I’m not following you Waldo, on how Adam and Eve’s lack of knowledge of their nakedness has anything to do with Yah’s omniscience, or shows him as not being omniscient?
As to NT inconsistency, and the first commandment, I think it has been well shown that the so-called “trinity verse” is a fraud and is not contained in earlier versions of the manuscript. I do not hold Yehushua is God.
I should probably add that some NT books smack of Hellenization so bad that I do not see them as canon scripture, either. For instance, Jude and 2Peter. Some I am not sure of.
I would certainly agree that the mainstream does indeed make interpretations resulting in inconsistency.
It seems to me as if you’ve set up a non-falsifiable situation here, unless you can tell us what words would convince you that God didn’t know something.
Well, yes, but you could handwave anything away with that explanation. He asks where they are, when they’re hiding; goes on to ask who told 'em they were naked, and whether they’ve eaten of the tree; that’s arguably what He’d do if He already knew the answers, but it’s also what He’d do if all He had were questions. You may as well conclude that I’m infallible and all-knowing, since I’m perfectly capable of (a) asking what your middle name is and (b) firing off questions about where you’re from and how old you are: couldn’t I do that despite already knowing the answers?
And so it goes for the rest of Genesis, with Him always acting like he’s getting haggled by a shrewd negotiator or coming down to see the Tower of Babel or whatever – which, again, could invariably be explained as Him just going through the motions while knowing how it’s all going to turn out, but (a) it’s never described that way, and, again, (b) anything is consistent with that explanation: every stewardess who asks if you want the chicken or the fish could be feigning ignorance, every game-show contestant who flubs an answer may well have done it on purpose, every distracted-looking guy who falls through an open manhole as if he didn’t see it might in fact have been faking. So what?
falsifiability resides in the proposition that scripture is consistent.
Dewtwo99 showed us scripture that Yah is omniscient:
1 John 3:20 - …God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.
Proverbs 15:3 - The eyes of the Lord are in every place.
let us start with a question, is a reasonable translation alternative possible for either of these two verses? I’ve looked them and do not see a reasonable alternative than the original authors meant to tell us Yah is omniscient.
You might find Blue Letter Bible helpful:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/ is the home page. Type in 1 John 3, and the chapter will come up. In the blue tools on the left, click on C next to verse 20 and the greek will come up and its literal meanings, if you then click G1097 under the Strong’s (lexicon) column. The lexicon no. starts with a H for OT words.
Is it possible that a reaonable case should be made that these verses really mean Yah is not omniscient? Do these verses really mean Yah does NOT know everything? I am not finding that to be the case, and argue these two verses are translated properly in their best most plausible meaning. (I am taking for granted that Proverbs does not mean physical eyes in every place, it’s an obvious metaphor; imagine sitting around saying, dang, I stuck my elbow in one of God’s eyes again. Or maybe Yah has sex with all things, in another meaning of the word, as an idiom? Absurd, both.)
Because the verses seeming to state that Yah is not omniscient can reasonably be taken another way, it seems to me highly likely we’re looking at poor translation for those verses that seem to say in English that Yah doesn’t know all. Of course, I haven’t analyzed any and all possible claims of verses showing Yah is not omniscient, but we can do that if anyone would care to suggest others.
No. Very simply put, falsifiability means that a claim can be shown to be true or false. You claim that God is all knowing by using text from the Bible, and I am asking you what the Bible would have to say to show that your claim is untrue?
I agree that if those passages stood alone, we’d have to look at them and say either position is plausible and fair to say is within the literal constructs of the words. If they stood alone, I’d say we might as well toss a coin as to whether you or I am right. I think plausible explanations should be favored if they tend toward consistency; this is no mere handwaving. It seems to me you handwave away the idea that other interpretaions are possible and plausible. Isn’t it plausible Yah is questioning them so that they will convict themselves before he renders the judgment of banishment from Eden etc.? Give me more than a handwave in dismissing this argument, and explain why we should NOT strive to interpret scripture in a manner so that it is consistent? Insisting on the inconsistent interpretation as though we aren’t aware of the vagaries of language (especially that meanings can often be multiple) seems to me needing to be defended.
Yeah, but you don’t know my middle name, etc., do you? Is there a difference between being questioned by Yah, and being questioned by a SDMB poster? I think so–I dare not try to deceive Yah, it is clear that is foolishness. But if you insist on asking me personal details here at SDMB (it would be different if we weren’t online, but were talking in physical proximity) I am quite comfortable telling you to take a long walk on a short pier or filling you full of B.S. as this is none of your business. It wouldn’t lead me to think you are omniscient. It’s a far cry from being judged by Yah.
have you spent much time wondering about whose point of view this is written from? I’m supposing that something written precisely from Yah’s point of view might not be comprehensible to a majority of reasonable people. I’m sure there are a lot of words missing from any language to write from Yah’s point of view, precisely. Gotta put it in terms people can understand.
It is reasonable for Yah to go through the motions, I kinda think we need spoon-fed, so He goes slow with us, showing every point. Or perhaps the authors felt the people needed spoon-fed.
It’s not reasonable for a man to go through the motions of falling through a manhole when he knew he was going to. We call that a frivolous lawsuit, if someone takes such a situation to court. Just as unreasonable for a game show contestant to knowingly give the wrong answer. However, with the stewardess, it is possible that (assuming she is omniscient) she is tired of freaking people out with her amazing psychic abilities, which would alarm many people, and she goes through the motions out of politeness, even though she already has the orders in and preparation underway, for fast service.
Firstly, why all the underlining? It doesn’t make an argument more convincing. That’s what BLOCK CAPS are for
But, OK, let me try to break it down again.
Positing that god cannot see the future, seems to motivated by the assumption that were god to see our future it would impinge upon free will.
But my position is that this is incorrect; knowledge of future events in itself is not a problem for free will, it’s what potential there is for using that information which may cause a problem.
Let’s say I offer you a choice of coffee or tea. I peek into the future and see you will pick tea.
But now I decide to try to change the future. I suspect that if I tell you you will pick tea, you’ll pick coffee instead. So I do that.
(At least) two things could now happen:
You now may pick coffee. This implies that at most the universe is deterministic, and free will is preserved (in as far as it ever is).
Of course there is now a contradiction between the predicted and actual futures – but then, a paradox was made the instant I behaved differently to my prediction.
Who knows what the solution to this paradox is? Multiverse?
You are compelled to pick tea anyway. This implies fatalism. In this scenario free will is compromised, but then in any fatalistic universe free will is compromised, whether anyone can see the future or not.
So the problem is not with the knowledge, it’s with particular assumptions about how the universe operates.
Yes, but only if you are trying to put forth that the Bible only had one author, and you know that isn’t true. The Bible isn’t one piece of text that has to be internally consistent-it is many pieces of text written mostly by anonymous people, and it would be a fool’s errand to try to make such a collection internally consistent in any way whatsoever.
So, under that reasoning, why is it not a fool’s errand to point out the inconsistency to begin with? Is not the entire OP a fool’s errand?
I do not agree that multiple authors means it has to be inconsistent. their subject matter is the same, insofar as they speak of whether or not Yah is omniscient. If we read a dozen authors on the subject of whether Hitler and 11 are consistant about the qualities he possessed, and the twelfth makes those claims of the eleven false, do we not ask how this inconsistency arose?
The difference is, if we get we get inconsistent reports about the qualities of Hitler, we do not automatically assume that all the reports are correct and that we just need to reinterpret the odd reports until they match up to our satisfaction-we allow for the very real possibility that some of the reports are wrong, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Hypothetical: You or Waldo produce scripture that shows scripture is meant to be inconsistent. Since this is a possibility, my reasoning could be proved wrong since it relies on consistency.
I have already shown, concerning the above verses, how it is a translator’s choice of multiple meanings that give rise to the inconsistency.
I am not failing to consider that some of the verses could be wrong. before I would presume to declare a verse wrong, however, I would look at the translation/interpretation first
Leaving aside that it’s a proverbial expression – sure as “the government has cameras everywhere” has thousands of hits on Google – you’re bisecting the proverb in question: it doesn’t end there with a period, but continues on to spell out that the eyes of the LORD are everywhere keeping watch on the wicked and the good. So I’m not sure that’s as all-encompassing as you’re making it out to be – or that having eyes on someone means you in fact know everything about them. (Look me in the face: can you tell what number I’m thinking of?)
And, again, I’m quite sure you could apply this to all sorts of stuff in there. He famously spends six days creating a bunch of things before resting on the seventh day; that’s consistent with me taking it at face value – and, yes, it’s consistent with Him being an all-powerful deity who never tires or rests, and who could have whipped up everything in an eyeblink; any feat or failing would be consistent with Him being all-powerful, sure as any show of ignorance is consistent with Him being all-knowing.
Why not favor my plausible explanation, if it tends toward consistency?
sorry, i somehow got going too fast and didn’t finish this post.
Now, if the twelfth hitler author is wildly inconsistent with eleven other authors who have well documented themselves, I’d wonder about the twelfth, and would ask questions about his motivations, or maybe if his original version was in a foreign language and might be poorly translated; if he translated it himself, I’d drop that. Now if I find out he is a nazi trying to make Hitler look good, I say he’s wrong. If I find that someone mistranslated and his original work actually can be consistent with the other eleven, I say the english translation is wrong.
He tells Adam that “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” They eatest thereof and don’t in fact die in that day. He tells Abraham: “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” Contrary word later comes down to Abraham from on high not to offer Isaac as a burnt offering: “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.”
Yes, it could mean that. Simply seeing your face does not tell me what number your thinking of.
It gets tiresome to keep looking at the English only. For example, Yah rested on the seventh day, even though he is tireless. The Hebrew word translated “rest” can mean literal English rest, as though we are tired. But the Hebrew also has another meaning, that is, “celebrate.” I do not favor the idea that Yah was physically worn out and needed to catch some zzz’s because of inconsistency, so I favor the plausible translation that he celebrated.
We won’t get far here if you keep arguing as though the literal English is what was written by the author. Don’t you accept that translators can make mistakes?
