The omniscience of god?

quote:

---

The point I am making is that "the scriptures" (I assume you mean the bible) is/are terribly confusing on this and almost every other subject. The bible is riven with contradictions and logical impossibilities. It can't all be correct, so which bits do you pick as being wrong?

---

You're up against a difference in interpretation approaches.You're looking at the simple reading of the text which does not support the current view of omniscience in every writing. Jaywill even said that omniscience is a theological construct.Even if the questions asked by God are rhetorical or meant as allegory, or God knows the answers to his tests; God is still portrayed in the OT as being capable of anger and jealousy, which is a paradox for an omniscient being.Scripture does become confusing when different interpretations are used. One person is looking at plain text (p'shat), another is looking at hidden meanings (remez), and another is looking at current teachings (d'rash). Even in looking at the simple reading, one has to remember that there are various styles of writing in the Bible: Fictional, poetic, historical, songs, letters, etc.We also need to understand that religion/belief systems change over time just as civilizations and cultures change over time. A current belief system can be based on an interpretation of the text other than the simple reading, but no interpretation should contradict the simple reading of the text.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So ... we shouldn't take the bible literally?

---

When some say they take the Bible literally, they mean that the events described actually happened as described. There actually was a talking snake, etc. That isn't really reading the writings in their simple meaning. I don't advise that type of literalism.

quote:

---

So ... we should take the bible literally!

---

For the simple meaning, one should read the Bible the same way one does any other book. The words have their normal meaning unless literary devices and creativity are employed to form another meaning. Literalism doesn't negate understanding figurative language. Because we are so far removed from the original audience, we have a harder time understanding the idioms, humor, slang, politics, daily life, and religious practices of the original audience. We can guess and do the best we can, but we still miss the spirit of the people. One does need to do their best to understand what the author was trying to tell their audience, not us.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I'm not quite certain what you mean. I suspect you have just written a global "get out clause" for anything controversial in the bible. Basically, any passage means whatever you want it to mean.

---

The simple reading or P'shat, should not be a "get out" clause. P'shat should be the foundation we can always go back to when teachings seem fishy or go against common sense. Apologetics are used to smooth over inconsistencies in the Bible and issues controversial to current beliefs or teachings.It's difficult in these discussions, when one is looking at the p'shat and others are using another form of interpretation or apologetics. Apples and oranges.If you're a religion-free person, then just read the Bible as you would any other book and try to understand the audience if you really want to understand. There are a lot of different authors and styles in the Christian Bible and they all have various reasons for why they wrote and what the writing was supposed to tell their audience. Just remember that the writings reflects the times, just like our writings do today.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I'm using "p'shat", yet it shows biblical contradictions, or "paradoxes" as you call them.

---

Yes, you are wanting to understand the p'shat or simple reading.Are the contradictions or paradoxes between the various writers of the Bible or contradictions between current theology and what was written?Omniscience is a later theology. In the OT, God shows the same foibles that plague mankind: anger, jealousy, frustration, regret, etc.Current theology says God is all knowing (omniscient), but what kind of knowledge does God actually have?Factual or Propositional: Just the facts.
Procedural: Knowing how to accomplish a task.
Experiential: From direct experience.To be all knowing, God would need to be capable of all three aspects of knowledge.Some say God will always be wiser than man, but wisdom develops through experiential knowledge.Can a nonphysical God transcending time and space have experiential knowledge of sex and other physical acts?
Can God experience raising children?
Can God experience loss of a mate?
Can God experience pain, hunger, etc.?As easily as pain is inflicted on humans by God, I would say no. How can God advise humans if he can't experience?When it comes to procedural, I also have my doubts. God has been known to give procedural information to humans, but he seems lacking when it comes to managing civilization. When current theology presents a god who supposedly has to have his own son killed to clean up a mess that if done right the first time should not have happened, then the skills aren't there.Factual knowledge is considered a given since God supposedly can see into the future, but the Bible stories don't support that idea either. God heard the 911s but had to go down and check it out.The Bible stories clearly show that God can be surprised and in some cases he has to "physically" check on details. That puts a crimp in the omniscient capabilities. Now the Sodom and Gomorrah story is probably just that, more story than an actual historical event.You're right in Message 22 when you show that God is capable of changing his mind. Some claim that God doesn't change his mind, but that also goes against the idea of a merciful god that the NT writers presented. To be merciful, one has to be able to change their mind. Since God can change his mind, he doesn't fit the current idea of omniscience.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz