On the omniscience of God

Right Divider

Body part
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.
The word "understanding" does NOT mean "knowledge".

The word translated "understanding" is this:

H8394 תָּבוּן tabuwn (taw-ɓoon') n-m.​
תֶּבוּנָה tebuwnah (teɓ-oo-naw') [feminine]​
תּוֹבוּנָה towbuwnah (teɓ-oo-naw')​
1. intelligence.
2. (by implication) an argument.​
3. (by extension) caprice, a sudden, impulsive change of mind.​
[from H995]​
KJV: discretion, reason, skilfulness, understanding, wisdom.​
Root(s): H995​

BOLD is mine.
 

Lon

Well-known member
The word "understanding" does NOT mean "knowledge".

The word translated "understanding" is this:

H8394 תָּבוּן tabuwn (taw-ɓoon') n-m.​
תֶּבוּנָה tebuwnah (teɓ-oo-naw') [feminine]​
תּוֹבוּנָה towbuwnah (teɓ-oo-naw')​
1. intelligence.
2. (by implication) an argument.​
3. (by extension) caprice, a sudden, impulsive change of mind.​
[from H995]​
KJV: discretion, reason, skilfulness, understanding, wisdom.​
Root(s): H995​

BOLD is mine.
Omni-intelligent? Works for me. If you understand something 'infinitely,' doesn't that entail all knowledge there-of? I believe the passage is omni-compelling. Infinite means infinite.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Omni-intelligent? Works for me. If you understand something 'infinitely,' doesn't that entail all knowledge there-of? I believe the passage is omni-compelling. Infinite means infinite.
You are stubbornly silly.

Infinite intelligence does NOT mean infinite knowledge.

Get real Lon.

Nothing will convince you of your error. You don't listen to anything but yourself.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I'm not talking about that text other than to say it absolutely 'doesn't' limit that knowledge,

The passage limits the scope of "all things" to what is defined in context.

To try to argue that it means anything more than that is to go beyond what the text says.

just gives 'hearts' as what else He knows all things about.

Thank you for conceding the entire discussion, and for admitting

You do too, the point of departure is how far we understand that knowledge.

Let's stick to what Scripture says. Not what we want it to say. Or what other people say about it...

See Maimonides, a Jewish commentator on the Torah. Jews then and today believe God is omni.

I couldn't care less what some man has to say about the scriptures.

I care about what scripture says, and plainly.

"Omni"competent Means all.

Omnicompetent just means "able to handle any situation."

That's it.

It leads to other Omnis because to be Omni anything, means you are Omni everything, logically.

No, it doesn't, Lon.

As I stated above, it simply means "able to handle any situation."

It does not necessitate having all power, or having all knowledge, or being everywhere at once.

As I stated in my previous post, which you completely ignored, God can play chess against someone and win without knowing His opponent's thoughts, and additionally, He can do so without needing all power, and without needing to be everywhere at once.

It is why Jews then and today believe He is Omni.

And they are wrong for believing it.

To be Omnicompetent, you have to be omniscient.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Had you not ignored what I said above about God playing chess, you would have realized that.

Example: Open Theists compare God to a chess player where in their definition, God knows every move possible, thus is risking nothing in any game.

No, that's YOUR position. Or at the very least, it's not ours.

OUR position (as I clearly stated previously) is that God DOES NOT (nor needs to) know every move possible, let alone that He does not know (or need to know) His opponent's every thought, in order to win the match. He is capable of winning simply through strategy alone.

Nope just saying we logically know in the first that the scope is limited to whatever man can know about Salvation. We don't automatically assume that is all these men knew about. It isn't limited except we don't believe and rather know men are not omniscient. While God knowing hearts is given in scope to hearts, logically we know implicitly this is not all God knows.

There is very little that is logical in this paragraph of yours.

First of all, you've moved the goalposts. The point of contention I'm making is that NEITHER VERSE supports the idea of omniscience. Neither men nor God know literally everything. My point all along has been to show you that 1 John 3:20 DOES NOT support the claim of God being omniscient, because just like in 1 John 2:20, the context of the verse doesn't allow for it.

Second, your argument is a false dilemma, implying that since God's knowledge isn't limited to men's hearts, it must be omniscient, ignoring the middle ground where God has a vast amount of knowledge exceeding human understanding, but doesn't know literally everything.

I didn't say it did, but rather the passage doesn't limit God's knowledge to simply/only 'knowing men's hearts.' It is that simple.

No one has said that God's knowledge is limited only to knowing men's hearts.

This is the "moving the goalposts" I was talking about.

I specifically, and repeatedly, said that 1 John 3:20 limits the "PAS" within the verse to "knowing men's hearts."

Again, to make it explicitly clear:

WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF 1 JOHN 3:20, the phrase "[God] knows all things" is SPECIFICALLY referring to "knowing men's hearts."

To then argue that it means "God is omniscient/knows literally everything" is to go beyond the text, and to read omniscience into the verse, eisegesis.

I didn't. You aren't arguing any context of our disagreement on point.

That is the necessary implication of saying that 1 John 3:20 supports the idea that God is omniscient.

Without begging the question that God is omniscient, there is no reason to think the John was saying that God is omniscient in that verse.

When you start with the idea that God is omniscient, then the only way to support the idea that John was saying that God is omniscient is to assert that John suddenly went off on a tangent, because that is the only possible way that what John said could mean "God is omniscient."

Not in contention, again rather the extrapolation that such somehow 'limits' God's knowledge.

Supra, moving the goalposts, hasty generalization.

Agree. My point rather: God knows 'everything' about men's hearts from the passage but does not cause limitation to come to mind.

Supra, hasty generalization.

Just because God isn't limited by this verse doesn't mean there are no limits to His knowledge. Those limits might be far beyond what we can comprehend, but it's a leap to conclude that God knows everything when 1 John 3:20 only says that God knows "all things" that pertain to men's hearts, within the context of the verse. (PLEASE NOTE: I DID NOT SAY "that God ONLY knows 'all things' that pertain to men's hearts" HERE!!!)

You don't even think those men's knowledge of 'everything' was limited to only what they knew about salvation.

Supra, moving the goalposts.

o_O
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.

"Abundant" in strength.
"Infinite" understanding.

Not "Omnipotent."
Not "Omniscient."

He is really strong.

He is very wise.

It doesn't say He has all power, nor does it say He has all knowledge.

The Jews believed this long before Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. This is brief from a Jewish website but several of the Jewish 'foundations' are declare the omnis of God as absolute and foundational to Jewish faith.

They can declare it all they want, doesn't make it true, and even on that page, while I recognize they weren't making a full argument, none of the few verses they gave support the claim.

Logically, it does.

Saying it doesn't make it so.
 

Lon

Well-known member
You are stubbornly silly.

Infinite intelligence does NOT mean infinite knowledge.
LOL.
Get real Lon.

Nothing will convince you of your error. You don't listen to anything but yourself.
Sounds oddly familiar. Why don't you understand that omni anything means omni everything?
Making a claim is easy. Proving it is something else entirely.
Let's try omnicompetent, an OV given with the chess analogy: If God knows all about chess, He knows every move possible (omniscient), has power to stop anything outside of the rules established (all powerful and the standard), and He can never lose. Do you see how logically, one omni equates to the others? I didn't make the argument or outcome of these, they are available long before I got here. They just follow logically.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Thank you for conceding the entire discussion, and for admitting
Somebody just told me I don't listen...
Let's stick to what Scripture says. Not what we want it to say. Or what other people say about it...
Somebody just told me I don't listen...
I couldn't care less what some man has to say about the scriptures.
Iron sharpens iron, no?
I care about what scripture says, and plainly.
You are an independent interpreter? I appreciate you, but even with you and I alone, we are not the sum of Scripture understanding and wisdom. I'm not saying I disagree on this point, but that there is more to it. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. The scope doesn't reach beyond prophecy, but it is a general reminder.
Omnicompetent just means "able to handle any situation."

That's it.



No, it doesn't, Lon.

As I stated above, it simply means "able to handle any situation."
Unfortunately, Open Theists used "omni." It is a point to show them something, logically.
It does not necessitate having all power, or having all knowledge, or being everywhere at once.
It does. The analogy is limited to chess, but chess is used to stand for all things hence OVers use 'omni.'
As I stated in my previous post, which you completely ignored, God can play chess against someone and win without knowing His opponent's thoughts, and additionally, He can do so without needing all power, and without needing to be everywhere at once.
I understand the scope of your logic and the limitation. 1) Open Theists use 'omni' for His competency. 2) Chess is analogous of knowing all things knowable (there are square circles, look it up). 3) As related to chess in analogy: invented the game, made the board, made the rules, sustains the other's ability to even move a piece, and has all-power to play the game, logically it means omni/ALL-things-chess.
No, that's YOUR position. Or at the very least, it's not ours.
It is the logic that follows.
OUR position (as I clearly stated previously) is that God DOES NOT (nor needs to) know every move possible, let alone that He does not know (or need to know) His opponent's every thought, in order to win the match. He is capable of winning simply through strategy alone.
Then He'd not be even omnicompetent (not my word, belongs to Open Theism).
There is very little that is logical in this paragraph of yours.
Not following isn't the same as not logical.
First of all, you've moved the goalposts. The point of contention I'm making is that NEITHER VERSE supports the idea of omniscience. Neither men nor God know literally everything. My point all along has been to show you that 1 John 3:20 DOES NOT support the claim of God being omniscient, because just like in 1 John 2:20, the context of the verse doesn't allow for it.

Second, your argument is a false dilemma, implying that since God's knowledge isn't limited to men's hearts, it must be omniscient, ignoring the middle ground where God has a vast amount of knowledge exceeding human understanding, but doesn't know literally everything.
Not the extrapolation, merely that it DOESN'T limit his knowledge.
No one has said that God's knowledge is limited only to knowing men's hearts.

This is the "moving the goalposts" I was talking about.
Agree.
I specifically, and repeatedly, said that 1 John 3:20 limits the "PAS" within the verse to "knowing men's hearts."

Again, to make it explicitly clear:

WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF 1 JOHN 3:20, the phrase "[God] knows all things" is SPECIFICALLY referring to "knowing men's hearts."

To then argue that it means "God is omniscient/knows literally everything" is to go beyond the text, and to read omniscience into the verse, eisegesis.
I didn't. I simply intimate that the verses aren't helpful in discussion between us. We concede each other's exegesis. It is true. All of it. Everything you've said and I've said about the passage, other than misunderstanding the points thereof, is true. I have no qualms with your exegesis of those two. I wouldn't go to those verses to prove anything related, myself.
That is the necessary implication of saying that 1 John 3:20 supports the idea that God is omniscient.
When classic theists use it, they may be trying to show God knows all things from a 'all things' search. :idunno:
Without begging the question that God is omniscient, there is no reason to think the John was saying that God is omniscient in that verse.

When you start with the idea that God is omniscient, then the only way to support the idea that John was saying that God is omniscient is to assert that John suddenly went off on a tangent, because that is the only possible way that what John said could mean "God is omniscient."
Perhaps not the only, but I believe I concur.
Just because God isn't limited by this verse doesn't mean there are no limits to His knowledge. Those limits might be far beyond what we can comprehend, but it's a leap to conclude that God knows everything when 1 John 3:20 only says that God knows "all things" that pertain to men's hearts, within the context of the verse. (PLEASE NOTE: I DID NOT SAY "that God ONLY knows 'all things' that pertain to men's hearts" HERE!!!)
From this verse, agree.
"Abundant" in strength.
"Infinite" understanding.

Not "Omnipotent."
Not "Omniscient."
Yet He is Almighty. He is omnipotent. If one omni, all omnis. "Infinite" in understanding? Omni-understanding.
He is really strong.

He is very wise.

It doesn't say He has all power, nor does it say He has all knowledge.
Was concerned about the latter, but He is Almighty.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Because it doesn't. You're a fraud Lon.

Again: Infinite intelligence does NOT mean infinite knowledge.

It's too bad that either you don't understand what words mean or you just don't care.
Digs notwithstanding, argue the points. It is a pointless discussion to have vitriol involved here.

...the three omni-attributes of God are quite inseparable. Since God’s power is purposeful and universal, it implies his omniscience. And since God’s omnipotence and omniscience are universal, we must conclude that he is omnipresent. We could note further that since God is omnipresent, all his attributes are omnipresent as well—his power and knowledge, as well as his truth, love, grace, eternity, infinity, and so on. -Gospel Coalition
"Fraud" doesn't work. These are not my thoughts of origin. I concur with minds before me that logically, if one omni, then all. Almighty (Omni-potent literally) is a scriptural given. Omnicompetent is an OV given.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Digs notwithstanding, argue the points. It is a pointless discussion to have vitriol involved here.
JudgeRightly has already argued the points quite well.

Intelligence is NOT identical to knowledge, your false claims that it is notwithstanding.
"Fraud" doesn't work. These are not my thoughts of origin.
Then you simply perpetuate someone else's fraud.
I concur with minds before me that logically, if one omni, then all.
There is nothing "logical" about that claim.
 

SwordOfTruth

Active member
Almighty (Omni-potent literally)

Errrr you might want to go back and look at the true definition of "Almighty". Go back to the Hebrew which is El Shaddai and then go look at the definition of that. It might surprise you !


 

Lon

Well-known member
JudgeRightly has already argued the points quite well.

Intelligence is NOT identical to knowledge, your false claims that it is notwithstanding.
You aren't following: if one omni, all omnis. Way ahead of the conversation to be making value statements that don't apply.
Then you simply perpetuate someone else's fraud.
Prove them wrong. Engage the thread.
There is nothing "logical" about that claim.
Prove them wrong.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Errrr you might want to go back and look at the true definition of "Almighty". Go back to the Hebrew which is El Shaddai and then go look at the definition of that. It might surprise you !


All means all. Mighty means potent. The Hebrew is that clear.
 

Right Divider

Body part

Lon

Well-known member
...NEITHER VERSE supports the idea of omniscience. Neither men nor God know literally everything. My point all along has been to show you that 1 John 3:20 DOES NOT support the claim of God being omniscient, because just like in 1 John 2:20, the context of the verse doesn't allow for it.
Consider their context a moment: God 'who is greater' knows all things. The sentence legitimately goes beyond hearts in that sentence. I see their point.
 

Lon

Well-known member
No, that is false.

That is a claim without a shred of support. You just keep repeating it.
You didn't read the link?
Prove that true.
Maybe you missed the post? He gives the context for the assertion and the whys.
I have... a little... like I said, @JudgeRightly has already addressed your non-arguments quite well.

Prove that true.
Challenge accepted. Scripture is replete that God is all-powerful. "Nothing can thwart Thee, Nothing is impossible," etc. Scripture is so clear that God is omnipotent, that it is one attributed omni no theologian worth their salt can thwart. Sorry. Follow logically: If God is all-powerful (Colossians 1:16-20), He has to know literally all that is capable of challenging this power (omniscience). Why? Because He could not claim Almighty except to know that He is Almighty against any happenstance. Omnicompetence implies that He already knows, it already concedes the Omni's by assertion! (yes it does, you need to think more about the implications of logic, it necessarily does). Why? Omnicompetence means literally completely-able (implied) to win and never lose for one. To never be surprised by a move, else He isn't omnicompetent. Open Theism concedes the omnis by the admission. There are many theology and philosophy sites that prove this much better, but the logic isn't escapable: If one omni, necessarily all omnis. Some philosophy websites and Epicurus tried to say God couldn't have them all by incorrectly and with logical flaws to say if God was all-powerful, then why does evil exist etc. Freewill theists argue against these easily enough as untrue. Logically, if one omni, then logically all omnis else a person doesn't mean 'omni.'

One instance of objection: "Can God sin?" No "Then He is not all powerful." Incorrect. Sin isn't something to do with power. Faulty concept. While sinful men wield power, it isn't 'sin' that gives them that power. Rather power is abused, meaning sin is subservient (looking for a better term) to power, or uses power, is not power itself, nor an indicator of power.

I've seen no way out of the implication of one omni meaning all omnis without a fallacy in conception.
 

Lon

Well-known member
"All" and "Mighty" are English words. The Hebrew you are referring to is El Shaddai.

You start there and then translate to English. Almighty is not the correct translation.
The Septuagint which Our Lord Jesus read from, says "παντοκράτωρ" : All-potent is the meaning of El Shaddai. Fact.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
LOL.

Sounds oddly familiar. Why don't you understand that omni anything means omni everything?

Let's try omnicompetent, an OV given with the chess analogy: If God knows all about chess, He knows every move possible (omniscient),
That's as far as you got before making your first error. Knowing every possible move does not imply knowing every move that will be made and thus it is not omniscience.

has power to stop anything outside of the rules established (all powerful and the standard), and He can never lose. \
Having the ability to stop anything doesn't imply either a need, a requirement nor even the willingness to do so.

Further, God doesn't always get what He desires, which falls outside the analogy but definitely does explode your hypothesis.

Do you see how logically, one omni equates to the others?
I see how you've made errors that led you to make the connection.

I didn't make the argument or outcome of these, they are available long before I got here. They just follow logically.
Except that they don't. It's question begging. You are presuming definitions that are at question in order to make the argument.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"All" and "Mighty" are English words. The Hebrew you are referring to is El Shaddai.

You start there and then translate to English. Almighty is not the correct translation.
Yes it is exactly the correct translation!

See! How it easy it is to make bald claims?!

Here's the actual argument.....

The Greek word παντοκράτωρ (pantokrátōr) translates to "Almighty" or "All-Powerful" in English. It combines panto- (meaning "all" or "every") and krátōr (meaning "ruler" or "power").
 
Top