Is God omniscient

@BibleData here is a definition: adjective
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. But I agree with you that He does not know the future and nothing to do with the bible for me. But that is because this life is real and plays out by itself.

@Axeroberts
That definition is based upon the most common theological teaching which isn't in agreement with the Bible.


I'm not sure what yo mean by that. The Bible is the only source of knowledge we have of the God of the Bible. The Bible isn't perfect. It's translation wasn't inspired, and our understanding is fallible to say the least, but anything outside of that collection of books is either theological speculation, fabricated or in reference to some other God.

@BibleData the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. But if it works for you that's great

@Axeroberts the Bible IS the only source of knowledge on the Bible God. If I or anyone else thinks God likes a good warm cup of tea it isn't knowledge, it's fantasy. What you are doing is taking a vague and ambiguous god concept of your own making which has nothing to do with God.

@BibleData there are many beliefs. All just as valid as the next.

@Axeroberts
That isn't the point. If I start a religion with Axeroberts as my God and decide that He loves Nazi memorabilia and beastiality that don't make it true, it don't make it right and it don't make it a valid belief. To you God may be some cosmic cash cow that you can fantasize into every anomaly at your whim but that don't make it true, right or valid. Not even, I might add, remotely interesting on a spiritual or intellectual level.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to actually look closely into what the Bible says about the Bible God? There are billions of Gods like your imaginary friend but only one Jehovah God. Maybe see for yourself if that one true God was made up or is real.

@BibleData sounds like you need to get real

@Axeroberts
No.

It sounds like you need to do that.

@BibleData the God of the bible? really? that is just one interpretation. It's the God we know and have a relationship that matters to me.

@Axeroberts
And like I said, that's fine. But you seem to be conflating all Gods with a specific God concept commonly thought of as the Bible God, Jehovah. I'm not trying to disagree or disrespect your God, I'm just trying to clarify the confusion so that you don't do that to mine.

Even the Bible itself has many examples of there being Gods other than Jehovah. The word god just means mighty/venerated. Anything or anyone who is considered by anyone else in that capacity, namely being most important to that person, is a god or God.

That's what @Emosaur is saying here:
Technically that's correct in a Judeo-Christian culture. In a Muslim culture God would be Allah, though they are thought of as the same God. Both Abrahamic. Allah just means The God in Arabic. In the Biblical ancient Hebrew they used variations of the word el for god/gods/goddesses. It applied to anything or anyone who was mighty/venerated as I explained above. If they used the word with the definitive article ha it was the same as saying, in English, the God or God. It meant the specific God of the culture in ancient Israel. A similar example is the Hebrew word satan. In that language it means resistor or adversary. It was used when talking about regular mortal men, and even righteous angels who resisted or were adversarial to something wicked or unrighteous. So satan wasn't necessarily a bad thing, it just meant resisting something, perhaps something bad. If the Hebrew word satan had the definite article ha (ha Satan) it specifically meant the angel who became known by that title. Satan (resistor/adversary) the Devil (meaning slanderer/liar).

So imagine me using Satan in the same way that you use God. Saying anyone who resisted evil was satan. Technically it would be correct but it wouldn't be understood that way because the terms are commonly used in an incorrect or at least incomplete way. On this forum I recently made the same mistake by using the words passive aggressive in a way that caused someone to confuse it as specifically meaning passive-aggressive as defined by the Mayo clinic.

@BibleData you seem very hung up on the word instead of the belief

@Axeroberts
I'm only trying to share my beliefs with someone of different beliefs. Don't think of it so much as a debate as a fair exchange. That's the nice way for me to put it.

@BibleData 👍. And beliefs can be very individual. As long as it's good I think it is just as valid as anyone's

@Axeroberts So, individually, which God do you think is omniscient with limitations? Who is your individual God and why should I care? Also, good is a subjective term so what makes you think your beliefs are good?

@BibleData I think it is the same God for everyone. But different interpretations. Humans can never understand God fully. And good is good.

@Axeroberts
No. Jehovah is not the same as Jesus, Satan, Shiva, Allah, Zeus, Moloch, Amaterasu, et cetera.


I think that people who think that tend to think that each named God is actually a product of a manufactured concept of either "good" or "evil." The universal and nonsensical "Good vs Evil" manifested in mythology, tradition, culture, religion, et cetera. The problem is that your good is not necessarily my good. Many millions of people have died at the hands of someone else's "good" tyranny.


Of course they can, all or individual Gods or God in general. What mankind can never fully do is take advantage of the obvious ignorance and increase it. For their good. Meaning that they will continue to develop that advantage through ignorance until they aren't allowed to do that any longer.



Indeed, it is. But your good isn't my good and mine isn't yours. Jehovah's good isn't Satan's good and Satan's isn't Jehovah's good.

@BibleData The relationship with this Creator has changed over the year and developed but it all refers to a Creator. And what religions define as good and bad may not be what an individual would agree with.