Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Limited Omniscience

[Grandfather]

\Grandfather in trying to discredit Dake yet again you said: The scriptures and the position Dake takes on them (hyper, 20th century, western cultured, literalism) only shows that Dake has redefined omniscience as to mean something less than all-knowing.
Ever heard of the school of Antioch in the 2nd century how about the school of Alexandria and the difference between the two when it comes to approaching scripture? I see your reply here nothing more than a futile attempt in discrediting Dake. Grand pappy what is the agenda here? If you want the bible to be reduced into a over spiritualized book that is to hard to understand that's fine but quit knocking us who prefer to take it literal. Have your book of mystery and allegorical metaphors. I know this sound blunt but I don't like the disrespect that is being shown to Dake or the bible on here from you and Ed.. You have been shown the truth reject or accept it. Sorry the bible says what it says..

I am not attempting to discredit Dake in the basic usage of the term. (to injure the credit or reputation of; defame.) I am however pointing out that Dake's interpretation of the scriptures used to support the notion that God learns, God discovers, God doesn't know, etc. are in direct contradiction to the statement that God is omniscient.

So, if God is omniscient, then there MUST BE another interpretation of those scriptures and it can be found in understanding middle eastern literature that was current thousands of years ago, not 21st western culture.

BTW yes I am aware of the difference council's, schools of thought that occurred during early church history. Have you read "Augstine literal meaning of Genisis"? No one debated whether it was a literal interpretation, but the understanding of "literal" in the second century is different from our concept of literal. S

But, alas, I return to the point in contention: If Dake is correct and the only possible interpretation of the scriptures that he listed is that God goes, God learns, God discovers, that there are things God doesn't know. Then God is NOT OMNISCIENT.

I hold that God is omniscient and there is another explanation for those scriptures and it is found in the proper understanding of the style, culture and understanding of middle eastern literature centuries ago.

So, what is your answer... Does God know everything, is He omniscient? Or is He learning and there are things He doesn't know? Its one or the other, it can't be both.

[Rocky]

I will address what you say here in red, it is easer that way :)
I am not attempting to discredit Dake in the basic usage of the term. (to injure the credit or reputation of; defame.) I am however pointing out that Dake's interpretation of the scriptures used to support the notion that God learns, God discovers, God doesn't know, etc. are in direct contradiction to the statement that God is omniscient. No it is not if you understand omniscience from a biblical standpoint that Dake points out..

So, if God is omniscient, then there MUST BE another interpretation of those scriptures and it can be found in understanding middle eastern literature that was current thousands of years ago, not 21st western culture. Well this is just not a 21 century concept. That is why I brought up the school of Antioch, I m sorry, this just seems like conjecture to me. So where do we draw the line where else can we say "well the bible really does not mean what it says"?

BTW yes I am aware of the difference council's, schools of thought that occurred during early church history. Have you read "Augstine literal meaning of Genisis"? No one debated whether it was a literal interpretation, but the understanding of "literal" in the second century is different from our concept of literal. Well fist off that is more conjecture and I am Not very fond of Augustine of hippos writings but ok. He was also of the school of Alexandrian where it was taught that most of the bible was allegorical, He was heavily influenced by Manichaeism and afterward by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus, he was also an adherent to Amillennialism, Had a very allegorical way of interpreting the bible, meaning Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted as properly literal, but rather as metaphorical.

But, alas, I return to the point in contention: If Dake is correct and the only possible interpretation of the scriptures that he listed is that God goes, God learns, God discovers, that there are things God doesn't know. Then God is NOT OMNISCIENT. Again the bible says what it says why change it or make and make it allegorical to make it fit some man made understanding of it?

I hold that God is omniscient and there is another explanation for those scriptures and it is found in the proper understanding of the style, culture and understanding of middle eastern literature centuries ago.Not so to me this is just an excuse to not take the bible for what it says. And sorry this this a very invalid argument, if this were the case then I am free to make the bible means and say what ever I want it to mean by calling something as metaphor or allegorical or a passing statement.

So, what is your answer... Does God know everything, is He omniscient? Or is He learning and there are things He doesn't know? Its one or the other, it can't be both. Grandfather my self and others have tried to point this out for you, and even give scripture that shows that this is valid. I don't really like to debate conjecture because it is useless, because then you are simply able to discard whet ever you wont by your opinions and how you approach scripture from an allegorical perspective, which obviously is what you are doing. Yes, God is omniscient in that he knows his plans, even knows our thoughts from afar, knows the prophetic, knows about how his plan for man and how it is all going to play out. Like the school of Alexandria and Antioch, we approach scripture differently and this is why we will never agree. I do not believe that the bible is a book wrapped in mysterious metaphors like the greeks and Augustine and the school of Alexandrea. I believe the bible to be literal, practical and an easy book to understand. I believe one view shrouds the understanding of the bible and the other opens it up and takes the veil off so to speak. So yes, I take it for what says. When God said "now I know'" I just take it at that without adding some metaphor to it.. I don't like complications

[brodave]

So when God told Abraham now I know.

When he said He tested the Israelites to see.

What did He mean?

[Grandfather]

I will address what you say here in red, it is easer that way :)
I am not attempting to discredit Dake in the basic usage of the term. (to injure the credit or reputation of; defame.) I am however pointing out that Dake's interpretation of the scriptures used to support the notion that God learns, God discovers, God doesn't know, etc. are in direct contradiction to the statement that God is omniscient. No it is not if you understand omniscience from a biblical standpoint that Dake points out..

Oh, now I get it. Dake was blessed beyond measure, sort of like Paul, and Dake was entrusted with the understanding that OMNISCIENCE as defined through the centuries to include the understanding of being "all-knowing" doesn't really mean that. In fact, God really isn't that different from a very smart man with a very fast computer. He doesn't know the future, He has to wait until His creation decides what to in order to discover it. Poor God, He doesn't know what tomorrow holds because He doesn't know what decisions are going to be made today. Really? Is this what you believe OMNISCIENCE is? If so, the God doesn't have limited OMNISCIENCE, but is no more omniscient than you or I. He may know more, but that is not the same thing.

So, if God is omniscient, then there MUST BE another interpretation of those scriptures and it can be found in understanding middle eastern literature that was current thousands of years ago, not 21st western culture. Well this is just not a 21 century concept. That is why I brought up the school of Antioch, I m sorry, this just seems like conjecture to me. So where do we draw the line where else can we say "well the bible really does not mean what it says"?

BTW yes I am aware of the difference council's, schools of thought that occurred during early church history. Have you read "Augstine literal meaning of Genisis"? No one debated whether it was a literal interpretation, but the understanding of "literal" in the second century is different from our concept of literal. Well fist off that is more conjecture and I am Not very fond of Augustine of hippos writings but ok. He was also of the school of Alexandrian where it was taught that most of the bible was allegorical, He was heavily influenced by Manichaeism and afterward by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus, he was also an adherent to Amillennialism, Had a very allegorical way of interpreting the bible, meaning Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted as properly literal, but rather as metaphorical.

Wow, I don't know where to start, but I will keep to the intended point which you missed entirely. I am well aware of the criticisms of Augustine. In fact many of the same words and phrases you used are found several places on the internet, so I could wonder were this rebuttal came from. But if you notice, those criticisms DO NOT address the fact that Augustine called his writing "LITERAL" No one charged him with being UNLITERAL. All of his peers and critics understood that indeed it was LITERAL even though they disagreed with it for various reasons as you have pointed out. While you claim he was "very allegorical" (symbolic, metaphorical, figurative, representative) that objection was never raised by Augustine's peer and critics of his day. WHY? Because they understood LITERAL to mean something entirely different in context than we do today.

But, alas, I return to the point in contention: If Dake is correct and the only possible interpretation of the scriptures that he listed is that God goes, God learns, God discovers, that there are things God doesn't know. Then God is NOT OMNISCIENT. Again the bible says what it says why change it or make and make it allegorical to make it fit some man made understanding of it?

I hold that God is omniscient and there is another explanation for those scriptures and it is found in the proper understanding of the style, culture and understanding of middle eastern literature centuries ago.Not so to me this is just an excuse to not take the bible for what it says. And sorry this this a very invalid argument, if this were the case then I am free to make the bible means and say what ever I want it to mean by calling something as metaphor or allegorical or a passing statement.

Ah, if you choose the use this argument tool, then allow it to cut both ways. Dake is already using that position. Dake writes: "The Bible makes many simple statements that limit God's knowledge. There would be no sense to such passages if we do not believe them literally. There is no meaning to them if we take them figuratively." But simply because Dake believes this and writes this does not make it true. Now, I agree if they are FIGURAGTIVELY (as shown above is the same as allegorically) then there may be many problems. But perhaps if they are rhetorical statements (a figure of speech, generally in the form of a question, that is used to make a point.) then there are sensible explanations and understand of all those same scriptures that Dake said would not make sense otherwise.

So, what is your answer... Does God know everything, is He omniscient? Or is He learning and there are things He doesn't know? Its one or the other, it can't be both. Grandfather my self and others have tried to point this out for you, and even give scripture that shows that this is valid. I don't really like to debate conjecture because it is useless, because then you are simply able to discard whet ever you wont by your opinions and how you approach scripture from an allegorical perspective, which obviously is what you are doing. Yes, God is omniscient in that he knows his plans, even knows our thoughts from afar, knows the prophetic, knows about how his plan for man and how it is all going to play out. Like the school of Alexandria and Antioch, we approach scripture differently and this is why we will never agree. I do not believe that the bible is a book wrapped in mysterious metaphors like the greeks and Augustine and the school of Alexandrea. I believe the bible to be literal, practical and an easy book to understand. I believe one view shrouds the understanding of the bible and the other opens it up and takes the veil off so to speak. So yes, I take it for what says. When God said "now I know'" I just take it at that without adding some metaphor to it.. I don't like complications

You were doing so good why are you now backpedaling? NO you didn't show through scriptures. I refer you back to Gen 22:12 where this all started. YOUR POSITION is that God does not know what a man will do until AFTER he does it. YOU point to the fact the scriptures says: Now I know that Abraham will not hold back. The odd part is that this is BEFORE Abraham did the act of sacrifice. If you stay true to your position, then the only thing God could have truthfully said would have been "I know Abraham will go this far and I believe he would continue if I allowed him, but I don't know that for certain because I can't know until after the fact and I don't want to go that far."

It is great that you don't want to debate conjecture, but it is Dake's conjecture that there is only one way to interpret these passages and that way is his way.

And you backpedal further by making the statement: "God is omniscient in that he knows his plans, even knows our thoughts from afar" Hmmm, He knows our thoughts, but not our actions? That needs some explanation to fit within the theological position you've taken.

You also said:"I do not believe that the bible is a book wrapped in mysterious metaphors like the greeks and Augustine and the school of Alexandrea" I agree with you. You continued: "I believe the bible to be literal, practical and an easy book to understand." I agree again. You added: "I believe one view shrouds the understanding of the bible and the other opens it up and takes the veil off so to speak." Again I agree.

You concluded with; "So yes, I take it for what says. When God said "now I know'" I just take it at that without adding some metaphor to it.. I don't like complications" To which I say... you added complications when you said that and these complications are what we are discussing. You said earlier: "Not so to me this is just an excuse to not take the bible for what it says. And sorry this this a very invalid argument, if this were the case then I am free to make the bible means and say what ever I want it to mean by calling something as metaphor or allegorical or a passing statement" This is the very thing you do when struggling with the notion that God stopped Abraham BEFORE the sacrifice of Isaac, yet said He (God) now knows that Abraham will not hold back. You "explain away" that gap between God knowing a future event while God is speaking in a present situation. So, if it is, as you say, "a very invalid argument" for me to use, then it is the same "very invalid" argument for you to use in the above mentioned case. It appears you want to have it both ways, sorry NO CAN DO!

[bibleman]

For our readers who have been getting a earful of "kindergarten theology."

For those who simply refuse to believe the Bible it will never make since, but for true Bible believers everywhere it is very simple. If Grandfather and Ed would read this with an open mind and not come to it with pre-conceived man-made ideas they would both be out of the darkness and would have a Bible understanding of this wonderful God we love and serve!

Here is the true Bible teaching on the Omniscient God of the Bible!

God is Omniscient

The question of the omniscience of God is also much misunderstood. The Bible makes many simple statements that limit God's knowledge. There would be no sense to such passages if we do not believe them literally. There is no meaning to them if we take them figuratively. There was no purpose for God to say such things about Himself, if they were untrue.
God gets to know things concerning the free moral actions of men as others do (Gen. 6:5-7; 11:5-7; 18:21; 22:12; 2 Chron. 16:9; Zech. 4:10; Job 12:22; 24:23; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; Ps. 139:1-6; Prov. 24:12; Jer. 17:10; Ezek. 11:5; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4).
God sends messengers throughout the Earth who report to Him of all that they find in the Earth that goes on (Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Mt. 18:10-11; Heb. 2:4).
God does not take care of every detail of His vast business in all the kingdoms of the universe. His agents help Him and they are found in every part of the universe on missions for God. Certain angels are responsible to God for carrying out His will in almost infinite detail concerning the billions of suns, moons, planets and all free moral agents on them. God does not personally do everything that is done in all acts and events, nor has He known, elected, chosen, or predestinated all the acts and events from all eternity past.
Several times God Himself said of certain events that they did not come into His mind (Jer. 19:5; 32:35; 44:21).
God did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked (Gen. 6:5-7);
that they would plan Babel (Gen. 11:5-7);
that Sodom would be so wicked (Gen. 18:21, 26, 28-32);
that Abraham would actually proceed to offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:12).
God did not know whether it would take one or two or three signs to make Israel believe in Him (Exod. 4:1-12);
or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey Him, or not (Deut. 8:2, 16).
He did not know that Israel would backslide as far as she did (Deut. 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19).
Furthermore, He searches to find men whom He can bless (2 Chron. 16:9);
He discovers deep things (Job 12:22);
tries the hearts and reins of men so that He may know them (Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chron. 28:9; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor 2:10; Rev. 2:23),
proving all men for the same reason (Ps. 17:3; 66:10; 81:7).

God sends messengers throughout the whole of His vast creations to find out for Him what He wants to know, the same as the head of any other business would be likely to do, so that plans may be made and actions taken accordingly.
Examples of such agency constantly reporting to God can be found in Gen. 18:21-22; Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Mt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14; 2:2; Rev. 1:1; 7:1-3; 8:2-13; 9:1; 14:6-20; 15:1-8; 16:1-21; 18:21; 22:6, 8-9, 16.

The 6,468 commands in the Bible regulating man as to his part in the eternal plan of God, and setting forth his responsibility to God and man, the 1,260 promises of curses and blessings, rewards or loss of rewards, the hundreds of warnings, curses, blessings and dealings of God on the basis of conformity to His will, the 1,522 “if's” and the many hundreds of conditional requirements of God throughout Scripture are sufficient proof that God does not cause all acts and events by His own decrees—and sufficient proof that He changes His own dealings with men, as they conform or refuse to conform to His will. Such facts and many others make it clear that God does not know from all eternity what any one man will do, much less what different types and dispositions of men will do under various circumstances that are not yet present to deal with. We have no statement in the entire Bible saying that God knows or even would like to know all acts and particular events of all vast creations of free moral agents from all eternity past, or that He has fixed decrees choosing and predestinating all the thoughts, acts, and deeds of free wills from all eternity past to all eternity future. God's eternal plan for man is known from the beginning to the end and what He plans to bring to pass on Earth He has power to do, but concerning the free actions of free moral agents He does not know from all eternity what they will do before they are in existence and are here to have a part in His plan. He does not know which ones will be saved and which ones will be lost. He has made a plan for all to be saved alike and all who conform to His plan are blessed with the predestined blessings. Those who willfully rebel will be cursed with the predestined punishments according to the plan. It is the plan that is known from the beginning to the end, not the individual conformity to it by free moral agents. It is left up to each person to choose His own destiny. God wills for all men to be saved, but if man does not choose to be saved that is his responsibility (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Jn. 3:16; Rev. 22:17).

Finis J. Dake, God's Plan for Man, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 2004), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 62.

[Rocky]

I will address what you say here in red, it is easer that way :)
I am not attempting to discredit Dake in the basic usage of the term. (to injure the credit or reputation of; defame.) I am however pointing out that Dake's interpretation of the scriptures used to support the notion that God learns, God discovers, God doesn't know, etc. are in direct contradiction to the statement that God is omniscient. No it is not if you understand omniscience from a biblical standpoint that Dake points out..

Oh, now I get it. Dake was blessed beyond measure, sort of like Paul, and Dake was entrusted with the understanding that OMNISCIENCE as defined through the centuries to include the understanding of being "all-knowing" doesn't really mean that. In fact, God really isn't that different from a very smart man with a very fast computer. He doesn't know the future, He has to wait until His creation decides what to in order to discover it. Poor God, He doesn't know what tomorrow holds because He doesn't know what decisions are going to be made today. Really? Is this what you believe OMNISCIENCE is? If so, the God doesn't have limited OMNISCIENCE, but is no more omniscient than you or I. He may know more, but that is not the same thing.

So, if God is omniscient, then there MUST BE another interpretation of those scriptures and it can be found in understanding middle eastern literature that was current thousands of years ago, not 21st western culture. Well this is just not a 21 century concept. That is why I brought up the school of Antioch, I m sorry, this just seems like conjecture to me. So where do we draw the line where else can we say "well the bible really does not mean what it says"?

BTW yes I am aware of the difference council's, schools of thought that occurred during early church history. Have you read "Augstine literal meaning of Genisis"? No one debated whether it was a literal interpretation, but the understanding of "literal" in the second century is different from our concept of literal. Well fist off that is more conjecture and I am Not very fond of Augustine of hippos writings but ok. He was also of the school of Alexandrian where it was taught that most of the bible was allegorical, He was heavily influenced by Manichaeism and afterward by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus, he was also an adherent to Amillennialism, Had a very allegorical way of interpreting the bible, meaning Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted as properly literal, but rather as metaphorical.

Wow, I don't know where to start, but I will keep to the intended point which you missed entirely. I am well aware of the criticisms of Augustine. In fact many of the same words and phrases you used are found several places on the internet, so I could wonder were this rebuttal came from. But if you notice, those criticisms DO NOT address the fact that Augustine called his writing "LITERAL" No one charged him with being UNLITERAL. All of his peers and critics understood that indeed it was LITERAL even though they disagreed with it for various reasons as you have pointed out. While you claim he was "very allegorical" (symbolic, metaphorical, figurative, representative) that objection was never raised by Augustine's peer and critics of his day. WHY? Because they understood LITERAL to mean something entirely different in context than we do today.

But, alas, I return to the point in contention: If Dake is correct and the only possible interpretation of the scriptures that he listed is that God goes, God learns, God discovers, that there are things God doesn't know. Then God is NOT OMNISCIENT. Again the bible says what it says why change it or make and make it allegorical to make it fit some man made understanding of it?

I hold that God is omniscient and there is another explanation for those scriptures and it is found in the proper understanding of the style, culture and understanding of middle eastern literature centuries ago.Not so to me this is just an excuse to not take the bible for what it says. And sorry this this a very invalid argument, if this were the case then I am free to make the bible means and say what ever I want it to mean by calling something as metaphor or allegorical or a passing statement.

Ah, if you choose the use this argument tool, then allow it to cut both ways. Dake is already using that position. Dake writes: "The Bible makes many simple statements that limit God's knowledge. There would be no sense to such passages if we do not believe them literally. There is no meaning to them if we take them figuratively." But simply because Dake believes this and writes this does not make it true. Now, I agree if they are FIGURAGTIVELY (as shown above is the same as allegorically) then there may be many problems. But perhaps if they are rhetorical statements (a figure of speech, generally in the form of a question, that is used to make a point.) then there are sensible explanations and understand of all those same scriptures that Dake said would not make sense otherwise.

So, what is your answer... Does God know everything, is He omniscient? Or is He learning and there are things He doesn't know? Its one or the other, it can't be both. Grandfather my self and others have tried to point this out for you, and even give scripture that shows that this is valid. I don't really like to debate conjecture because it is useless, because then you are simply able to discard whet ever you wont by your opinions and how you approach scripture from an allegorical perspective, which obviously is what you are doing. Yes, God is omniscient in that he knows his plans, even knows our thoughts from afar, knows the prophetic, knows about how his plan for man and how it is all going to play out. Like the school of Alexandria and Antioch, we approach scripture differently and this is why we will never agree. I do not believe that the bible is a book wrapped in mysterious metaphors like the greeks and Augustine and the school of Alexandrea. I believe the bible to be literal, practical and an easy book to understand. I believe one view shrouds the understanding of the bible and the other opens it up and takes the veil off so to speak. So yes, I take it for what says. When God said "now I know'" I just take it at that without adding some metaphor to it.. I don't like complications

You were doing so good why are you now backpedaling? NO you didn't show through scriptures. I refer you back to Gen 22:12 where this all started. YOUR POSITION is that God does not know what a man will do until AFTER he does it. YOU point to the fact the scriptures says: Now I know that Abraham will not hold back. The odd part is that this is BEFORE Abraham did the act of sacrifice. If you stay true to your position, then the only thing God could have truthfully said would have been "I know Abraham will go this far and I believe he would continue if I allowed him, but I don't know that for certain because I can't know until after the fact and I don't want to go that far."

It is great that you don't want to debate conjecture, but it is Dake's conjecture that there is only one way to interpret these passages and that way is his way.

And you backpedal further by making the statement: "God is omniscient in that he knows his plans, even knows our thoughts from afar" Hmmm, He knows our thoughts, but not our actions? That needs some explanation to fit within the theological position you've taken.

You also said:"I do not believe that the bible is a book wrapped in mysterious metaphors like the greeks and Augustine and the school of Alexandrea" I agree with you. You continued: "I believe the bible to be literal, practical and an easy book to understand." I agree again. You added: "I believe one view shrouds the understanding of the bible and the other opens it up and takes the veil off so to speak." Again I agree.

You concluded with; "So yes, I take it for what says. When God said "now I know'" I just take it at that without adding some metaphor to it.. I don't like complications" To which I say... you added complications when you said that and these complications are what we are discussing. You said earlier: "Not so to me this is just an excuse to not take the bible for what it says. And sorry this this a very invalid argument, if this were the case then I am free to make the bible means and say what ever I want it to mean by calling something as metaphor or allegorical or a passing statement" This is the very thing you do when struggling with the notion that God stopped Abraham BEFORE the sacrifice of Isaac, yet said He (God) now knows that Abraham will not hold back. You "explain away" that gap between God knowing a future event while God is speaking in a present situation. So, if it is, as you say, "a very invalid argument" for me to use, then it is the same "very invalid" argument for you to use in the above mentioned case. It appears you want to have it both ways, sorry NO CAN DO!

Read Leons reply and study it I mean really study it. I will address everything you said. I will say no I don't believe Dake is all knowing (Nice cheap shot by the way) And you are wrong about Augustine being literal in his approached the scripture, and even using him as an example is a bit silly, what you did was try to belittle me to try to prove your points. I knew about Augustine before the internet due to me being raised around Catholicism, so thank you for being presumptuous with your Ad hominem tactics. Now do you want to discuss this without all the Dake bashing and you taking cheap shots and belittling people and using conjecture we can, but if this is how you are going to discuss things then I am not interested in discussing this with you. So if you are able to really discuss this without all of that I will continue. Have a nice day..

[Grandfather]

Read Leons reply and study it I mean really study it. I will address everything you said. I will say no I don't believe Dake is all knowing (Nice cheap shot by the way) And you are wrong about Augustine being literal in his approached the scripture, and even using him as an example is a bit silly, what you did was try to belittle me to try to prove your points. I knew about Augustine before the internet due to me being raised around Catholicism, so thank you for being presumptuous with your Ad hominem tactics. Now do you want to discuss this without all the Dake bashing and you taking cheap shots and belittling people and using conjecture we can, but if this is how you are going to discuss things then I am not interested in discussing this with you. So if you are able to really discuss this without all of that I will continue. Have a nice day..

Leon's reply? You mean the Dake notes that Leon posted. I have, I've used DARP and GPFM as well as other works by Dake since the early 80's. And I'm glad you don't believe that Dake is "all-knowing" because that would have been a problem since you don't believe that God is all-knowing.

The point about Augustine is that his position was a LITERAL one, nothing more. His critics did not call it figurative, allegorical, etc. They too understood it as LITERAL. Now, modern enlighten 21st century minds call it something besides LITERAL. The point is this. If there was a time, that it was understood as literal and later we have changed that, then why can't the same be said of the scripture where it appears God limits himself?

Don't simple say "it's can't be" but explain WHY IT CAN"T BE!

As to bashing Dake, far from it, I'm trying to understand what he meant. I'm trying to understand the contradictions he presents in his notes. I'm trying to understand how Dake says "God is all-knowing" and then says things like "there are things God doesn't know" If you don't see the contradiction, then I question as to why?

[Rocky]

Read Leons reply and study it I mean really study it. I will address everything you said. I will say no I don't believe Dake is all knowing (Nice cheap shot by the way) And you are wrong about Augustine being literal in his approached the scripture, and even using him as an example is a bit silly, what you did was try to belittle me to try to prove your points. I knew about Augustine before the internet due to me being raised around Catholicism, so thank you for being presumptuous with your Ad hominem tactics. Now do you want to discuss this without all the Dake bashing and you taking cheap shots and belittling people and using conjecture we can, but if this is how you are going to discuss things then I am not interested in discussing this with you. So if you are able to really discuss this without all of that I will continue. Have a nice day..

Leon's reply? You mean the Dake notes that Leon posted. I have, I've used DARP and GPFM as well as other works by Dake since the early 80's. And I'm glad you don't believe that Dake is "all-knowing" because that would have been a problem since you don't believe that God is all-knowing.

The point about Augustine is that his position was a LITERAL one, nothing more. His critics did not call it figurative, allegorical, etc. They too understood it as LITERAL. Now, modern enlighten 21st century minds call it something besides LITERAL. The point is this. If there was a time, that it was understood as literal and later we have changed that, then why can't the same be said of the scripture where it appears God limits himself?

Don't simple say "it's can't be" but explain WHY IT CAN"T BE!

As to bashing Dake, far from it, I'm trying to understand what he meant. I'm trying to understand the contradictions he presents in his notes. I'm trying to understand how Dake says "God is all-knowing" and then says things like "there are things God doesn't know" If you don't see the contradiction, then I question as to why?