Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[nPeace]

Omniscience means knowing everything and perfect knowledge means having complete knowledge of everything there is to know...

According to your definition then, omniscient means perfect knowledge, and that's not the true definition of omniscient.

When something is perfect, it is complete. It does not mean it is everything.
For example, a knife is perfect for cutting bread, or other things of that sort. It doesn't mean that the knife is imperfect because it can't cut metal. It is a complete product nonetheless - perfect in its design.

God's knowledge is complete. He is perfect in knowledge.
He is perfect in wisdom, justice, love, etc. - perfect in all his way.

Often, we tend to put our understanding on things,as though our understanding is superior to what we are trying to understand. This leads us to our own conclusions, not the correct conclusions.
If we want to understand the God of the Bible, then we must let the Bible explain the God we are seeking to understand.
Does the Bible say God knows everything? No it does not.
If you say otherwise, then you must be able to show me.
If you can't, then you are mistaken - there is a misunderstanding.

The Bible shows that God does not choose to know everything. He is selective in what he seeks to know.
Please see Genesis 18:19-22; 19:1; 22:11, 12; Deuteronomy 30:19, 20; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 45:19-22; Zephaniah 2:1-3; Acts 17:30, 31; Romans 2:4-6; 14:12; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4; Hebrews 6:4-12; 2 Peter 3:9;

God is omnipotent - that is, all powerful, but does being all powerful, mean all destructive? No, the earth and its inhabitants exist, because God is in control of his power. It is not an automatic power that destroys everything around it. He also balances that attribute with all the others, including his perfect love, which allows him to use his power in a perfectly loving way; his perfect wisdom in a perfectly wise way; his perfect justice, in a perfectly just way, etc.
His ability to know all things is no different. He is in control of that also.

So if we are discussing the same God - that is, the one described in the Bible, Jehovah - then the onus is on you to show from the Bible where it says what you are making a claim for.
Otherwise, we are discussing two different Gods, and therefore will not get anywhere, nor come to a reasonable conclusion.
Is this reasonable?

@Jos I should say though, that if you understand omniscient to mean, all knowing, in the sense of knowing everything, including everything not known regardless, then the God of the Bible is not omniscient, in that sense.
See the article : What Will Your Future Be? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[nPeace]

People questioning each other's personal truths is different than scientific truth. This thread seems to be devolving into chaos.

I don't find it any different, since ideas of men are often presented as scientific truth, and there ensue in heated debates in the scientific community.
In fact, to this day, many so-called scientific truths are still being hotly debated, and many already contend that that will not end, since Scientific Proof Is A Myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to your definition then, omniscient means perfect knowledge, and that's not the true definition of omniscient.

When something is perfect, it is complete. It does not mean it is everything.
For example, a knife is perfect for cutting bread, or other things of that sort. It doesn't mean that the knife is imperfect because it can't cut metal. It is a complete product nonetheless - perfect in its design.

God's knowledge is complete. He is perfect in knowledge.
He is perfect in wisdom, justice, love, etc. - perfect in all his way.

Often, we tend to put our understanding on things,as though our understanding is superior to what we are trying to understand. This leads us to our own conclusions, not the correct conclusions.
If we want to understand the God of the Bible, then we must let the Bible explain the God we are seeking to understand.
Does the Bible say God knows everything? No it does not.
If you say otherwise, then you must be able to show me.
If you can't, then you are mistaken - there is a misunderstanding.

The Bible shows that God does not choose to know everything. He is selective in what he seeks to know.
Please see Genesis 18:19-22; 19:1; 22:11, 12; Deuteronomy 30:19, 20; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 45:19-22; Zephaniah 2:1-3; Acts 17:30, 31; Romans 2:4-6; 14:12; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4; Hebrews 6:4-12; 2 Peter 3:9;

God is omnipotent - that is, all powerful, but does being all powerful, mean all destructive? No, the earth and its inhabitants exist, because God is in control of his power. It is not an automatic power that destroys everything around it. He also balances that attribute with all the others, including his perfect love, which allows him to use his power in a perfectly loving way; his perfect wisdom in a perfectly wise way; his perfect justice, in a perfectly just way, etc.
His ability to know all things is no different. He is in control of that also.

So if we are discussing the same God - that is, the one described in the Bible, Jehovah - then the onus is on you to show from the Bible where it says what you are making a claim for.
Otherwise, we are discussing two different Gods, and therefore will not get anywhere, nor come to a reasonable conclusion.
Is this reasonable?

It is usually the Christians that claim their God is omniscient. When that becomes a problem they try to redefine omniscience. One could play the Christian game of pick and choose and find verses that show there are limits to God's knowledge, but you asked for a verse of passage that shows he is omniscient in the classical sense. Here you go:
Psalm 147 4-5 tells you that God's knowledge is infinite.

 

[nPeace]

It is usually the Christians that claim their God is omniscient. When that becomes a problem they try to redefine omniscience. One could play the Christian game of pick and choose and find verses that show there are limits to God's knowledge, but you asked for a verse of passage that shows he is omniscient in the classical sense. Here you go:
Psalm 147 4-5 tells you that God's knowledge is infinite.

Thank you.
That explains exactly what I am saying.
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit.
Why do these scriptures use understanding and wisdom, do you think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't find it any different, since ideas of men are often presented as scientific truth, and there ensue in heated debates in the scientific community.
In fact, to this day, many so-called scientific truths are still being hotly debated, and many already contend that that will not end, since Scientific Proof Is A Myth.

All that your article tells us is that one cannot do a mathematical type of proof in the sciences. But if you ever accept the concept that someone in a trial was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then by the same standards the theory of evolution has been proven. In fact if you accept anything that is not a mathematical proof, then by that same standard the theory of evolution has been proven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you.
That explains exactly what I am saying.
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit.
Why do these scriptures use understanding and wisdom, do you think?

Actually that verse supports the idea of classic omniscience. If something is conceivable then God would have known it ahead of time. He would have known that Adam would have failed and he knew how he could have avoided that. Adam's failure is his failure.

 

[nPeace]

All that your article tells us is that one cannot do a mathematical type of proof in the sciences. But if you ever accept the concept that someone in a trial was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then by the same standards the theory of evolution has been proven. In fact if you accept anything that is not a mathematical proof, then by that same standard the theory of evolution has been proven.

Your reasoning makes no sense, for four reasons.
1, Something that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not proven based on assumptions. 2. The theory of evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, 3. is based on assumptions, and 4. is not rightly and scientifically a theory, but a hypothesis.

 

[nPeace]

Actually that verse supports the idea of classic omniscience. If something is conceivable then God would have known it ahead of time. He would have known that Adam would have failed and he knew how he could have avoided that. Adam's failure is his failure.

Making claims based on faulty reasoning is not fact. Can you answer the question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reasoning makes no sense, for four reasons.
1, Something that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not proven based on assumptions. 2. The theory of evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, 3. is based on assumptions, and 4. is not rightly and scientifically a theory, but a hypothesis.

Wrong on all counts. Try again.

 

[nPeace]

Wrong on all counts. Try again.

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Making claims based on faulty reasoning is not fact. Can you answer the question?

Please, faulty reasoning is your "sin". When you ask improper questions you will not get the answer that you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope.

Now you are failing at being honest. But of course we all know that one cannot be honest and be a creationist.

 

[nPeace]

Please, faulty reasoning is your "sin". When you ask improper questions you will not get the answer that you want.

You inserted your own word in a text, in order to support your own belief. Then refuse to address a question on the same text.
That's not only faulty reasoning, but dishonesty.
Do you care to say anything about the ninth commandment here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You inserted your own word in a text, in order to support your own belief. Then refuse to address a question on the same text.
That's not only faulty reasoning, but dishonesty.
Do you care to say anything about the ninth commandment here?

No, the version that I first saw used the word "infinite" . You should know that there is more than one interpretation of the Bible. Why make such an obviously false accusation?

 

[nPeace]

Now you are failing at being honest. But of course we all know that one cannot be honest and be a creationist.

Let's start from #1.
1, Something that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not proven based on assumptions.
What's wrong about that?
If you say nothing, then you must be "a dishonest creationist".
If something is wrong with it, then please explain what. Otherwise, you must be "a dishonest creationist".

 

[nPeace]

No, the version that I first saw used the word "infinite" . You should know that there is more than one interpretation of the Bible. Why make such an obviously false accusation?

It does not say knowledge. You inserted that. Please read again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reasoning makes no sense, for four reasons.
1, Something that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not proven based on assumptions. 2. The theory of evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, 3. is based on assumptions, and 4. is not rightly and scientifically a theory, but a hypothesis.

this is so wrong as to crossing the boundary into lying.

For number one there are always some basic assumptions for any reasoning. In courts of law we "assume" that the evidence has been tested and is valid. We "assume" that the defense is trying to help the defendant. We make quite a few "assumptions" . You were dishonest in ignoring my qualification of "by the same standard". Number two is so wrong as to be laughable. If you want to learn why we know the theory to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt I will gladly go over it with you. You would have to promise to try to be honest first and be amenable to correction. Three is where you cross the boundary into lying. You have to know by now that the theory of evolution is evidence based. It is a lie to claim it is based upon assumptions. And four is a joke that tells us that you apparently are scientifically illiterate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's start from #1.
1, Something that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not proven based on assumptions.
What's wrong about that?
If you say nothing, then you must be "a dishonest creationist".
If something is wrong with it, then please explain what. Otherwise, you must be "a dishonest creationist".

You use the word "assumption" improperly and make an incorrect conclusion . That is what is wrong with that.

Creationists abuse the word so much that they are banned from using the word "assumption" unless they can name the assumption and make a case for it being an invalid one.

 

[nPeace]

this is so wrong as to crossing the boundary into lying.

For number one there are always some basic assumptions for any reasoning. In courts of law we "assume" that the evidence has been tested and is valid. We "assume" that the defense is trying to help the defendant. We make quite a few "assumptions" . You were dishonest in ignoring my qualification of "by the same standard". Number two is so wrong as to be laughable. If you want to learn why we know the theory to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt I will gladly go over it with you. You would have to promise to try to be honest first and be amenable to correction. Three is where you cross the boundary into lying. You have to know by now that the theory of evolution is evidence based. It is a lie to claim it is based upon assumptions. And four is a joke that tells us that you apparently are scientifically illiterate.

Oh, now you read it.
So you just exposed yourself... again - which I knew all along. You respond to Creationist's posts with opposition, without reading them
This changes nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does not say knowledge. You inserted that. Please read again.

I thought that you were complaining about "infinite". How his understanding different from knowledge in this context? He understood what Adam would do. He is still at fault.