not fall (possibility B) and He perfectly knew the possible ramifications of these two possibilities (let's name them A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, etc.). Not only that, God also perfectly knew what actions to be done to A & B and also to A-1, A-2, B-1, & B-2 (let's call these actions A-X, B-X, A-1-X, A-2-X, B-1-X, etc.). Thus, in the infinite mind of God there exist AB and at the same time there exist A-1, A-2, B-1, & B-2 and at the same time there exist A-X, B-X, A-1-X, A-2-X, B-1-X, etc. IOW, God's infinite mind was filled with infinite possibilities. Now let's look at this way (pardon my finite and fallible way of conceiving what originally took place):

Now, here's God at one point in eternity saying, "I want to create a free moral agent who will love me by his own volition and own free will and not Myself causing him to love Me. I will call him 'man.'" But God knew the possibilities, so He said, "But if I will make him a free moral agent, the possibilities are: he might sin (A) or he might not sin (B)." So God decided: "Okay, for A, I decide that I will do this - death of Christ (i.e., the giving of grace). And for B, I decide that I will do this - perfect environment or eternal bliss. But of course my heart's desire is that man would not fall so that I could give Him the eternal bliss. Of course, I don't want him to fall, but if he would choose that, I decided that My Son would die for him."

This plan (if I may call it a plan) was done or determined in eternity pass.

After billion of years the time came for man to be created by God. God was very pleased with His creation, so He called it "very good" (although God perfectly knew it's possible for his creation to fall, his creation can still be called "very good" because God perfectly knew also that His creation might possibly NOT fall. Unlike in the other view that says God knew that His creation would certainly fall, calling His creation "very good" is quite amiss.)

God chose to believe man that he wouldn't fall although in His mind possibilities AB, A-1, A-2, B-1, etc. still lingers or better yet, still exist. Because of this action (i.e., choosing to believe that man wouldn't fall), God enjoyed genuine fellowship with man in the Garden of Eden. On the other hand, if God certainly knew that man would definitely sin and because of that He "left him out" from eternity past, then no genuine fellowship would have taken place between man and God in the Garden.

Then came the Fall. The story after the fall fits in very well to the concept I presented, at least, IMHO. God's lament over Eve's disobedience: "What is this you have done?" (Gen. 3:13) fits in very well. As if God was saying, "Why did you choose to disobey Me?" Such questioning cannot fit in if God certainly knew Adam would fall. In Genesis 6 we read in verse 6: "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." God was disappointed and He was grieving and hurting. Why? Because he took the risk of choosing to believe that man wouldn't fall, and yet he did. I could say, therefore, that when God grieved here, His grieving was genuine and real and not merely a charade, which is one of the implications if one says that God certainly knew, throughout the gamut of eternity, that man would sin. For how can God be genuinely saddened by man's sin in time when all along eternity He has in His mind and heart that man would certainly sin, let alone that according also to traditoinal proponents past, present, future are one "eternal now" to God, meaning to say, that the actual commitment of sin was no different at all from what God have in mind and heart from eternity to eternity, so how could He possibly genuinely grieved given that kind of scenario. In fact, even the "moment" of His grieving was already "there." It's not a new "experience" in God's personality anymore.

Now what about the argument that "if God didn't know that Adam would fall, why did God already plan to give us grace through Jesus Christ, before He even started creating the universe? We should note that there is no scripture that says that God certainly knew Adam would fall. The idea is only a deduction from a particular verse of scripture (and the likes). But how sure are we that it's the case? One of those verses is 2 Timothy 1:8-10: It reads:

“So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

The argument goes: if God didn't know that Adam would fall, why did God already plan to give us grace through Jesus Christ, before He even started creating the universe? Do these verses pose a problem to the view I presented? Not really. God decided or planned that the grace be given us IN CHRIST before creation because God knew that possibility A (i.e., Adam falling) could take place and therefore it can be said by Paul during his time that “This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.” There's no indication in those verses that God knew FOR CERTAIN from eternity that Adam would fall.

The Doc wrote:Greetings to you all.

TO, now that I have established that you are dealing directly with Sin, I have a few more questions.

-Do you believe the Bible when it clearly states that Adam sinned?

-Do you believe that YOU have sinned?

-Do you believe that we would have the free-will do disobey God; if God had not commanded Adam?

-Is it rational to not command someone not to commit a crime when you know they will commit it anyway?

Doc

I'm sorry, Doc, but I think you missed what I'm saying. It's not really about sin and freewill of man. So don't go into those things. It's about God knowing something to be true and yet believing what is false. He knew Adam would sin (i.e., knowing what is true) and yet he commanded Adam NOT to sin (of course he expected Adam to do what he commanded) but that's believing what is false. But by expecting Adam not to sin (i.e., false) contradicts what God knows would DEFINITELY happen (i.e., true), thus he knows what is true and yet he genuinely believes what is false.

Kurieuo wrote:

Because they ended up allowing God's words to guide their decision to go the longer journey. As such they didn't actually face war, but only a war situation. God fought their battle for them. If they had chosen to go the shorter path, then God may have allowed them to war. Yet, God had a plan, and his words were all apart of His omniscient plan to get Israel where He wanted them to be.

I asked: If God was certain that Israel would face war with the Philistines, why did he used "IF" and "MIGHT"? These are used only when talking in terms of possibility and not certainty.

You answered: Because they ended up allowing God's words to guide their decision to go the longer journey. As such they didn't actually face war, but only a war situation. God fought their battle for them. If they had chosen to go the shorter path, then God may have allowed them to war. Yet, God had a plan, and his words were all apart of His omniscient plan to get Israel where He wanted them to be.

Bro., the question is why did God use “IF” and “MIGHT” which are terms of possibility and not certainty. I guess you missed answering my question correctly. Try again.

Kurieuo wrote: What part of my reply didn't you get? I'll try again. God's knowing by cognition is different to what He knows by demonstration.

So he knows it by cognition but DOES NOT know it by demonstration? Is that what you are saying?

An example, is also Adam and Eve. If they did not know about sin (i.e., know good and evil) until after they ate the fruit, then how could they know not to eat the fruit (a sin)? The answer is that although they knew it was a sin (i.e., going against God) to eat the fruit, they didn't actually know what sin was as they never experienced it. There are a variety of ways one can know, and you have your work cut out for you to show that by "know" above God was meaning He didn't "cognitively know."

Is that the answer? So are you saying that though God KNEW about Abe's fear, God DIDN'T ACTUALLY know Abe's faith was until Abe actualizes it?

If I say "we" do I not mean "I" also? Yet you missed my point by focusing on the example which was, "God is addressing finite human beings here, and so God speaks from a human perspective." If God didn't relate to us on our own level, then I doubt we could ever really understand Him.

But again, the teacher cannot genuinely say, "Now i know the square root of 49 is 7 BECAUSE of your answer". The teacher merely said that because he/she wanted to convey something to his/her class. It's not that he/she really came to now something that day. Unlike in Abe's case, God tested Abe to know about the condition of the latter's faith. The “now I know” statement of God was a discovery on the part of God as a result of the test he gave to Abe.

And if God only speaks in human perspective here, what then is the divine perspective on this, do you know? You see, that argument does not make sense because there is no other way you can say, “that is the way God talks in human perspective” or “this is the way God talks in divine perspective” since the BIBLE (God's revelation to us of himself) did not use divine language (to reveal divine perspective) but purely human language. As John Sanders wrote: “We cannot, in principle, fathom God apart from our relationship as creatures. We ought not speculate about what it means to be God. Instead, we must see what God actually decides to do in relation to the creation order to know what it means to be God. God defines God.” So if the Bible portrays God in a certain way, we cannot say that is not God is like or that is not the divine perspective since we do not know what a divine perspective is.

So I am wrong because what I've come to believe is the traditional belief which was heavily influenced by platonic philosophy? There is a fallacy for this kind of argument. It is called the genetic fallacy.

The traditional belief which was heavily influenced by platonic philosophy is wrong as far as the written Word of God is concerned. The Bible cannot depict a God like that when in actuality God is not like that.

What—besides all the previous passages I've cited? Besides Christ's knowing, "tonight--before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times." (Mark 14:30). Besides Psalms 139:1-6 where God knows what we'll speak before we speak it? Where God knows the path we plan on taking? Not to mention Felgar's passage, and the many passages I've quoted like it elsewhere?

He knows the rooster when to crow but he does not know when he would return? Is that what you call consistent “omniscience”? I don't think you can prove the philosophical view of divine omniscience (which you hold) with that one in Mark 14:30 because just one chapter earlier (Mark 13:32), Jesus said that the Son (himself) DOES NOT KNOW about the day or the hour of his return. You see, you are stretching the “knows all things” and conclude that it includes “future free decisions”. Okay, let's agree that God knows all things as in “knowing all things.” Therefore, God knows how to sin and he knows how to commit sexual immorality or he knows how to lie. Is that okay? Of course, not.

Peter said to Christ, “You know all things” (thus, omniscience), but Christ himself said, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Therefore, the philosophical definition of “omniscience” as “knowing all things including future free decisions” is not the biblical definition of “omniscience.”

Regarding Psalm 139:1-6. The passage says God knows it completely before a word is on our tongue. That's true that is because before it was on our tongue it must be first on our mind. We are not talking about things that already in the mind. We are talking about future decisions. Are all your future decisions already in your mind? If not, then they cannot be on your tongue. Before it gets on to your tongue it must get into your mind first.

Sounds like Gregory Boyd's theology on foreknowledge. While I can admire his attempt for trying to provide a solution over a "problematic" issue (i.e., getting God off the hook for being responsible in any way for sin), I think such theology takes away God's omniscience.

What it takes away is the platonic view of omniscience, not the biblical view.

If God doesn't know all man's future decisions (future truths) than God doesn't know all truths. Therefore God is not omniscient, simple as that.

Look at this one: In Rev. 2:21 Christ gave time Jezebel to repent. Now, if God CERTAINLY knew Jezebel wouldn't repent (i.e., knowing the truth), why did he give Jezebel time to repent? That means God (Jesus) believes or hopes for what is FALSE! Is God then not omniscient?