Consistent Understanding Of God's Omniscience In Three Layers:

[Josheb]

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Fail. That post does NOT prove God would not have created man had He had that knowledge.

God was sorry, regretted, making man. If He had perfect foreknowledge "before creation" He would not have made man. This verse is a clear indication that man has free will, and using that will, chooses against God's ways.

No. You've incorrectly understood the scripture. God consoled Himself, comforted Himself. God grieved; was sad and/or sorrowful. Look up the Hebrew. The exact same word is translated diversely throughout the OT. The exact same word that means "change" can also mean comfort or console.

It most definitely does NOT mean God would not have made humanity.

Even if God did want to change His mind it does not mean He would have changed His action. You've made enormous leaps in logic that are not justified by the text.

You stated God would not have made humanity had He known something He later learned, and you've based that claim on Genesis 6:5 and, more specifically, on a specific way of reading that supports the claim to be proven. In other words, the question has been begged, and begged based on an (self-confirming) eisegetic reading of the text. It's not all your fault because our English translations do not do a very good job of translating the idiomatic Hebrew, but even were that not the case God regretting an action does not mean He would not have done it.

You have not proven your claim.

Want to try proving God would not have made humans some other way, or concede that claim is not supported by whole scripture.

1 Peter 1:17-21
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Verse 20 states Jesus was foreknown before the creation of the world and the larger passage states he was foreknown prior to creation specifically for the purpose of being a blemish-free sacrifice. The implication is God knew and planned prior to the creation of the world a blemish free sacrifice for redemptive purpose. The redemptive sacrifice was known before Genesis 6:5. The two should not be read in conflict with one another.

So....

You want to give proving the claim made another try or adjust tyyour thinking and acknowledge God was going tomake humans no matter what He have later learned?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Fail. That post does NOT prove God would not have created man had He had that knowledge.

No. You've incorrectly understood the scripture. God consoled Himself, comforted Himself. God grieved; was sad and/or sorrowful. Look up the Hebrew. The exact same word is translated diversely throughout the OT. The exact same word that means "change" can also mean comfort or console.

It most definitely does NOT mean God would not have made humanity.

Even if God did want to change His mind it does not mean He would have changed His action. You've made enormous leaps in logic that are not justified by the text.

You stated God would not have made humanity had He known something He later learned, and you've based that claim on Genesis 6:5 and, more specifically, on a specific way of reading that supports the claim to be proven. In other words, the question has been begged, and begged based on an (self-confirming) eisegetic reading of the text. It's not all your fault because our English translations do not do a very good job of translating the idiomatic Hebrew, but even were that not the case God regretting an action does not mean He would not have done it.

You have not proven your claim.

Want to try proving God would not have made humans some other way, or concede that claim is not supported by whole scripture.

1 Peter 1:17-21
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Verse 20 states Jesus was foreknown before the creation of the world and the larger passage states he was foreknown prior to creation specifically for the purpose of being a blemish-free sacrifice. The implication is God knew and planned prior to the creation of the world a blemish free sacrifice for redemptive purpose. The redemptive sacrifice was known before Genesis 6:5. The two should not be read in conflict with one another.

So....

You want to give proving the claim made another try or adjust tyyour thinking and acknowledge God was going tomake humans no matter what He have later learned?

God knew man would need a redeemer, that is why Christ for fore planned. It in no way rejects what God said in Genesis.

As for the scripture you quoted, let's look at the start of it.

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth

How does God determine the salvation of man? He is impartial, as Pual said:

Rom 2:6-11 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

He judges us based on how we live our lives before God. But the thing is He is impartial, there is no partiality. He judges each one by our works. He does not randomly select people to redeem, He judges us by our response to His word.

 

[CCShorts]

Again I feel like you think I'm against you or am attempting to promote something im not.

You continue to assume I am referring to God's relationship to the timeline of creation but im not. My intentions are in refrence to God himself being both "free" to determine anything and knowing "all things knowable". I can assure you im not promoting Open Theism in any way. If anything i am completely oposite. You can call me a Closed Theist if it helps destinguish me from the erroneous Open Theist view.

My point of the OP is to discuss God the "moment" "before the foundation of the world". What was God's existance like such that we can consistently claim both truths that God was free at that "moment" to have determine things that are identified as "not God" differently and Omniscient of ALL things knowable at all "moments" of eternity.

You briefly allude to a "moment" before the "time[line of creation] was created" here:

...

He and He alone is The First Cause, the Causal Cause of all things and that includes His being The Causal Agent of time. The moment He said, "Let there be..." time was created. In other words, not only was the object of the "Let there be _______________," created, but so too was time. "prior" to that there was no prior, there was no time.

My concern is the "moment" before "He said...Let there be"!

What was God like before "The moment he said Let there be..."?

NOTE: I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR OPEN THEISM HERE.

Was God at any "moment" before he said "Let there be" to have "chosen" to not say "Let there be"... or was that action predetermined by what Omniscience externally entailed?

My concern is if that action of God saying "Let there be..." was eternally part of Omniscience then we can not consistently say he was free to not have said "Let there be".

PLEASE HERE ME HERE

My OP is an attempt to reconcile the TRUTH that God was free to have determined differently without contradicting what his Omniscience entailes. I believe my OP is an attempt at this reconciling while staying far away from the erroneous, unbiblical view, of Open Theism.

...

 

[CCShorts]

there is nothing superior to him, which can detract from him; nothing desirable that can be added to him.

I agree with the above statment 100%.

Now if there were any beginning and end of God, any succession in him, he could not be “I Am;”

I agree there is no "beginning" or "end" for God but why does that necessarily imply there cant be "moments" of God determining in eternity?

Example:
Imagine a line that is infinitely long in both directions. Now place a dot on that line anywhere. Does that dot change the fact that the line is infinitely long in both directions without "beginning" or "end"? I don't believe so.

God has no beginning, end (Job 36:26), or succession of moments in His own being,

I agree God has no beginning or end... in his own being. I'm not suggesting anything alters God's being... but...

How is Ephesians 1:4 not describing a "moment" of action in God's eternal existance?

"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love"

What is God's act of "choosing" if not a "moment" in his existance?

...

 

[Josheb]

God knew man would need a redeemer, that is why Christ for fore planned.

Then God also knew sin would occur and who He would save, and who He would not save.

It in no way rejects what God said in Genesis.

That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your interpretation of Genesis 6:5. It is in question because the interpretation asserted does not reconcile with the manuscript evidence, it compromises the concept of divine immutability, and makes God double-minded.

As for the scripture you quoted, let's look at the start of it.

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth

How does God determine the salvation of man? He is impartial

Fail.

Paul was writing to already saved people about already saved people. Paul was NOT writing to unregenerate nonbelievers about unregenerate nonbelievers. It is completely inappropriate to take passages written about the already saved and apply them to the unsaved. God judges the already saved with impartiality, and He judges them according to each one's work.

That is NOT what happens to the nonbeliever.

John 3 tells us a person MUST be born anew from above in order to see the kingdom of God. It tells us God loved the world so much He gave His only monogenes Son so that those who believe in him would have eternal life. The text also states Jesus was not sent to judge the world and the reason it gives for that is also plainly stated. John 3 very explicitly, everyone who does not believe in the name of Jesus stands condemned ALREADY.

John 3:18
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

They have already been judged!!!

So you have abused 1 Peter 1:17 very, very badly to make it say things it does not state.

, as Paul said:

Rom 2:6-11 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

Romans 2:6-11 was also written to Christians about Christians and NOT written about unregenerate nonbelievers.

I do not know who it was who taught you to read scripture that way, but it is wrong. It is completely inappropriate to ignore the author, the audience, and the contexts of a verse. It is completely inappropriate to take verses written by Christians to Christians about Christians and apply them to unregenerate nonbelievers. It is completely inappropriate to apply the power and benefits of the Spirit to sinful flesh.

And you do it in every opening post .

And most of your supporting posts. On this occasion you've made another error, too. You wish to assert the impartiality of God but the Romans 2 text discriminates! It shows partiality. There is partiality shown between those of "patient continuance," and that partiality is different than the "self-seeking". That is a partiality!!! Then there is a partiality asserted between the Jew and the Greek. If there wasn't any partiality it would be completely unnecessary to mention their ethnicity! By making a distinction a partiality is inherently, inescapably, undeniably asserted by the text of scripture.

The only impartiality asserted is the wrath meted out on the self-seeking - none of who would be among those of patient continuance. Notice the text does not say, "patient obtaining." They are not people obtaining salvation; they are people who have already obtained salvation by the time of judgment.

And we know from John 3:18 that the judgment has all already be rendered. The verdict is men love darkness and WILL NOT come into the light for fear their deeds will be seen for what they are.

But you say, "They will if they just choose," and what you mean is "They will when the choose from their sinfully dead and enslaved flesh" because they do not have the Spirit by which they might cry out, "Abba!" Ad this is justified by a repeated gross mishandling of scripture.

John 3:18-19 tells ALL men are ALL already judged if they do not believe in Jesus. Romans 8:1 tells us there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

He judges us based on how we live our lives before God.

Yes, He does, but the self-seeking have also already been judged and you've neglected the "already," ignored it, and treated the judgment as if it is only a matter or works, when it is not. God judges those in Christ differently than those outside of Christ. For the former there is NOW no condemnation, For the latter they are all already condemned. Of the former, those in Christ, there is patient continuance, and they get eternal life, but the former, those not believing in the name of Christ there is no patient continuance, nor can there be because it is logically impossible to continue in something or someone you do not possess. Their judgment is not eternal life, it's wrath and destruction.

But the thing is He is impartial, there is no partiality.

Fail.

There is no partiality in the judgement, but the Person of God is quite partial to HIs own. He blesses His own without impartiality meaning you and I receive the same blessing of eternal life, and He's wrathful on the already-condemned; they all receive the exact same fiery lake wrath and destruction.

This is why you were elsewhere asked if you were universalist. When reading your posts it looks like you think God is so impartial He saves everyone when that is not the case. Wrath and blessing are inherent partial and discriminated. Life and death are decidedly different, very partial.

He judges each one by our works. He does not randomly select people to redeem, He judges us by our response to His word.

No!

He judges everyone by whether or not they believe in the name of His Son and those who do not are discriminated against very violently. You've made a muck of God's word.

 

[fastfredy0]

I agree there is no "beginning" or "end" for God but why does that necessarily imply there cant be "moments" of God determining in eternity?

Aside: The people I've read, when speaking of the ETERNALITY of God, usually add the caveat that they can't explain all aspects of it. I am not different. It's speculative.

The speculation goes, as I understand it, is that God is outside of (not restricted by) time though He can obviously act in time. So, from our point of view He could have a moment but apparently a moment to him is as a 1000 years so what that means specifically I don't know, but it implies to me that whatever a moment is to me is completely different to God.

Many authors claim God has 'no succession of moments'. Physics tells us time, and therefore moments, cannot exist with the presence of matter and space so maybe the following syllogism applies.
Premise 1: God is immutable
Premise 2: Nothing existed once (there was no creation; no space or matter) and therefore no time, no beginning, no moments
Premise 3: A "moment" is "A brief, indefinite interval of time."
Conclusion: Until creation there was no such thing as a MOMENT and therefore with God there is no succession of moments and no MOMENT before creation as defined above.

Other rantings:
Augustine: “If nothing passed away, there would be no past time; if there was nothing still on its way, there would be no future time; and if nothing existed, there would be no present time.” Things must change or time does not exist; God does not change, is timeless; yet acts in time.
Augustine, on Psalm 101, 102: Eternity is the very essence of God, which has nothing changeable. In it there is nothing past, as though it no longer exists—nothing future, as if it does not yet exist; in it there is nothing but what IS, there is no WAS, there is no SHALL BE.

James Ussher said that God’s eternity means “his essence is exempted from all measure of time.”
"We generally think of God’s eternity in the same way, namely, as duration infinitely prolonged both backwards and forwards. But this is only a popular and symbolical way of representing that which in reality transcends time and differs from it essentially… Louis Berkhof.

That is some of my thoughts which hijack the ideas of greater thinkers than myself. I admit I am speculating.

 

[Josheb]

Again I feel like you think I'm...

Stop feeling that way.

You continue to assume I am referring to God's relationship to the timeline of creation but im not.

Your posts say otherwise.

You are not communicating well. I showed how one sentence says one thing and another sentence says something else. Clear it up for us (not just me).

My intentions are in refrence to God himself being both "free" to determine anything and knowing "all things knowable". I can assure you im not promoting Open Theism in any way. If anything i am completely oposite. You can call me a Closed Theist if it helps destinguish me from the erroneous Open Theist view.

I never said you were an Open Theist. I simply said some content of the posts read that way. I'm glad to read you're not a subscribe to Open Theism. That was very plainly stated.

My point of the OP is to discuss God the "moment" "before the foundation of the world". What was God's existance like such that we can consistently claim both truths that God was free at that "moment" to have determine things that are identified as "not God" differently and Omniscient of ALL things knowable at all "moments" of eternity.

That is not what the opening posts says. The opening post is about "layers" of omniscience. The only mention of "moment" in the opening post is in the plural, and the word "before" is nowhere to be found.

What was God like before "The moment he said Let there be..."?

The same as He is at the moment, the same as He is after the moment, and the same as He is now. It is the question itself that is crooked! There is no "was" with God. There is only IS. The question asked correctly should read,

"What is God like the moment before He said, "Let there be __________,"​

but even that is misguided. What the question correctly asked should read is,

"What is God like the moment before moments are created?"

or

"What is God like when moments are created?"

or

"What is God when 'moment' is created?"​

The answer is: timeless.

It is the question itself that is incorrect. Your inquiry is always gong to be wrong when asked from a temporal position. Asuming a before and after applicable to God begs the question; it assumes something not in evidence. It assumes something you must first prove exists and is applicable to extra-creation God. Not pre-creation God, but extra-creation God. There is no before-creation God that is different than a during-creation God or an after-creation God. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and even that MUST be read in the context of our temporal experience because God is timeless. He has no yesterday. Even the word "has" cannot be well applied. God is no yesterday is how that should read. No matter what "moment" in any time you or I might select the answer from God's pov is always going to be "now," or "is."

God is always "looking" or "knowing" time from outside of time.

NOTE: I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR OPEN THEISM HERE.

Yeah, yeah, I got that. Glad you made that clear. Move on.

Was God at any "moment" before he said "Let there be" to have "chosen" to not say "Let there be"... or was that action predetermined by what Omniscience externally entailed?

Again, the problem is with our temporal language.

Is God at the moment of saying "Let there be ___________________" different from God at the moment when the words create?​

That is a better way to word it. You've got to ditch the "before" and the implied "after." They are both known by God as now.

The aspect of the question asking about God choosing not to say is really about a not-choosing. Could God have not said, "Let there be _______________." That depends. It depends on what you mean by "could," because it can ask whether or not God has the might, whether or not He has a will capable of diversity, whether or not He has any restraint, whether or not many things and you have not adequately articulated what is being asked................. partly because the language is hanging you up.

Does God have the might make a choice? Yes!
Does God have the might not to choose? Yes!
Does God have the ability not to will? Yes
Does God possess a will capable of diversity? Yes


All varieties of these questions are going to be answered in the affirmative. You think there is a contradiction (real or perceived) you'll have to articulate it and articulate it in a manner whereby the language itself is valid and not logically fallacious in some way (like begging the question of change).

Fundamentally any choice God has is a thesis that always has antithesis. A choice not to speak is still a choice. A choice not to choose is still a choice. Asking hypothetical "coulds" misses the point and premise of a timeless eternal, always-now God.

My concern is if that action of God saying "Let there be..." was eternally part of Omniscience then we can not consistently say he was free to not have said "Let there be".

Can God make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?

Every choice God makes IS liberty. It is never a question of "does He have the freedom?" because the willing IS the freedom. What you are asking goes back to the proper definition of divine omniscience. Omniscience does not require God to known anything unknowable. Omniscience simply means God knows all that is knowable.

Can God choose not to choose a choice to choose?

And if you are asking if God is free to change His mind the answer is certainly, but the omniscient mind free to change its mind does not change its mine. No choice is a rock too heavy to lift because such a rock would be of infinite mass and thereby no limit on His omni-attributes.

PLEASE HEAR ME HERE

My OP is an attempt to reconcile.....

No, it is not.

There is nothing to reconcile. There is nothing to reconcile except in your not-yet-fully-understanding mind. The op assumes "layers" omniscience where none exist and completely failed to grasp the overarching aspect of omniscience under which the op's three would fit. Huge mistake.

Having acknowledged God knows all things knowable and does not known that which is unknowable, you've failed to integrate that which is knowable with God's will/acting and His existing eternally, extra-temporally, outside of time such that there is no before/after.

There is nothing to reconcile because there is no conflict. Not choosing is a vacant antithesis of all-knowing always-now existential will external to time.

 

[Josheb]

....the TRUTH that God was free to have determined differently without contradicting what his Omniscience entails.

Is a messed up premise because it assumes a "was". In other words, that "truth" is not true.

To say God IS free to determine negates any and all difference. If you read this in some book then you got caught up in some other guy's straw man. If your own reasoning brought you to this point of confoundedness then GOOD!!! because it means you probably have what's needed to think through the problem and realize the problem is with the premise/question itself.

The TRUTH is NOT that God was free to have determined differently.

The TRUTH is that God is free to determine.

Period.

There is no antithesis within God. God IS the thesis; the thesis of all creation.

I believe my OP is an attempt at this reconciling while staying far away from the erroneous, unbiblical view, of Open Theism.

Yep. I understand that. It's a lame attempt because the OP assumes a problem that doesn't exist and begs premises its failed to justify while completely neglecting the more important and correct definition of omniscience preeminent over the three layers limiting both the question the OP asks and any answer anyone might pose. Chief among the premises begged is that time is applicable to God.

• There was no moment before moment was created.
• What an all-knowing extra-temporal God determines is freedom.
• God is the all-knowing eternal thesis for whom there is no antithesis.

Try applying those TRIUTHS to this op. Let go of the defenses. You're not an Open Theist. You're not an Open Theist. You're not an Open Theist. You're not an Open Theist. I get it. Let it go. Make the biggest effort you can to watch your language because any and every word you use with temporal relevance wrecks everything. Any such god to whom time applies is not God.

You'll find you can do it, but you'll also find it is very challenging. Every single time-word has to be "is" and never anything else. If you apply this to the OP then you'll find the word "cannot" has to be discarded from the first "layer," all the past-tense language describing the second "layer" has to go, and realize the "based on the first two layers" has to go because it's a false-cause error that also holds a false dichotomy between what God wills/purposes/acts/knows (not what He willed/purposed/did/knew.

Is this the first time you've ever dyed yourself blue and locked yourself in the clothes dryer sucking your thumb while wearing a rubber glove on your head and high heels?

What??? I haven't dyed myself blue and not locked in the dryer sucking my thumb while wearing a rubber glove on my head and high heels.

Exactly.​

Rewrite the op. Take out all the temporal conditions and the dialectics and replace them with eternal theses.

 

[CCShorts]

There was no moment before moment was created.

Then we should never see a verse in God’s word that says "Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." Ephesians 1:4

This implies God created “time” AFTER “he chose us in him”.

…

 

[Josheb]

Then we should never see a verse in God’s word that says "Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." Ephesians 1:4

That is spoken from the human perspective, the human understanding, the human experience, NOT Gd's. I have already explained this and should not have to explain it again. Time is created. Time is not eternal. Time is not "before" time was created. Time is a created part of creation.

God exists outside of that which He created.

So when Paul states we (the saints) were chosen before the foundation of the world that would read "He chose us before there was time," or more accurately, "We were chosen when time did not exist."

This implies God created “time” AFTER “he chose us in him”.

Yes, but there is no "before" prior to the creation of time. There is only "is" where there is no time. When time is created creatures experience its passage, the series of cause and effect by which time is marked. A timeless Creator of Time does not experience the passage of time He created the way those inside time experience it. Again: there is no before, during, or after for an externally existing Creator of Time. There is only the "is" or the "now." We understand history as "God knew and decided something, spoke that knowledge into existence and then a bunch of things started to happen," but that's not how God understands history. There is no "then" for God.

Let's say the earth lasts 467 billion years. That is a long time for you and me. We will not be alive in this current physical state when the earth expires. If what we believe about eternal life is true then we'll be alive in some sort of spiritual body when earth ceases to exist. The beginning of the earth to the end of the earth would still be a long period of time for us, even in the resurrected immortal form.

But for God it is a fraction of a nanosecond....

....and even that does not do justice to the divine experience because God does not experience the passage of 467,000,010,724 years they way we do. Time is only linear for us but it is always non-linear for God.



So....

both protests are incorrect. There is no "Then we should see..." and there is no "implies..." Both protests are anthropomorphizations. When God says He knows the beginning from the end it has no correlation to any beginning or end for him. This gets into some mind-stretching concepts because if we are known for all eternity does that mean we exist for all eternity timelessly? That and many other (seemingly) logical necessities unfold and you're still stick thinking about a God limited by that which He creates, a God limited by time because somehow a "before" exists for Him anytime He chooses anything.

 

[Josheb]

I get it.

It is hard to grasp how a "before" cannot exist prior to something happening. For us God existed "before," and we exist "after," but for God He IS.

 

[Josheb]

I beg to differ. When did God suddenly get this knowledge in the following scripture?

LOL!

God did not "get" knowledge. Just because He speaks words about a given circumstance at a given point in our history does not mean He did not always know what He knows. Genesis 6 is not an exception to the rule.


Wht do you think the word "omniscient" means?

Do you believe God is omniscient?

Do you believe God is omnipotent?

How about omnipresent?

 

[Josheb]

God does not learn or gain "knowledge" in or from the timeline of creation........................ God's omniscience extends beyond the creation timeline.....

 

[Josheb]

@CCShorts,

If you have any interest in science, then I really do think you will enjoy and benefit from the Kaku and Penrose books I recommended. If contemporary field theories are correct, then it is possible (on a subatomic level) to be in two places at once or the same place at two different times. Presumable, the Guy who made creation that way can do that and more. Read Kaku first. It's short and accessible. The Penrose book is much bigger and not exclusively about the concerns of this op, but it is filled with fascinating information about time, space, and matter. Penrose was the one who oversaw Hawkins' doctorate. I start to get lost with the exposition (I'm not a physicist) but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle suggests many universes already exist (in Christianese that would be God has created multiple creations )* and there is a quantum explanation for determinism and free will.







*We Christians have, after all, long held to the belief the heavens are plural and the earth is singular (Gen. 1:1). It took only 2000 years to prove Moses correct.
.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

LOL!

God did not "get" knowledge. Just because He speaks words about a given circumstance at a given point in our history does not mean He did not always know what He knows. Genesis 6 is not an exception to the rule.


Wht do you think the word "omniscient" means?

Do you believe God is omniscient?

Do you believe God is omnipotent?

How about omnipresent?

They are all man's attempts to understand God. As you know if scripture differs from any of those terms we must go with scripture.

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

 

[Josheb]

They are all man's attempts to understand God. As you know if scripture differs from any of those terms we must go with scripture.

It is true. I think you should try it sometime.

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Yep. That is what it states, and I have already covered the text with you, showed you the Hebrew and shown you how your tendering is incorrect.

As you know if scripture differs from any of those terms we must go with scripture.

Then why are you not practicing what you preach?

The Hebrew clearly shows God was reported to feel sorrowful and sad, NOT changing His mind as some interpret. More germane to your claims, there is NOTHING in the Genesis 6:5-7 text stating God suddenly got new knowledge. The scripture differs from what you posted so why are you persisting with the contrary view and not bowing to the text?

The LORD adjusts the plan to suit the circumstances.

That does not mean God did not always know any of this. Every individual episode must be read in the larger contexts of whole scripture.

John 18:4
Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, came out into the open and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?”

Do you follow that? JESUS KNEW ALL THAT WAS COMING, but he went and asked a question any way. His asking, "Whom are you seeking?" does not indicate he does not know the answer.

1 John 3:19-20
We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

God knows all things. If God knows all things then His looking down on the world and seeing every thought of every heart is only evil all the time is not news to Him. Either that, or scripture contradicts itself.

As you know if scripture differs from any of those terms we must go with scripture.

I do know it, but I see very little evidence you know it and practice it.

Most of your ops prooftext scripture. That's invariably an indication a person is selective.

Psalm 139:13-16
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

Do those words apply only to David, or do they apply to every person ever made? If you say the latter then God knit every single person alive in Genesis 6:5, He knit them in the womb, their frames were not hidden from Him, and their days were written and ordained for them., before a single one of those days ever happened.

Bow to the text of scripture.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-2 , 11, 14-15
There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven — a time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted............ He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end..... I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by.

The flood was made appropriate at a time. Before that, the fact every human hear was only evil all the time was made appropriate at a time. There is nothing to add to or subtract from God seeing every human heart was only evil all the time - including God learning something new!

Bow to the text.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us. There is no remembrance of earlier things; And also of the later things which will occur, there will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come later still.


Every human heart being only evil all the time was not something new God newly observed and did not already know. He saw it looking at Cain about to kill his brother. He saw it in the hubris of humanity delusionally imagining they could build a building to reach God. He saw it before He wiped the world clean except for eight people and He saw it again within a growing season after the flood waters receeded when Noah got drunk of his but and his son sodomized him. God did not learn something new.

Bow to the text.

Psalm 44:20-21
If we had forgotten the name of our God Or extended our hands to a strange god, would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.

What if humanity forgot God? Would He know?
What? You mean like Genesis 6:5?
Yeah, like Genesis 6:5. Maybe God learned something new.​

The psalms say God knows everything, even the secrets of the human heart that is only evil all the time.

Psalm 139:4
Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it all.

Hebrews 4:13
And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Before any of those Genesis 6:5 people ever spoke a word or acted out a deed from their hearts that were only evil all the time, God knew it. It was not new knowledge to Him.

Bow to the text.

As you know if scripture differs from any of those terms we must go with scripture.

Does the text of Genesis 5:5-7 state God learned something new? Or maybe a mistake was made?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The Hebrew clearly shows God was reported to feel sorrowful and sad, NOT changing His mind as some interpret. More germane to your claims, there is NOTHING in the Genesis 6:5-7 text stating God suddenly got new knowledge. The scripture differs from what you posted so why are you persisting with the contrary view and not bowing to the text?

Does it really? Lets look at what is being said:

Gen_6:7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

What was the LORD sad about? That He had made man.

John 18:4
Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, came out into the open and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?”

Do you follow that? JESUS KNEW ALL THAT WAS COMING, but he went and asked a question any way. His asking, "Whom are you seeking?" does not indicate he does not know the answer.

Of course, Jesus knew what was going to happen to Him. He was foreordained to suffer for us. This does not prove your point.

1 John 3:19-20
We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

God knows all things. If God knows all things then His looking down on the world and seeing every thought of every heart is only evil all the time is not news to Him. Either that, or scripture contradicts itself.

I do know it, but I see very little evidence you know it and practice it.

You would expect God to know all about our thoughts, but it does not mean He knows everything that will happen.

Most of your ops prooftext scripture. That's invariably an indication a person is selective.

Psalm 139:13-16
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

Do those words apply only to David, or do they apply to every person ever made? If you say the latter then God knit every single person alive in Genesis 6:5, He knit them in the womb, their frames were not hidden from Him, and their days were written and ordained for them., before a single one of those days ever happened.

Bow to the text of scripture.

Yes, God appears to plan, at least parts of our lives. But if you look at David's life God changed the plan when David sinned. So man's actions are still important.

2Sa 12:7-12 Then Nathan told David: You are that rich man! Now listen to what the LORD God of Israel says to you: "I chose you to be the king of Israel. I kept you safe from Saul and even gave you his house and his wives. I let you rule Israel and Judah, and if that had not been enough, I would have given you much more. Why did you disobey me and do such a horrible thing? You murdered Uriah the Hittite by having the Ammonites kill him, so you could take his wife. "Because you wouldn't obey me and took Uriah's wife for yourself, your family will never live in peace. Someone from your own family will cause you a lot of trouble, and I will take your wives and give them to another man before your very eyes. He will go to bed with them while everyone looks on. What you did was in secret, but I will do this in the open for everyone in Israel to see."

Ecclesiastes 3:1-2 , 11, 14-15
There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven — a time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted............ He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end..... I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by.

The flood was made appropriate at a time. Before that, the fact every human hear was only evil all the time was made appropriate at a time. There is nothing to add to or subtract from God seeing every human heart was only evil all the time - including God learning something new!

Bow to the text.

I see nothing in that passage to support your thoughts.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us. There is no remembrance of earlier things; And also of the later things which will occur, there will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come later still.


Every human heart being only evil all the time was not something new God newly observed and did not already know. He saw it looking at Cain about to kill his brother. He saw it in the hubris of humanity delusionally imagining they could build a building to reach God. He saw it before He wiped the world clean except for eight people and He saw it again within a growing season after the flood waters receeded when Noah got drunk of his but and his son sodomized him. God did not learn something new.

As for Cain, did not the LORD say he could have honor if he did well. He had a choice. He chose sin.

Gen 4:6-7 And the Lord said to Cain, Why are you angry? and why is your face sad? If you do well, will you not have honour? and if you do wrong, sin is waiting at the door, desiring to have you, but do not let it be your master.

Bow to the text.

Psalm 44:20-21
If we had forgotten the name of our God Or extended our hands to a strange god, would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.

What if humanity forgot God? Would He know?
What? You mean like Genesis 6:5?
Yeah, like Genesis 6:5. Maybe God learned something new.​

The psalms say God knows everything, even the secrets of the human heart that is only evil all the time.

Psalm 139:4
Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it all.

Hebrews 4:13
And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Before any of those Genesis 6:5 people ever spoke a word or acted out a deed from their hearts that were only evil all the time, God knew it. It was not new knowledge to Him.

Bow to the text.

Does the text of Genesis 5:5-7 state God learned something new? Or maybe a mistake was made?

Of course, God knows our hearts. But it is still a point in time. God can direct our paths, based on how we act. As Deuteronomy says there is a blessing for obedience and a curse for disobedience.

 

[Josheb]

Does it really?

Yes, it really does.

Lets look at what is being said:

Gen_6:7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

What was the LORD sad about? That He had made man.

Yes. Sad and sorrowful He'd made humans and they'd become so thoroughly corrupted every intent of their heart was always evil. Wouldn't that make you sad or sorrowful. Do you have children? Have you every literally wished you hadn't sired and birth any of them?

Let's not get distracted because the onus is on you to prove your statement, not on me to prove mine. You said God suddenly got knowledge, and in saying that implied there is knowable knowledge God does not know. That is problem both scripturally and logically.

Of course, Jesus knew what was going to happen to Him. He was foreordained to suffer for us. This does not prove your point.

LOL. Yes, it does.

You would expect God to know all about our thoughts, but it does not mean He knows everything that will happen.

That's not my argument.

Yes, God appears to plan, at least parts of our lives. But if you look at David's life God changed the plan...

No, you assume God changed the plan.... AND He changed the plan away from some other already-existing plan. In other words, Not only did God not know what He was going to do, He did what He had planned to do. His prior plan was an illusion, a delusion, a knowledge of nothing, a vain imagination.


God does not exist in time or space. As I endeavored to explain in my op-replies, there is no before/during/or after for God. There is only "IS." Everything for God is IS. And when you, or any Open Theist, selectively use scripture pitting the determinism against the seemingly non-determined, it is bad exegesis. When passages that are poorly translated (like Gen. 6:5) are used it's not all on the reader because only by examining the text in the original language would that error be caught - but once being informed and provided with the means to verify it for yourself it is wholly inappropriate to persist using that text. It's not okay to press error once the error is made known and correct info held. Genesis 6:5 does not say he "regretted;" it says he was sorrowful or sad. Furthermore, His being sorrowful or sad does not also mean he could not also have been simultaneously glad, hopeful and/or excited. Do you have only one emotion at a time? Whey then do you make God do so?

In other words, there isn't just one flaw or problem with the case you're presenting, there are many.

And you still have not proven God suddenly got knowledge He did not previously possess. Do not infer it. Do not assume it. PROVE it.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

No, you assume God changed the plan.... AND He changed the plan away from some other already-existing plan. In other words, Not only did God not know what He was going to do, He did what He had planned to do. His prior plan was an illusion, a delusion, a knowledge of nothing, a vain imagination.

God does alter plans, based upon how we act in our free will. God does place limits on us, but there is no set concrete unaltering plan.

Jer 18:7-10 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

That is why God could regret making man in Genesis.

 

[Josheb]

God does alter plans, based upon how we act in our free will.

Whoa.

The original request was to prove one single solitary assertion. Nothing more. Several posts exchanges have come and gone, and that assertion has not been proven, little attempt to do so has been made and the effort has mostly begged the question. Now there is an entirely new and different position being asserted that also begs the question and needs to be proven.

Prove God alters plans based on how we act in our free will.

But not until you have proven God suddenly learned something new He did not already know at Gen. 6:6.
.

God does place limits on us, but there is no set concrete unaltering plan.

Again: Please stop making baseless assertions and start evidencing these claims with some semblance of soundly exegeted scripture.

But first prove God suddenly learns something new at Genesis 6:6. Do not assume it. Prove it.

Jer 18:7-10 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

That is a simple dialectic.

Creation is full of them. It does not mean God does not already know what will ensue. It does not mean God does not know what they will choose. It does not mean God does not know what He will do, what He always intended to do, or that His choice (or action) is dependent upon the choice(s) a nation makes. That passage could be read as a simple correlation, not causal. The assumption is that "the moment I speak" is a moment in creation, a moment in time, and not a moment outside time, space, or creation. This has always been one of the core flaws in Open Theism.

That is why God could regret making man in Genesis.

The word "regret" is not what the text says. The use of that word is a bad translation that is 1) already evidenced and explained in a previous post, 2) objectively verifiable, and therefore 3) irrational to pursue with persistence. "wayyinnaḥem" does not mean "regret" in the anthropomorphic sense of error-making humans. It would have to be assumed God errs to apply that interpretation to God. A god who makes mistakes is not a God, and it most certainly is not the God of the Bible.

The speculations and errors I have received are piling up and the original claim has still not been proven. Do not treat the claim to be proven as a given. Please do not digress anymore. Focus. Rise to the occasion. Collect your faculties. Make the case. Or tell me that you are unsure how that case might be made but it is nonetheless what you believe. I'm okay with that. It's not what I encourage, but I'll appreciate the forthcomingness. Instead, consider this exchange an opportunity to muster your skills and form a cogent case for your beliefs.

Prove "God suddenly [got] this knowledge in the following scripture [Gen. 6:6]." Prove God does not have all-encompassing knowledge (as defined by the op) and God does not know something knowable, and the Creator "suddenly" learns new knowledge from the creature He created.



Nothing more is asked of you at the present time.