I usually use blueletterbible.com. I believe they reference Strong’s, in which case, I already looked up the nearest English translations of those verses written by /the/ scholar. They said God knows everything. Strong doesn’t leave “But God can choose not to know” wiggle-room, and such wiggle-room is logically inconsistent with “God knows everything,” anyway.

I’ll try to make my objection to your position clearer.

You believe that the Bible is inspired because it is inerrant. I also remember learning that the Bible does not contradict itself, that it is only apparently contradictory.

So I point out what appears to be a contradiction: omniscience is just a modern way of summing up God’s knowledge, which the Bible is fairly clear on. And I provided verses.

You respond that we must consult the original languages to know what was really meant, and even if we do, we’re still stuck with (naturally) a modern translation of the meaning. IOWs, you imply that the Bible still does not contradict itself, and our belief that it does is due to a poor translation.

My question is this: how can you maintain that the bible is inspired because it is infallible, but at the same time argue that the bible is infallible even though you can’t demonstrate this to be the case, because of the problem of translation?

I guess I’m wondering why you mess around with silly details like that instead of skipping straight to the punchline. To wit: the bible is inspired because it is infallible, and the bible is infallible because I believe it is; therefore, the bible is inspired because I believe it is.

It’s really simple.

d

In order to seek out the specific arguments used to find the exact correct meaning, I have to rely on scholars of the ancient languages. I have chosen men such as W.E. Vine, J.H. Thayer, and Strong,the latter incidentally, of these is considered by most knowledgeable writers of these times as /the / scholar, and is probably more quoted that the ancients. He quotes /them/.

I have no access to the ancients, but I will try to find more accurate information for you, if I may have time. Daddy

Let’s see if I understand your position here. Essentially, the bible, as originally written, is infallible, but probably all modern translations fall short of the original intent/meaning through problems of translation.

Assuming I am correct, I reject your initial premise that the bible is infallible. Here’s your problem now: with the escape from contradiction you just used, how can you argue for the bible’s infallibility?

Back to omniscience: You wish to argue that the bible is translated inaccurately, and thus my reading of a translation is misleading. OK. Please provide rebuttals to the two verses I listed, specifically addressing the points where the English text states outright that God knows everything. I’m interested in specific explanations concerning the original meanings of the Greek and Hebrew (as appropriate) which would give me reason to doubt that myriad scholars of ancient languages who translated each version were misinformed.

As the old Colgate commercial went, Put your money where your mouth is.

d

I’ve developed the attitude that when God asks a question, either it’s rhetorical or else He wants the person he’s addressing to hear himself give the answer. In the case of Abram, it would be to convince Abram of his own faith. It’s not entirely Scriptural, but it helps me reconcile the idea of an omniscient God with a God who asks questions.

Dave

After reading your expose, I still assume your working definition of “omniscience” is “capable of knowing any/everything.”

It is with this definition that I went to my favorite bulletin board to advocate this new definition. I ran into much trouble getting people to understand that I was attempting to clarify the definition a bit, and that this is allowable; most of them are even yet arguing against the standard definition (the simple “all-knowing").

However, I ran into a problem I couldn’t surmount: the biblical verses listed above. The bible doesn’t leave room in its descriptions of God for him to be only capable of knowing everything. I’ve listed the two verses I couldn’t, in good conscience, get to fit the preferred definition.

As you acknowledge, there is no mention of “omniscience” or “free will” in the Bible. That leaves us with what the Bible says on the matter to determine where people got these ideas.

As you are well aware, the Bible doesn’t make this easy for us. It is not explained, for example, how God might need to look for Adam and Eve…or why God would require Abram to go through with the sacrifice of his son to prove himself. Etc. However, the Bible very clearly states that God knows everything–whence our word “omniscience.” By the same token, the bible doesn’t say we have free will; however, the doctrine is logically necessary, is it not? Now there’s a problem every time God, say, hardens Pharaoh’s heart, or otherwise influences events.

These are what the unbiased observer would call “contradictions.”

Preemptively: we can call it an “apparent contradiction” only if further evidence reasonably suggests the obvious interpretation is incorrect; otherwise, it is simply a contradiction. If you begin from the perspective that it isn’t a real contradiction simply because you refuse to believe such a thing is possible, please have the integrity to doubt any of the resulting offspring your imagination yields. Confirmation bias only accidentally leads one to objective truth.

d

Dave, I’ll start by shooting down your position that God knows all. Read, if you will, the account of Abram, when he went to offer Isaac. When God stayed his hand, God told him ‘now I know that thou fearest God’. If he knew all, he would not have had to try Abram (test him) to see if he would fail. I submit that this is a clear case where God willingly withheld knowledge from himself.

This leaves us with two possibilities. One, God does not /know/ all, but has the /ability / to know all. Two, The ability to know all must include the probability that he is also capable of unknowing that which is already know, which is a sticking point.

In the event that ‘one’ is chosen, we are stuck with the probability that the words in the passages cited were improperly translated in the text, or incompletely translated. Lets look at that for a moment.

The word in Job 28 indicates ‘to know by seeing’ (Strong). That supports my thoughts that he withholds knowledge. In 1Jn.3:20, the number that Strong gives is 1097, which is define by him as “to know", then examples are given which include ‘allow, be aware of, feel (have) know(ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand. Personally, i believe it refers to ‘understand’, comparing to 1Cor.4,5. You may disagree.

With these things in mind, I remind you, PD, that you wanted to know about “free will” of man. You have also bandied about, or used, the word omniscient in your discussion. Neither word is found in the bible, there fore, we cannot look up a specific definition of these words, as found in the ancient hebrew and greek tongues, especially with respect to their use in the bible.

The answer to your question, then, is this: If God limits himself in his knowledge, that is, if his knowledge comes from seeing, then it follows that individuals have a ‘free’ will, that is, the will given to us to make dicisions based on feelings, knowledge, results, or whatever, is ours to make freely. This is indicated quite often in both the old and new testaments. However, there are many examples as well of God overriding the will of man, because he ckhose that person as a vessel of his (more powerful (will). Perhaps this answers your question, and perhaps not. It is , however, an excellent exercise in word study.