Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Dake and Divine Attributes

[Grandfather]

Well, take you own reasoning...

You said: "Omnipotent is the trait of being all-powerful, not "all doing." Simply because He is not doing something, does not mean he cannot it.

The same "could be" (based on that logic) said: Omniscient is the trait of being all-knowing, not "not exercising the all knowing all the time." Simply because He is not knowing something, does not mean he cannot know it.

See? Understand his argument?

Sorry, choosing to "not know" is choosing ignorance. One either knows or they do not know. It cannot be both.

Being omnipotent does not require a constant display of that power. God may not display is omniscience, but that does not mean if ceases to be omniscient. If you do not understand the difference between having a trait and displaying that trait, then there is little that can be added to this discussion

[patrissimo]

"Simply because He is not knowing something, does not mean he cannot know it."

This could be said of any man couldn't it? At one time I did not know 2=2=4 so I was "not knowing something." But that didn't mean I could not know it for I came to know it at some point.

[bibleman]

Well, take you own reasoning...

You said: "Omnipotent is the trait of being all-powerful, not "all doing." Simply because He is not doing something, does not mean he cannot it.

The same "could be" (based on that logic) said: Omniscient is the trait of being all-knowing, not "not exercising the all knowing all the time." Simply because He is not knowing something, does not mean he cannot know it.

See? Understand his argument?

Sorry, choosing to "not know" is choosing ignorance. One either knows or they do not know. It cannot be both.

Being omnipotent does not require a constant display of that power. God may not display is omniscience, but that does not mean if ceases to be omniscient. If you do not understand the difference between having a trait and displaying that trait, then there is little that can be added to this discussion

I hear you... and you do not accept the logic of his reasoning.

But he does. And So do I.

Sorry, choosing to "not know" is choosing ignorance. One either knows or they do not know. It cannot be both.

OR using your words one could say: choosing to "not DO" is choosing weakness. One either "can" or "He can't." It cannot be both.

[Grandfather]

"Simply because He is not knowing something, does not mean he cannot know it."

This could be said of any man couldn't it? At one time I did not know 2=2=4 so I was "not knowing something." But that didn't mean I could not know it for I came to know it at some point.

But, you would not be claiming to be omniscient at any point, would you?

[patrissimo]

"Simply because He is not knowing something, does not mean he cannot know it."

This could be said of any man couldn't it? At one time I did not know 2=2=4 so I was "not knowing something." But that didn't mean I could not know it for I came to know it at some point.

But, you would not be claiming to be omniscient at any point, would you?

No, I wouldn't be claiming to be omniscient because I would be aware of my ignorance. For the same reason, a "God" who is not knowing and comes to know is not omniscient. God's Knowledge is not something has HAS but rather what He IS. His Knowledge is identical with the Divine Essence just as is His Love.

[Grandfather]

"Simply because He is not knowing something, does not mean he cannot know it."

This could be said of any man couldn't it? At one time I did not know 2=2=4 so I was "not knowing something." But that didn't mean I could not know it for I came to know it at some point.

But, you would not be claiming to be omniscient at any point, would you?

No, I wouldn't be claiming to be omniscient because I would be aware of my ignorance. For the same reason, a "God" who is not knowing and comes to know is not omniscient. God's Knowledge is not something has HAS but rather what He IS. His Knowledge is identical with the Divine Essence just as is His Love.

I believe we are in agreement. God knows all, he does not "come to know" anything as I have shown by several verses. Thus any passage suggesting that God "comes to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal.

[bibleman]

"Simply because He is not knowing something, does not mean he cannot know it."

This could be said of any man couldn't it? At one time I did not know 2=2=4 so I was "not knowing something." But that didn't mean I could not know it for I came to know it at some point.

But, you would not be claiming to be omniscient at any point, would you?

No, I wouldn't be claiming to be omniscient because I would be aware of my ignorance. For the same reason, a "God" who is not knowing and comes to know is not omniscient. God's Knowledge is not something has HAS but rather what He IS. His Knowledge is identical with the Divine Essence just as is His Love.

I believe we are in agreement. God knows all, he does not "come to know" anything as I have shown by several verses. Thus any passage suggesting that God "comes to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal.

Why not say: "Thus any passage suggesting that God "does NOT come to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal?"

[Grandfather]

Thus any passage suggesting that God "comes to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal.

Why not say: "Thus any passage suggesting that God "does NOT come to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal?"

The first is based on the premise that God is all knowing. The second is based on the premise that God is still learning things. Both approach the same subject, both require the passage to be reexamined.

I find there is more evidence that God is all-knowing and does not need to learn. I find it easier to understand the passages of stating God is learning something in a greater context easily explained.

If you find there is more evidence that God is still learning, thus not all-knowing, and can easily explain the passages where God claims to know everything, then more power to you. I find that attempting to do so requires all sorts of twists, turns, and dodges, that cannot be consistently applied throughout scripture. In other words, it doesn’t work for me. But, then I am not the one that believes God is learning, that God is not all-present, nor all-powerful. Truthful that type of being is not what I would call a deity.

[bibleman]

Thus any passage suggesting that God "comes to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal.

Why not say: "Thus any passage suggesting that God "does NOT come to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal?"

The first is based on the premise that God is all knowing. The second is based on the premise that God is still learning things. Both approach the same subject, both require the passage to be reexamined.

I find there is more evidence that God is all-knowing and does not need to learn. I find it easier to understand the passages of stating God is learning something in a greater context easily explained.

If you find there is more evidence that God is still learning, thus not all-knowing, and can easily explain the passages where God claims to know everything, then more power to you. I find that attempting to do so requires all sorts of twists, turns, and dodges, that cannot be consistently applied throughout scripture. In other words, it doesn’t work for me. But, then I am not the one that believes God is learning, that God is not all-present, nor all-powerful. Truthful that type of being is not what I would call a deity.

Well you are welcome to have your opinion.

And of course we can believe the many places in the Bible that tell us of the nature of God without the input from liberal theologians.

[Ironman]

Thus any passage suggesting that God "comes to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal.

Why not say: "Thus any passage suggesting that God "does NOT come to know" something must be re-examined in the larger context of what the passage is attempting to reveal?"

The first is based on the premise that God is all knowing. The second is based on the premise that God is still learning things. Both approach the same subject, both require the passage to be reexamined.

I find there is more evidence that God is all-knowing and does not need to learn. I find it easier to understand the passages of stating God is learning something in a greater context easily explained.

If you find there is more evidence that God is still learning, thus not all-knowing, and can easily explain the passages where God claims to know everything, then more power to you. I find that attempting to do so requires all sorts of twists, turns, and dodges, that cannot be consistently applied throughout scripture. In other words, it doesn’t work for me. But, then I am not the one that believes God is learning, that God is not all-present, nor all-powerful. Truthful that type of being is not what I would call a deity.

Well you are welcome to have your opinion.

And of course we can believe the many places in the Bible that tell us of the nature of God without the input from liberal theologians.