On the omniscience of God

[Clete]

Use your concordance on 'to see.' We don't want to extrapolate too far what English tells us. "To approve, to validate," etc. are well within the scope here. We don't want to proof-text our theology from not grasping the full meaning of any one word, without scrutiny. "Before a word is on my tongue, You know it well" seems a good indicator that we go further in our examination of what our take-away from any given text must inform. One objection is over these specifics because "To see" is an English-driven idea that doesn't convey as well as perhaps an explanatory paragraph from Strongs 'observe' doesn't mean 'to see' on point and perhaps our theology is short-sheeted from grasping the actual word we are trying to convey.

Rather than simply saying that something needs to be done, why don't you do it? If "to see" isn't correct, then what is?

I asked Chat GPT a similar question because I don't have the time it would take to look it up myself. Here's the answer I got....

The phrase "to see" in Genesis 2:19 comes from the Hebrew word לִרְאוֹת (lir'ot), which is derived from the verb רָאָה (ra'ah), meaning "to see" or "to observe." The specific verse in Hebrew is:​

וַיָּבֵא אֶל־הָאָדָם לִרְאוֹת מַה־יִּקְרָא־לוֹ "And He brought [them] to the man to see what he would call them."​

Meaning and Accuracy:​

1. Literal Meaning of "To See": The word רָאָה is primarily visual, meaning "to look at," "to observe," or "to perceive." In this context, it suggests God was "observing" or "watching" what Adam would name the animals.
2. Implications in Context:
   • The use of לִרְאוֹת implies a sense of anticipation or interest in Adam's action.
   • It may carry a connotation of God allowing Adam to exercise creativity and dominion, observing his choice without dictating it.
3. Accuracy of Translation:
   • "To see" is a very accurate translation of לִרְאוֹת in English.
   • However, some translations may add interpretive elements to convey the relational or participatory nature of the event, such as "to see what he would name them" (NIV) or "to see what he would call them" (ESV).

Theological Significance:​

The phrase implies a participatory relationship between God and Adam, highlighting human agency. God is not prescribing the names but rather witnessing Adam's exercise of the authority given to him (Genesis 1:28). This relational dynamic supports a broader understanding of God's interaction with creation as one that involves genuine response and freedom.​

​

I'd have to say that I agree with every syllable of that and would be willing to bet that you can't refute any of it.

We alternatively draw conclusions that aren't the same. I've gone into the text for instance with God saying "Now I know." The Hebrew word and English given do not match up. Am I better translator? No, other than I'd have given a lot of footnotes whenever an idea didn't quite convey in English what the text actually meant. It is my estimation that many OV paradigms come from not digging deeper and looking at original words and intent. Granted we get a good basic idea from English what was transpiring, but we have to dig beyond before we make up a theology system. If it is based on a limited scope of English meaning, it is problematic. Do I have some of these in my theology? Undoubtedly so I look forward to correction and discussions such as these.

I asked the same question concerning the phrase "now I know" in Genesis 22:12. Here's the answer I got.......

In Genesis 22:12, the phrase "now I know" comes from the Hebrew עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי (attah yada'ti), where:​

• עַתָּה (attah) means "now."
• יָדַעְתִּי (yada'ti) is the first-person singular perfect form of יָדַע (yada), meaning "to know."

The full Hebrew phrase is:​

כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה "For now I know that you fear God."​

Meaning and Accuracy:​

1. Literal Meaning of "Now I Know":
   • The verb יָדַע (yada) generally means "to know," and in this form, it expresses completed action: "I have come to know" or "I now know."
   • The word עַתָּה (now) emphasizes the timing—this knowledge is newly confirmed at the moment of Abraham's demonstrated obedience.
2. Accuracy of Translation:
   • "Now I know" is a very accurate rendering of the Hebrew phrase.
   • Some translations might interpret or paraphrase it slightly to emphasize the implication of experiential knowledge, e.g., "I see now" or "I have come to know."

Interpretive Considerations:​

• Theological and Philosophical Implications:
  • The phrase suggests that God’s knowledge in this context is relational or experiential. While classical theism often asserts that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, this passage appears to highlight a dynamic where God's "knowing" is tied to Abraham’s actions unfolding in real time.
  • Some interpret this as anthropomorphic language—a way of describing God's interaction with human events in terms that humans can understand. Others see it as a genuine instance of God experiencing and responding to human choices.
• Open Theism and Relational Theology:
  • In views like Open Theism, this phrase aligns well with the idea that God's knowledge includes knowing possibilities and experiencing events as they happen, allowing genuine human freedom.
  • The emphasis on "now" points to a specific moment where Abraham’s reverence for God is not just theoretically known but confirmed through action.

In summary, "now I know" is an accurate and straightforward translation of the Hebrew, but its deeper implications have sparked significant theological reflection on the nature of God's knowledge and relationship with creation.​

​

It is fascinating to note that I DID NOT mention anything about Open Theism in my question! In fact, here's the verbatim prompt that I entered into Chat GPT....

"When the bible says that God had Adam name the animals "to see" what he would call them, what is it in the original language that is translated "to see" and just how accurate a translation is that into English?", and to get the second response, I simply entered, "Same question concerning the phrase "now I know" in Gen 22:12."​

 

[Clete]

Sadly, I'm that guy. Attah (Hebrew) doesn't unerringly mean 'now I know! (now) as the only translation word.' Rather, like most Hebrew words, it has a broader meanings. "Since" I know, for example. Did a translator mean to intimate that God could not know the heart? We've pitted against the idea in this very thread, between us with scriptural support from the Open View, that God does know our hearts and is greater than them. Does it make logical sense, that God could not or did not know Abraham would follow through? Did Abraham make his servant wait while he and Isaac went further? Sticks for a burnt offering? Can it truly be, from assertion, that God didn't know what Abraham was about to do until "now?" Even if "Now" were the proper English equivalent, would we yet assume on at the point of striking the match was the point of 'knowing?' Could God have even known then, after stopping the act? What if Abraham were to recant and put out the fire in disobedience? "Lord! I cannot do it!" IOW "Now" I believe is not a good translation because it makes less logical sense than other good translation words available.

"When" did God know? How can we be sure, if the Open idea is correct, that God ever knew by the assertion? Isn't it rather and truly because of the paradigm that God knows men's hearts, that we know? If so "now" would not be the best translation of the text, even for Open Theism? "Now" just causes all kinds of trouble to an otherwise straightforward passage. I don't believe translators intended that. The majority of translators were not concerned over Open View paradigms (didn't exist really at the time for their notice). They were trying to convey an idea, and I believe they inadvertently mishandled the translation. "Now" isn't even good for Open View assumptions because of all these problematic ideas, all created because of the English word 'now' which is not problematic in the Hebrew text simply because most Hebrew words have multiple meanings and attah doesn't by any necessity mean "now." It is translated often enough differently into English as "wherefor, since," etc. that we should allow for context and study to inform our take-away. That Open Theism wants/needs to say 'now?' I get it, but I'd suggest this isn't a good prooftext for it.

See my previous post above.

The only thing that I'll add is that all of this two paragraphs of back breaking philosophical knot tying is 100% motivated by your doctrine and NOT the text! It is just one more example of how you read your doctrine into the text. In fact, it is literally a two paragraph exposé on the process your mind uses to do exactly that. It is the opposite of getting your doctrine from the scripture!

 

[Lon]

Rather than simply saying that something needs to be done, why don't you do it? If "to see" isn't correct, then what is?

I asked Chat GPT a similar question because I don't have the time it would take to look it up myself. Here's the answer I got....

The phrase "to see" in Genesis 2:19 comes from the Hebrew word לִרְאוֹת (lir'ot), which is derived from the verb רָאָה (ra'ah), meaning "to see" or "to observe." The specific verse in Hebrew is:​

Meaning and Accuracy:​

1. Literal Meaning of "To See": The word רָאָה is primarily visual, meaning "to look at," "to observe," or "to perceive." In this context, it suggests God was "observing" or "watching" what Adam would name the animals.
2. Implications in Context:
   • The use of לִרְאוֹת implies a sense of anticipation or interest in Adam's action.
   • It may carry a connotation of God allowing Adam to exercise creativity and dominion, observing his choice without dictating it.
3. Accuracy of Translation:
   • "To see" is a very accurate translation of לִרְאוֹת in English.
   • However, some translations may add interpretive elements to convey the relational or participatory nature of the event, such as "to see what he would name them" (NIV) or "to see what he would call them" (ESV).

Theological Significance:​

The phrase implies a participatory relationship between God and Adam, highlighting human agency. God is not prescribing the names but rather witnessing Adam's exercise of the authority given to him (Genesis 1:28). This relational dynamic supports a broader understanding of God's interaction with creation as one that involves genuine response and freedom.​

​

I'd have to say that I agree with every syllable of that and would be willing to bet that you can't refute any of it.

Except observe doesn't convey the same meaning in English and is well within the Hebrew meaning. One might argue that 'observe' IS 'to see!' I agree, but we use 'to see' as a colloquialism 'to find out.' So out the gates, no longer does one read 'to see' as simply observing: we've loaded it to mean 'to find out.' I can look to see my children breaking a pinata. Do I know what is in it? Yes, and not the reason for my choosing to see 'what they were going to do.' We've allowed a forcing of the text to go beyond it. Hebrew words generally are not this specific nor do they convey added ideas that weren't there in intent originally. It forces the text to mean "to find out."
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition

(BDB is the go-to, Strong's is usually based on)

1. to see, look at, inspect, perceive, consider
   1. (Qal)
      1. to see
      2. to see, perceive
      3. to see, have vision
      4. to look at, see, regard, look after, see after, learn about, observe, watch, look upon, look out, find out
      5. to see, observe, consider, look at, give attention to, discern, distinguish
      6. to look at, gaze at
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to appear, present oneself
      2. to be seen
      3. to be visible
   3. (Pual) to be seen
   4. (Hiphil)
      1. to cause to see, show
      2. to cause to look intently at, behold, cause to gaze at
   5. (Hophal)
      1. to be caused to see, be shown
      2. to be exhibited to
   6. (Hithpael) to look at each other, face

I asked the same question concerning the phrase "now I know" in Genesis 22:12. Here's the answer I got.......

In Genesis 22:12, the phrase "now I know" comes from the Hebrew עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי (attah yada'ti), where:​

• עַתָּה (attah) means "now."
• יָדַעְתִּי (yada'ti) is the first-person singular perfect form of יָדַע (yada), meaning "to know."

The full Hebrew phrase is:​

Meaning and Accuracy:​

1. Literal Meaning of "Now I Know":
   • The verb יָדַע (yada) generally means "to know," and in this form, it expresses completed action: "I have come to know" or "I now know."
   • The word עַתָּה (now) emphasizes the timing—this knowledge is newly confirmed at the moment of Abraham's demonstrated obedience.
2. Accuracy of Translation:
   • "Now I know" is a very accurate rendering of the Hebrew phrase.
   • Some translations might interpret or paraphrase it slightly to emphasize the implication of experiential knowledge, e.g., "I see now" or "I have come to know."

Interpretive Considerations:​

• Theological and Philosophical Implications:
  • The phrase suggests that God’s knowledge in this context is relational or experiential. While classical theism often asserts that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, this passage appears to highlight a dynamic where God's "knowing" is tied to Abraham’s actions unfolding in real time.
  • Some interpret this as anthropomorphic language—a way of describing God's interaction with human events in terms that humans can understand. Others see it as a genuine instance of God experiencing and responding to human choices.
• Open Theism and Relational Theology:
  • In views like Open Theism, this phrase aligns well with the idea that God's knowledge includes knowing possibilities and experiencing events as they happen, allowing genuine human freedom.
  • The emphasis on "now" points to a specific moment where Abraham’s reverence for God is not just theoretically known but confirmed through action.

In summary, "now I know" is an accurate and straightforward translation of the Hebrew, but its deeper implications have sparked significant theological reflection on the nature of God's knowledge and relationship with creation.​

BDB once again and follow the link as simply "I know" and therefore possible for attah (since, whereof, etc.)

​

It is fascinating to note that I DID NOT mention anything about Open Theism in my question! In fact, here's the verbatim prompt that I entered into Chat GPT....

"When the bible says that God had Adam name the animals "to see" what he would call them, what is it in the original language that is translated "to see" and just how accurate a translation is that into English?", and to get the second response, I simply entered, "Same question concerning the phrase "now I know" in Gen 22:12."​

Agree, that is fascinating. I wonder if Boyd has been moonlighting for Chat GPT lately

 

[Right Divider]

Sadly, I'm that guy. Attah (Hebrew) doesn't unerringly mean 'now I know! (now) as the only translation word.' Rather, like most Hebrew words, it has a broader meanings. "Since" I know, for example.

Yes, it's always someone that knows how to translate better than everyone that came before.

 

[Lon]

Yes, it's always someone that knows how to translate better than everyone that came before.

It is a concordance given. Even 'if' you saw it as 'now,' how did God know even then? We rather are well-aware that God who is greater than our hearts, knows our hearts that you, yourself gave in thread. No? The Septuagint uses νῦν which also isn't exactly 'now' by necessity, but also 'therefore, here after, etc. Whether you agree or not, you agreed/posted 1 John 3:20 says God is greater than our hearts and know(s) everything (at least as far as the extent of all men's hearts). How would/do you reconcile? For me, it seems likely that confusion starts and ends with the English word 'now' especially where such doesn't seem to fit either the immediate text or what truths we do know about God. Does He, in fact know your heart? Your thoughts from afar? How complete is His knowledge of us? Does He have to give us tests to 'get an inkling/good idea?' How 'predictable' are we? How 'known?'

 

[Right Divider]

It is a concordance given. Even 'if' you saw it as 'now,' how did God know even then? We rather are well-aware that God who is greater than our hearts, knows our hearts that you, yourself gave in thread.

God "knows our hearts" once we give Him that information....
As Abraham did. But NOT before!

 

[Lon]

God "knows our hearts" once we give Him that information....
As Abraham did. But NOT before!

How? Like you know me? How well do you know me? How do you 'know?' Aren't we intimating at guesswork as such, at best?

 

[Right Divider]

How? Like you know me? How well do you know me? How do you 'know?' Aren't we intimating at guesswork as such, at best?

You make no sense Lon.... You write a lot but make no logical arguments.

My point was that ONCE Abraham made his intents KNOWN... God knew it. Even before Abraham had to act.

It's so simple that a child can understand it.

 

[Lon]

Rather, I'm trying to go the scope of the thread: How much does God know before we do it and 'how' does He know it? I John 3:20 "God who is greater than our hearts, knows all things." Omniscience? Something like? How restricted? You said not until after we do something. How is that knowing what I speak before I say it?

The big thread question: How much, if qualified, does God know? What is 'possible' for Him to know? I'm in the omniscience crowd so asking for Open qualifiers. It is your thread. I'm trying to follow the logic and the logic is not clear or straightfoward to me. Should it be? Likely with page 53 now, but there has to be a good write-up on what Open View actually believes God knows. Why? Because even Open Viewers have told me (as you did in thread) God cannot know our thoughts without us revealing them to Him. That is foreign to me and scripture doesn't seem to support it. Another told me that God had no idea where Adam was in the garden. That isn't intelligible to me from scriptures. Etc.

If this thread can stand, it has to be very clear for inspection with few assertions about what they are talking about. If Enyart used "omniscience" in the sense of 'all things knowable' we'd have to know the extent. Was it 'knowable' where Adam was? Did God have to search? Did God have to come down to see if Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as He heard? Or were those angels of God representative in His stead, etc. etc.

The implications are far-reaching into how we grasp the scriptures and deal with them and what we think of God. Does He know what I need before I pray, thus does prayer reveal a non-need on my part God was unaware of and He just knows the needs? Such will inform how we read all the rest of scripture and understand God's relationship to us. Confusing? Likely should be, but that is why I asked 'how did you become Open Theist?' in a thread. I want to know if any one of you empathizes more readily on this side of the coin. It is a huge hurdle to those of us who believe God is omniscient without a lot of waffling (on our part) in qualification because 'what is knowable' isn't defined readily. We think: "surely God can know where I'm hiding as Adam in the garden if He knows how many hairs are presently on my (Adam's) head." Implications have to be presentable and demonstrable to the extent that it truly challenges against scriptural givens and notions. In Him -Lon

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

If Enyart used "omniscience" in the sense of 'all things knowable' we'd have to know the extent.

Bob Enyart wrote the following shortly after his debate with James White:

"Valid Definitions for the Quantitative Attributes: While the Bible stresses God's qualitative (living, personal, relational, good, and loving) attributes, biblically consistent definitions for the philosophical quantitative attributes are as follows:
Omniscience: God knows everything knowable that He wants to know.
Omnipresence: God is everywhere that He wants to be.
Omnipotence: God has all power except for that which He has delegated.
Immutability: God cannot change morally (for the worse) and remain our Holy God.
Impeccability: God cannot sin and remain our Holy God.
Impassibility: God has control of His passions.
As for the more technical definition of omnipresence, that all places are present to God, the correct understanding from that perspective is that all places that God wants to be present to Him are present to Him. Regarding presence, the great difference between Creator and creature is that God can be in vastly vastly distant locations simultaneously"
Link

I must own hundreds of hours of his material. Going all the way back to the days of VHS and even audio cassette tapes. The above quote is consistent with the approach Bob always took in his teachings on God's attributes. (I'm sure these things have already been explained in this thread but since we keep bringing up his name we may as well quote what he actually said every once in a while so we don't end up accidentally misrepresenting him)

Was it 'knowable' where Adam was?

Yes

Did God have to search?

God is free to choose to decide how He interacts with man.

Did God have to come down to see if Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as He heard?

I wouldn't think so. But by Him doing so, it shows that He does not take the destruction of entire cities and the deaths of all who inhabit them, lightly.
And that His involvement with us is much more than just Him sitting on a throne, throwing lighting and brimstone on our heads like Zeus or some other false god.

The implications are far-reaching into how we grasp the scriptures and deal with them and what we think of God.

The implications are really only as far-reaching as we insist that they are. In other words, the ability to formulate an answer to the question "Was it 'knowable' where Adam was?" certainly is not a prerequisite for understanding the Bible. But if you insist that it is then others will have to be equally insistent in explaining to you that it is not.

Does He know what I need before I pray, thus does prayer reveal a non-need on my part God was unaware of and He just knows the needs? Such will inform how we read all the rest of scripture and understand God's relationship to us.

Not at all. You are applying prerequisites to scriptural knowledge and to God's ability to have a relationship with us which simply do not exist.

How much does God know before we do it and 'how' does He know it?

Keep in mind our actions generally do not occur instantly with our thoughts.

 

[Clete]

Except observe doesn't convey the same meaning in English and is well within the Hebrew meaning. One might argue that 'observe' IS 'to see!' I agree, but we use 'to see' as a colloquialism 'to find out.' So out the gates, no longer does one read 'to see' as simply observing: we've loaded it to mean 'to find out.' I can look to see my children breaking a pinata. Do I know what is in it? Yes, and not the reason for my choosing to see 'what they were going to do.' We've allowed a forcing of the text to go beyond it. Hebrew words generally are not this specific nor do they convey added ideas that weren't there in intent originally. It forces the text to mean "to find out."
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition

(BDB is the go-to, Strong's is usually based on)

1. to see, look at, inspect, perceive, consider
   1. (Qal)
      1. to see
      2. to see, perceive
      3. to see, have vision
      4. to look at, see, regard, look after, see after, learn about, observe, watch, look upon, look out, find out
      5. to see, observe, consider, look at, give attention to, discern, distinguish
      6. to look at, gaze at
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to appear, present oneself
      2. to be seen
      3. to be visible
   3. (Pual) to be seen
   4. (Hiphil)
      1. to cause to see, show
      2. to cause to look intently at, behold, cause to gaze at
   5. (Hophal)
      1. to be caused to see, be shown
      2. to be exhibited to
   6. (Hithpael) to look at each other, face

BDB once again and follow the link as simply "I know" and therefore possible for attah (since, whereof, etc.)

Agree, that is fascinating. I wonder if Boyd has been moonlighting for Chat GPT lately

Sorry, Lon but that is just a bunch of rationalizing. There isn't anything in that text that suggests that it isn't translated correctly and that the thought communicated in English isn't completely in keeping with the thought communicated in Hebrew in both of these passage.

What's more is that there are other passages that are just as clear if not clearer that use some of the same words in the same way to communicate the same sort of thing. The simple fact of the matter is that the bible presents to us a God who DOES NOT know everything that there is to know and all your rationalizing is 100% motivated by your preconceived notions about the way you want your god to be.

 

[Lon]

Sorry, Lon but that is just a bunch of rationalizing. There isn't anything in that text that suggests that it isn't translated correctly and that the thought communicated in English isn't completely in keeping with the thought communicated in Hebrew in both of these passage.

What's more is that there are other passages that are just as clear if not clearer that use some of the same words in the same way to communicate the same sort of thing. The simple fact of the matter is that the bible presents to us a God who DOES NOT know everything that there is to know and all your rationalizing is 100% motivated by your preconceived notions about the way you want your god to be.

I believe this my most important post in this thread and it marks a turning point of meaning and discussion.

Rationalizing is important, we have to wrestle with ideas lest we understand shallowly or wrongly. How do we read "Now I know" without thinking through the implications? If, as OV states, God only knew 'now' because He cannot read minds, could God have possibly known 'now?' To me? A rational human being? He couldn't. The only way God could have known, accordingly, would be for Abraham to plunge the knife if God is so limited in knowledge to actions. It'd have been closer to Christ if God raised Isaac back from the dead and literally the only way, if God is dependent on actions, to 'now know.' The translation 'now' makes no sense of the text, even for an Open Theist (more latter). What does make sense, is that translators didn't use the correct form of attah. It'd simply read "I know" and the problem goes away. Further, translation allows for it.

Rationalizing (the right way) Genesis 3: If God knows the number of hairs on my head, He is omnipresent. No question. We lose about 100 hairs every day. The number of hairs on my head is not an approximation, it is a definite. Add several billion people. God, necessarily is omnipresent.
Now Genesis 3: There is no way, knowing the number of hairs on Adam's head, He didn't know exactly where Adam was. It isn't possible. This and other instances in scripture in which it 'appears' that Open Theists do not think through their speculations well, have always had me eschewing the plausibility of Open Theism altogether. It just does not, add up. It leaves all kinds of oddity logic failures in its wake. The best sense of Genesis 3 and Luke 12:7 is that God must be omnipresent. There is no way, other than omnipresence, that God can know the number of hairs on 8 billion people's heads, without being omnipresent. Nothing else makes any kind of logical sense. And this all from scriptures mind you, no Greek other than the scripture itself.

The best sense of grasping no sparrow falling to the ground among 1 billion without God knowing it is a sense of immanence and omnipresence. Only omnipresence, or something incredibly near can make sense of knowing how many hairs you have on your and I have on my head this second. It'd be weird to think He hops from on to another among billions and counts every second, lest you lose one in the next moment. This then, intimates, from scripture, that God is omniscient on the scope of His omnipresence (why if one omni, logically all omnis, they all tie together this way). So not only scripturally (God who is 'greater' than our hearts knows (greater) all things 1 John 3:20.


Propositional scenario: Okay. You are an Open Theist reading me these two posits for the first time. What do you do with them? Dismiss them outright because they don't agree with your paradigms? Analyze and try to find the holes? Let it question your assumptions?

I've tried to walk many miles to date in Open shoes. To date, they simply do not add up in any cogent way. To date looking at Open Theism, I still cannot know 'now' that God, limited to actions, only 'now' knows Abraham's heart. It causes me, a good logical mind, to question English translation. "Now" simply cannot be the best translation of Attah when BDB gives plenty of other options that are legitimate uses of the Hebrew term. Only explanation? No, but genuinely a good one. It simply makes the best sense, even if I were Open Theist because the translation is what and only causes this problem.