God isn't "All-Knowing"

[kids in america_]

The verses you quoted were not ‘g-d’ but ‘angels’. Often when we read of ‘g-d’ doing something, it is in fact an ‘angel’ doing it. The idea of ‘g-d’ has to “come down” in order to “visit” men and see how they are doing is often applied to ‘angels’.

 

[alissowack]

I could be wrong, but I don't think this issue is being properly handled. God being all-knowing is the claim, but I think we reduce it to being some sense of measurement in respect to God; ask God a question and He will dig into His Limitless Memory Bank and give us the desired answer. If we don't accept anything else about God, at least accept that God is eternal to start off. If we do, then all-knowing should at least suggest that God's knowledge is "supreme" over all knowledge; it has lordship over man's knowledge of things.

 

[whar67]

If the Limitless Memory Bank is flawed, which I entirely agree with, what does 'omniscience' mean when applied to God? His knowledge can not be considered 'always' better than man or else how could men know Sodom was a bad place and God did not. If he is just some being with more knowledge than us why call him God?

 

[alissowack]

If the Limitless Memory Bank is flawed, which I entirely agree with, what does 'omniscience' mean when applied to God? His knowledge can not be considered 'always' better than man or else how could men know Sodom was a bad place and God did not. If he is just some being with more knowledge than us why call him God?

I wouldn't look at in terms of good, better, and best. It's not that God's Knowledge is better than man's knowledge. It is lord over man's knowledge.

 

[Rock_Well]

The verses you quoted were not ‘g-d’ but ‘angels’. Often when we read of ‘g-d’ doing something, it is in fact an ‘angel’ doing it. The idea of ‘g-d’ has to “come down” in order to “visit” men and see how they are doing is often applied to ‘angels’.

i think you might actually be on to something but also that this is not completely correct

 

[VIBE]

The verses you quoted were not ‘g-d’ but ‘angels’. Often when we read of ‘g-d’ doing something, it is in fact an ‘angel’ doing it. The idea of ‘g-d’ has to “come down” in order to “visit” men and see how they are doing is often applied to ‘angels’.

But in these situations we have GOD doing so. Yes angels probably did and it's probably in the bible but in what I posted that is God himself. He came down to Abraham and talked to the dude, the writer confused an angel with God? So then the bible isn't right? It's wrong? God allowed that? But it's supposed to be the TRUE word of God, mistakes cannot be in there! - Sarcasm but it is true, especially in the eyes of the believer.

We seen instances in the bible where it did say ANGELS then where it said GOD, it did differentiate between the two. If it isn't God, why is it said to be him? And why can't God do it himself?

 

[VIBE]

I could be wrong, but I don't think this issue is being properly handled. God being all-knowing is the claim, but I think we reduce it to being some sense of measurement in respect to God; ask God a question and He will dig into His Limitless Memory Bank and give us the desired answer. If we don't accept anything else about God, at least accept that God is eternal to start off. If we do, then all-knowing should at least suggest that God's knowledge is "supreme" over all knowledge; it has lordship over man's knowledge of things.

I've asked God many questions and I hear crickets, he's still digging? Okay, enough mocking. We don't put any sense of measurement onto God, we read the bible and take from that. Everyone interprets the bible, everyone, every person that has read it has. You can do nothing more or less but interpret. So from that, look at what I posted about God's "not all knowing" part. I haven't done anything to change the verses, this is God in action and it has been written the way it is/was. So far, and correct me if I'm wrong someone please, I haven't seen GOD himself say that he is all-knowing. Most of the claims made are by man, taking their understanding of it and putting it down. They're applying it to something they call so great, so they also could be exaggerating without knowing it.

God states he knows the beginning and end, this is because he is the creator of his creation. He knows the things that aren't yet done because those things are in his will, so lets say for example he wants to re-create Jesus and does and another Jesus comes, that is apart of his will and it's not yet done. YES I KNOW, NEVER WOULD HAPPEN, IT'S AN EXAMPLE. God himself SHOWS he is not an all knowing being, not anyone else. If you were to place all this onto a person, you would easily come to the conclusion that the person is not all knowing. But since it's God it's like we MUST place this insane all powerful title onto him. I think that's false, and according to the bible if it's false then it's wrong to follow that type of idea. God himself has shown; not all knowing & not perfect.

Can God's knowledge still be considered supreme? Yes. It doesn't change God at all. The misunderstanding and taking MAN'S word for it was changing God. But why did God allow it to be there? Was it supposed to be there, is it apart of the plan? If someone is praising me to an extreme, and it's very good and makes me look good, I'd allow it. I think that's what God is doing here, allowing it also for the people to just express themselves. OR God doesn't exist, which is why he didn't interfere to correct the writers.

 

[VIBE]

i think you might actually be on to something but also that this is not completely correct

So what is correct?

 

[kids in america_]

But in these situations we have GOD doing so. Yes angels probably did and it's probably in the bible but in what I posted that is God himself. He came down to Abraham and talked to the dude, the writer confused an angel with God? So then the bible isn't right? It's wrong? God allowed that? But it's supposed to be the TRUE word of God, mistakes cannot be in there! - Sarcasm but it is true, especially in the eyes of the believer.

We seen instances in the bible where it did say ANGELS then where it said GOD, it did differentiate between the two. If it isn't God, why is it said to be him? And why can't God do it himself?

‘Angels’ can be called ‘g-d’ and ‘Lord’. They also can carry his/her/it’s name because they are working on this being behalf. Well that’s what I’ve gathered from my study material.

 

[IamtheVILLE]

fuck god. god aint real and i know why he aint real.

 

[soul rattler]

‘Angels’ can be called ‘g-d’ and ‘Lord’. They also can carry his/her/it’s name because they are working on this being behalf. Well that’s what I’ve gathered from my study material.

LOL you shouldn't have said that.

 

[kids in america_]

LOL you shouldn't have said that.

Sounds silly, huh? Read Gen 16:7-13. The "angel" of the Lord is called LORD and El Roi (the ‘god’ who sees) in v. 13.

Gen 16:7 The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
Gen 16:8 And he said, "Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am running away from my mistress Sarai."
Gen 16:9 The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."
Gen 16:10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude."
Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
Gen 16:12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin."
Gen 16:13 So she named the LORD who spoke to her, "You are El-roi"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"

 

[kids in america_]

i think you might actually be on to something but also that this is not completely correct

Please help me with my error.

 

[VIBE]

Sounds silly, huh? Read Gen 16:7-13. The "angel" of the Lord is called LORD and El Roi (the ‘god’ who sees) in v. 13.

Gen 16:7 The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
Gen 16:8 And he said, "Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am running away from my mistress Sarai."
Gen 16:9 The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."
Gen 16:10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude."
Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
Gen 16:12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin."
Gen 16:13 So she named the LORD who spoke to her, "You are El-roi"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"

This whole chapter is bullshit though. First, Sarai's dumb ass is down and out she can't get pregnant so she goes to her slave as a surrogate mother. Then Abram bangs the broad, and the slave despises Sarai (gee I wonder the fuck why) then Sarai gets mad at Abram. THEN Sarai mistreats the slave (which is a no-no in God's rules) so the slave runs away. So the angel of the LORD comes down and allows the bullshit to still take place? After adultery has taken place anyways? Supposed 'angel of the LORD' says go back and submit to the master anyways? So the angel of the LORD gives many descendants so many there's no counting them?

Well, gee, sounds like a God allowed 1. Adultery. 2. Mistreatment of the slave. 3. Allow, what in God's eyes should be an abomination, to be born. 4. Continue on the family tree as well. What the fuck is that? AND how is an ANGEL the LORD? Did God come down "in the likeliness of an angel"? Because if it's a regular angel, and it got labeled LORD, GOD then there is a problem with that in a biblical sense. Remember, there is ONLY ONE GOD! How can an angel be one as well?

 

[alissowack]

I've asked God many questions and I hear crickets, he's still digging? Okay, enough mocking. We don't put any sense of measurement onto God, we read the bible and take from that. Everyone interprets the bible, everyone, every person that has read it has. You can do nothing more or less but interpret. So from that, look at what I posted about God's "not all knowing" part. I haven't done anything to change the verses, this is God in action and it has been written the way it is/was. So far, and correct me if I'm wrong someone please, I haven't seen GOD himself say that he is all-knowing. Most of the claims made are by man, taking their understanding of it and putting it down. They're applying it to something they call so great, so they also could be exaggerating without knowing it.

God states he knows the beginning and end, this is because he is the creator of his creation. He knows the things that aren't yet done because those things are in his will, so lets say for example he wants to re-create Jesus and does and another Jesus comes, that is apart of his will and it's not yet done. YES I KNOW, NEVER WOULD HAPPEN, IT'S AN EXAMPLE. God himself SHOWS he is not an all knowing being, not anyone else. If you were to place all this onto a person, you would easily come to the conclusion that the person is not all knowing. But since it's God it's like we MUST place this insane all powerful title onto him. I think that's false, and according to the bible if it's false then it's wrong to follow that type of idea. God himself has shown; not all knowing & not perfect.

Can God's knowledge still be considered supreme? Yes. It doesn't change God at all. The misunderstanding and taking MAN'S word for it was changing God. But why did God allow it to be there? Was it supposed to be there, is it apart of the plan? If someone is praising me to an extreme, and it's very good and makes me look good, I'd allow it. I think that's what God is doing here, allowing it also for the people to just express themselves. OR God doesn't exist, which is why he didn't interfere to correct the writers.

I will say that there are interpretations out there that if placed under the scope of logic it would fall short. But would it mean that logic is supreme because of it? For some, it is and it dictates what they should believe or not believe about God. Logic then becomes the most high or all-knowing. Sure, no one thinks that is what is going on when they do this, but they are essentially convinced that logic is the final say in all matters.

 

[soul rattler]

Sounds silly, huh? Read Gen 16:7-13. The "angel" of the Lord is called LORD and El Roi (the ‘god’ who sees) in v. 13.

Gen 16:7 The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.

Gen 16:8 And he said, "Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am running away from my mistress Sarai."

Gen 16:9 The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."

Gen 16:10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude."

Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.

Gen 16:12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin."

Gen 16:13 So she named the LORD who spoke to her, "You are El-roi"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"

By using this rule, you're blurring the lines between what is and isn't g-d. Are you saying that angels are mere extentions of their creator? Cause if so, how do you explain the"Satan fiasco"?

 

[Rock_Well]

So what is correct?

It's not correct that every reference to 'God' or 'Spirit of God' in the Bible, 'doing ________', is to be understood as an angel doing it. But there is a lot of examples of God using angels to carryout His judgments and He did use them to deliver the Old Testament law.

 

[Rock_Well]

Please help me with my error.

I'll have to do a little bit of digging to make my point but i gotta take care of some things first so pardon me a sec i'll have to come back later...i'll try to keep the answer or point relatively short

 

[soul rattler]

So it's fair to say that g-d sent the snake to tempt Eve, right?

 

[VIBE]

It's not correct that every reference to 'God' or 'Spirit of God' in the Bible, 'doing ________', is to be understood as an angel doing it. But there is a lot of examples of God using angels to carryout His judgments and He did use them to deliver the Old Testament law.

Right, so basically the angels did God's errands. But the scriptures that speak about God himself doing it is strictly God and not an angel.