Does God Know Everything?

[Question.Everything]

Do you believe God is omniscient? Why do you believe this? I'm left kind of stumped by contradicting accounts in the Bible.

On the one hand (God IS omniscient) we have statements like Proverbs 15:3 which says "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."

So at the basic level, we have a God who sees everything going on, everywhere, at all times. Now let's look at Genesis 18 20-21, "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."

If God has eyes everywhere at all times, why would he state that he must "go down and see what they've done". Doesn't he innately know what they've done because his eyes are in every place? Also it's interesting that God says "I will go down now, and I will know", implying that he is acting in present time. From most Biblical descriptions I've heard of God, he does not exist or act in time...he just "is".

 

[ViaCrucis]

Classic Theism says yes.

Open Theism says probably not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

Do you believe God is omniscient? Why do you believe this? I'm left kind of stumped by contradicting accounts in the Bible.

On the one hand (God IS omniscient) we have statements like Proverbs 15:3 which says "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."

So at the basic level, we have a God who sees everything going on, everywhere, at all times. Now let's look at Genesis 18 20-21, "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."

If God has eyes everywhere at all times, why would he state that he must "go down and see what they've done". Doesn't he innately know what they've done because his eyes are in every place? Also it's interesting that God says "I will go down now, and I will know", implying that he is acting in present time. From most Biblical descriptions I've heard of God, he does not exist or act in time...he just "is".

Read the rest of this chapter and the next. The actions of God in your highlighted portion is not for His knowledge but that of Abraham and Lot. Look at the Bargaining Abraham did with God, and in the next Chapter the deeds and desires of those in that city. God's declaration to Abraham and His subsequent follow up by sending His messengers to Sodom were a test of sorts that He knew they would fail, Thus righteously sealing the fate of that evil city. Proving to Lot and to Abraham (And us) His all knowing qualities.

 

[Question.Everything]

Classic Theism says yes.

Open Theism says probably not.

-CryptoLutheran

And what do you say?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And what do you say?

I take the Classic position that God is omniscient. I'm not that well studied on Open Theism, but from what I have encountered it hasn't convinced me it's a better position than the Classic position.

It's also not necessarily on my top priority list in matters of theology, and therefore probably wouldn't super dogmatic about it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Question.Everything]

I take the Classic position that God is omniscient. I'm not that well studied on Open Theism, but from what I have encountered it hasn't convinced me it's a better position than the Classic position.

It's also not necessarily on my top priority list in matters of theology, and therefore probably wouldn't super dogmatic about it.

-CryptoLutheran

Given this, do you have a response to my thread? You say God knows all, can you explain Genesis 18 20-21 to me? Why does God's nature here contradict itself?

 

[razeontherock]

can you explain Genesis 18 20-21 to me? Why does God's nature here contradict itself?

Don't fall prey to hyper-literalism. Remember, G-d has to condescend for us to be able to have ANY comprehension of Him. He wants to be known!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Given this, do you have a response to my thread? You say God knows all, can you explain Genesis 18 20-21 to me? Why does God's nature here contradict itself?

For one, I don't think the authors of Genesis were as interested in the same theological-philosophical stuff as we are today, and thus the point of the narrative isn't about divine omniscience or lack thereof.

The point of the narrative is the wickedness of Sodom in contrast to the righteousness which the Hebrews were expected (the story serves in part as a sort of moral tale where S&G represent the injustice and wretchedness apart from God's Torah, remember that Genesis is one of the five books of the Torah here). The writer narrates and writes as he does to present the fact that God was not simply being arbitrary in passing judgment on Sodom, but that the city really was the antithesis of the charity and generosity which God expected of His people; Abraham's hospitality is in contrast with Sodom's violent inhospitality.

The main point here that I'm making is that the text isn't all that interested in talking about the level of divine knowledge God has, but rather about something else different altogether. Keep in mind that I don't read every jot and tittle of the Bible as a journal; but rather try to keep an eye on context to make the best sense of the text. The concept of omniscience is the sort of question that more-or-less arises extra-biblically, not necessarily one the biblical texts themselves are always of chief concern with.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GrayAngel]

The Bible sometimes makes use of poetic or storytelling language, not meant to be taken literally. The consistent message in the Bible is that God is omniscient.

 

[ebia]

Classic Theism says yes.

Open Theism says probably not.

-CryptoLutheran

John Goldingay says in principle he can know any given thing, but he chooses not actually know everything so that his interaction with creation in general and us in particular is a genuine relationship.

Christian history has been inclined to press answers to questions like monotheism and omniscience from texts that aren't really interested in those questions, and to dismiss the mass of OT stories that describe God finding out, discovering, reacting, changing his mind, ...

 

[Question.Everything]

Don't fall prey to hyper-literalism.

I think calling my assessment "hyper-literalism" is a bit dramatic.

Remember, G-d has to condescend for us to be able to have ANY comprehension of Him.

How is writing an error about his nature "condescending" things for humanity? He could have very easily said (ahem, like he does later in the Bible) "I have eyes everywhere and have seen the wickedness in Sodom and Gomorrah..." and continued with the story? Would we not learn the exact same message?

 

[Question.Everything]

For one, I don't think the authors of Genesis were as interested in the same theological-philosophical stuff as we are today, and thus the point of the narrative isn't about divine omniscience or lack thereof.

Keep in mind what we're dealing with here. These are not basic human beings writing a book, they are inspired and directly communicate with God. Would God allow men to quote him and write something false? Would God allow the mistake to remain or would he tell Moses (or whoever) that he is misquoting God?

The point of the narrative is the wickedness of Sodom in contrast to the righteousness which the Hebrews were expected (the story serves in part as a sort of moral tale where S&G represent the injustice and wretchedness apart from God's Torah, remember that Genesis is one of the five books of the Torah here). The writer narrates and writes as he does to present the fact that God was not simply being arbitrary in passing judgment on Sodom, but that the city really was the antithesis of the charity and generosity which God expected of His people; Abraham's hospitality is in contrast with Sodom's violent inhospitality.

While this is a nice summation and interpretation of the story, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. God did not have to reference himself in a completely erroneous way to make that story work. Saying "I have seen what happens in S&G and this is what you must learn" delivers the same message as "I will go to S&G, see what happens, and then teach you." The purpose is to learn whatever God has to teach here.

Either God is lying to make himself more impressionable to humans, or humans lied when directly quoting God and God allowed this in his holy book (for all ages).

The main point here that I'm making is that the text isn't all that interested in talking about the level of divine knowledge God has, but rather about something else different altogether.

That's fine that it's not interested in talking about the divine nature of God, but it does. That doesn't make massive errors something to brush off as insignificant.

Keep in mind that I don't read every jot and tittle of the Bible as a journal; but rather try to keep an eye on context to make the best sense of the text.

The implications I laid out above should suggest to you that the Bible should be read down to every last jot. In the only objective piece of communication from God (the source of all life) in existence, everything is significant. Fundamental errors should never be overlooked when coming from the will of such a serious and infinite being.

The concept of omniscience is the sort of question that more-or-less arises extra-biblically, not necessarily one the biblical texts themselves are always of chief concern with.

I could quite easily dig up a list of Bible verses and chapters that describe Gods nature as being perfect, almighty, infinite, etc. This concept is thoroughly detailed in the good book and is certainly not "extra-Biblical".

 

[Question.Everything]

The Bible sometimes makes use of poetic or storytelling language, not meant to be taken literally.

Is there some sort of key in the back of the Bible I can use that tells me what is poetic storytelling language and what is literal? As I said above, God has no reason to lie about his nature (it does not change the lesson of the "story").

Either he lied about it, or humans wrote a direct quote down wrong and God allowed it. God cannot complete the action of "I will go see what happens" because it directly contradicts his perfect and infinite nature. He already knows what has happened. Gen 18 is a direct quote from God, poetic or not.

The consistent message in the Bible is that God is omniscient.

Not according to Genesis 18. Why would you overlook this?

 

[Question.Everything]

John Goldingay says in principle he can know any given thing, but he chooses not actually know everything so that his interaction with creation in general and us in particular is a genuine relationship.

This is a good point but I can't buy it because of God's supposed all-loving nature. If God chooses to cut himself off from all knowledge, human beings become an experiment to God. His nature as described in the OT would be something like "I'll create this, and then watch how it develops and react to it". In the meantime, billions of humans suffer physically on Earth as a result of God's experimentation. This isn't love. God would get his genuine relationship that he wanted, but at the expense of contradicting his own nature.

This topic directly flows into your next point,

Christian history has been inclined to press answers to questions like monotheism and omniscience from texts that aren't really interested in those questions, and to dismiss the mass of OT stories that describe God finding out, discovering, reacting, changing his mind, ...

The simple truth is that the OT and NT are contradicting in nature. The message or lessons do not matter. What matters is that the nature (foundation) for the writings is fundamentally flawed to a massive degree. Either God experiments like he does in the OT, or he is perfectly infinite in every way and all-loving in the NT. By nature he cannot be infinite in knowledge/love (NT) AND experiment (OT), because he would know that his (OT) experimentation would result in acts that are not perfectly loving (NT).

We're left with logic that implodes upon itself.

 

[ebia]

This is a good point but I can't buy it because of God's supposed all-loving nature. If God chooses to cut himself off from all knowledge, human beings become an experiment to God. His nature as described in the OT would be something like "I'll create this, and then watch how it develops and react to it". In the meantime, billions of humans suffer physically on Earth as a result of God's experimentation. This isn't love. God would get his genuine relationship that he wanted, but at the expense of contradicting his own nature.

on the contrary, it's vital for a loving relationship. Love requires letting go and taking a risk - the alternative isn't love, it's smothering.

The simple truth is that the OT and NT are contradicting in nature.

some people's understanding of one contradicts their understanding of the other.

I don't think the NT disagrees on this point at all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Keep in mind what we're dealing with here. These are not basic human beings writing a book, they are inspired and directly communicate with God. Would God allow men to quote him and write something false? Would God allow the mistake to remain or would he tell Moses (or whoever) that he is misquoting God?

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy. That either the Bible is a purely human product without any divine activity involved or else it's and product of divine dictation, where the human authors are effectively God's quills.

Inspiration doesn't mean dictation. Inspiration doesn't even necessitate inerrancy (I'm not an inerrantist).

That said, I don't think a mistake was made here, only that the writer has a specific point to make and isn't particularly interested with the question with whether or not God is omniscient and thus that question is fundamentally irrelevant to the text.

Was this verbatim what God said in this particularly historical episode? Is this historical episode in every minute detail absolutely and journalistically historical? I don't know. I also don't think it's all that important in this place.

What's important is what the story is intended to convey and say for and to its target audience.

Using this as an argument for or against omniscience is ultimately moot. It's like using Ecclesiastes, an intentionally pessimistic work concerning the perceived meaninglessness of life to try and establish eschatology (that's not what the work is about, the work is wisdom literature and has an entirely different literary purpose than establishing eschatological doctrine or dogma); similarly, the point of the story concerning Sodom and Gomorrah has its own unique purposes. Extrapolating a theology of divine omniscience from this single passage from this single narrative is fundamentally missing the whole point.

While this is a nice summation and interpretation of the story, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. God did not have to reference himself in a completely erroneous way to make that story work. Saying "I have seen what happens in S&G and this is what you must learn" delivers the same message as "I will go to S&G, see what happens, and then teach you." The purpose is to learn whatever God has to teach here.

Sure. But that's not how the author and/or redactors of Genesis chose to write the text.

Either God is lying to make himself more impressionable to humans, or humans lied when directly quoting God and God allowed this in his holy book (for all ages).

Or neither. Unless one tries to force the biblical texts into an unnatural, artificial and rigid, wooden mold which allows no room to breathe. That may work for some Fundamentalist views of the Bible, but it forces the Bible into being something it's not.

That's fine that it's not interested in talking about the divine nature of God, but it does. That doesn't make massive errors something to brush off as insignificant.

There is no massive error. That's the point I'm making. You seem to want the Bible to be this compendium of theological points when it's primarily a collection of literature and narrative. It should be read as literature and narrative.

The implications I laid out above should suggest to you that the Bible should be read down to every last jot. In the only objective piece of communication from God (the source of all life) in existence, everything is significant. Fundamental errors should never be overlooked when coming from the will of such a serious and infinite being.

I could quite easily dig up a list of Bible verses and chapters that describe Gods nature as being perfect, almighty, infinite, etc. This concept is thoroughly detailed in the good book and is certainly not "extra-Biblical".

I could as well. But, yes, the theo-philosophical omnis are basically extra-biblical; not that they can't be found in Scripture, but in that the Christian tradition has articulated them through the course of her life. In the same way that the Trinity as a theological system is extra-biblical (though is rooted in biblical witness, teaching and narrative).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Question.Everything]

Love requires letting go and taking a risk

Ordinary human, unknown love maybe. God's love is different because he is supposed to be perfect and omniscient, and his love is supposed to be perfect. Looking back, I don't even see how an omniscient (timeless) God could restrict himself from knowing anything. An entity that is timeless, perfect, and never wrong cannot take risks.

Think of it this way: in the way your reference describes it, God chooses to not know the future. Yet implying that there is a future for God implies that he lives in time. A timeless being has no future, past, or present...it just is. God either knows everything, or he doesn't.

some people's understanding of one contradicts their understanding of the other.

Right, but the Bible is inspired by God and is the product of God, with the goal of spreading God's message. To replace the word: the Bible is inspired by perfection and is the product of perfection, with the goal of spreading the perfect message. It is 100% illogical that the only physical product of perfection contains contradicting understandings. How can I believe God is perfect when his ONLY publication to humanity is chalk full of fundamental contradictions?

 

[ebia]

Ordinary human, unknown love maybe. God's love is different because he is supposed to be perfect and omniscient, and his love is supposed to be perfect. Looking back, I don't even see how an omniscient (timeless) God could restrict himself from knowing anything. An entity that is timeless, perfect, and never wrong cannot take risks.

you're bringing too many assumptions about what you think God "must" be like to the question.

Love requires letting go, allowing freedom, not smothering - taking risks.

What you fall back onto isn't love at all.

Think of it this way: in the way your reference describes it, God chooses to not know the future. Yet implying that there is a future for God implies that he lives in time. A timeless being has no future, past, or present...it just is. God either knows everything, or he doesn't.

according to the scriptural story God does participate in time. Presumably through choice.

Right, but the Bible is inspired by God and is the product of God, with the goal of spreading God's message. To replace the word: the Bible is inspired by perfection and is the product of perfection, with the goal of spreading the perfect message. It is 100% illogical that the only physical product of perfection contains contradicting understandings. How can I believe God is perfect when his ONLY publication to humanity is chalk full of fundamental contradictions?

I didn't say or conceed scripture had contradictions. I acknowledged that some people understand one thing from the OT and another from the NT. I submit that they are mistaken. That God is always a risk-taking God.

 

[FMX]

If He does then He is with holding valuable information from us?

*thinks about cancer*

 

[Question.Everything]

That said, I don't think a mistake was made here, only that the writer has a specific point to make and isn't particularly interested with the question with whether or not God is omniscient and thus that question is fundamentally irrelevant to the text.

The question is fundamentally irrelevant to the message of the parable, but it is absolutely relevant to the text. We have a writer quoting God and saying there are things God does not know. How is anybody to derive characteristics of God's nature (what we all should be living by) with false accounts? You may look at the passage at see it as "Errors don't matter, God had a main lesson he wanted to get across", but I see it differently. I see it as a perfect God allowed his book to be tainted by human error. This absolutely ruins it's credibility when comparing it to other religions.

I have yet to see 1 Christian explain to my why Islam is false.

Was this verbatim what God said in this particularly historical episode? Is this historical episode in every minute detail absolutely and journalistically historical? I don't know. I also don't think it's all that important in this place.

God isn't a journalist and he's not a historian; he's perfect. That's why it's confusing that he writes his story using human and infallible journalists. It would not have been hard for God to omit this error (and many others) by simply telling the writers that they are mistaken.

What's important is what the story is intended to convey and say for and to its target audience.

Am I not part of the target audience? Not allowing this error to happen would give me one less reason to disbelieve. Unfortunately, the Bible is full of errors like these that God could have very easily corrected but didn't. I think it would indeed be comforting to believe in a personal God that you know, and I wish such a person would reach out to me. The Bible does the opposite.

Extrapolating a theology of divine omniscience from this single passage from this single narrative is fundamentally missing the whole point.

You reference "single passage" as being something significant. Would you like me to pull up more passages detailing God's finite knowledge? Would 10 erroneous passages make any difference to you?

I'm not nitpicking 2 verses out of the entire Bible and saying "This is why your God doesn't exist!" This fundamental misunderstanding by humans is repeated many times in the OT.

Sure. But that's not how the author and/or redactors of Genesis chose to write the text.

As mentioned before, God knows what his authors are writing. It's not difficult to correct them when they're wrong about core issues like omniscience. I'm not the only one to ask these questions, thousands of humans ask the same thing and they cannot believe in the Bible for the same reasons I can't. It simply doesn't sound like God wants me to be his "child", because my mind can't accept that a perfect being allowed imperfect humans to misrecord his nature.

Or neither. Unless one tries to force the biblical texts into an unnatural, artificial and rigid, wooden mold which allows no room to breathe. That may work for some Fundamentalist views of the Bible, but it forces the Bible into being something it's not.

This is a matter of opinion (as is everything I guess), but I don't think you take the Bible as seriously as it should be taken. Only when you deeply study science do you see how intricate and beautiful the universe really is, and also how mysterious it is. We have such beautiful, vast creations beyond human comprehension, quadrillions of planets, and so many finely tuned aspects to allow for life on Earth. And as his single objective piece of evidence to all of mankind, God inspires the Bible. Every single word should be perfect if it is to withstand the inevitable scrutiny that advanced humans would befall on it. God, perfect and omniscient, would know this.

Simply put, perfect beings would never inspire imperfect creations if this perfect being is truly genuine. I see no reason for God to allow errors in the Bible (that he could effortlessly prevent) if he wants everybody to believe it. I'm not sure why Christians overlook this, maybe you could help me understand?

There is no massive error. That's the point I'm making. You seem to want the Bible to be this compendium of theological points when it's primarily a collection of literature and narrative. It should be read as literature and narrative.

And again you undermine the weight of the Bible. The Bible is not just "literature and narrative". It is a complex collection of writings inspired by a perfect creator that reveal the ultimate nature and purpose to existence. This is huge! A Tale of Two Cities is a narrative that sends messages the author wishes to convey, but it is an opinionated piece of literature written by an imperfect author.

the theo-philosophical omnis are basically extra-biblical

not that they can't be found in Scripture

Since they can be found in scripture, they are not extra-Biblical. You've contradicted yourself.

but in that the Christian tradition has articulated them

Do you believe things because that's what tradition has believed, or because you actually believe them? You're kind of going back to your original post here when you answered my question by saying "These people say THIS, and these people say THIS." Well yeah, that's the story of any topic in existence...there is always two sides.

I'm only concerned with what each individual I'm talking to actually believes in their heart, and why.