Comments on: Wait, that’s (not) in the Bible?! God’s Omniscience http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/ Exploring Mormon Thought, Culture, and Texts Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:35:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: The Yellow Dart http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6696 The Yellow Dart Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:11:06 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6696 TOm Rosson, Thanks for your contributions! I also appreciate your thoughtfulness. JTJ, I agree that it is important to find out what the text meant to the ancient Israelite author(s), which is what I was trying to get at in my post. I think though that it is also a worthwhile endeavor for religious communities that use the Bible as an authoritative religious text, which includes LDS Christianity, to reflect upon the potential implications of such information once it has been realized. I was also trying to get at that at the end of my post with some of my questions for discussion. Best wishes, TYD TOm Rosson,

Thanks for your contributions! I also appreciate your thoughtfulness.

JTJ,

I agree that it is important to find out what the text meant to the ancient Israelite author(s), which is what I was trying to get at in my post. I think though that it is also a worthwhile endeavor for religious communities that use the Bible as an authoritative religious text, which includes LDS Christianity, to reflect upon the potential implications of such information once it has been realized. I was also trying to get at that at the end of my post with some of my questions for discussion.

Best wishes,

TYD

]]> By: JTJ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6695 JTJ Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:05:03 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6695 TYD, Thanks for the clarification, I always switch up the two. You post makes perfect sense. You are probably closer to understanding Jewish historical authors reasons, if any, but I simply think we err when trying to squeeze in mormon, evangelical, or even first century apocalyptic theology into these writings. TYD,
Thanks for the clarification, I always switch up the two. You post makes perfect sense. You are probably closer to understanding Jewish historical authors reasons, if any, but I simply think we err when trying to squeeze in mormon, evangelical, or even first century apocalyptic theology into these writings.

]]> By: The Yellow Dart http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6694 The Yellow Dart Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:50:04 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6694 JTJ, Just as a clarification: the passage I cited concerning Moses is from the Torah, not the Talmud (although Moses didn't write either). As for whether the dialogue between Moses and Yahweh in this passage is real history, I will just say that that doesn't really matter as far as this post is concerned. Whether Moses really had this dialogue with Yahweh, what matters for this purposes of this post is the way in which the dialogue is presented by the ancient Israelite author(s) of this passage and what that might indicate concerning their understanding of Yahweh's knowledge and intentions, and the way in which he interacts with the world. Does that make sense? Best wishes, TYD JTJ,

Just as a clarification: the passage I cited concerning Moses is from the Torah, not the Talmud (although Moses didn’t write either). As for whether the dialogue between Moses and Yahweh in this passage is real history, I will just say that that doesn’t really matter as far as this post is concerned. Whether Moses really had this dialogue with Yahweh, what matters for this purposes of this post is the way in which the dialogue is presented by the ancient Israelite author(s) of this passage and what that might indicate concerning their understanding of Yahweh’s knowledge and intentions, and the way in which he interacts with the world. Does that make sense?

Best wishes,

TYD

]]> By: The Yellow Dart http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6693 The Yellow Dart Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:05:49 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6693 You mean like these passages Todd? http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/3/5,17-18,21#5 You mean like these passages Todd?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/3/5,17-18,21#5

]]> By: Todd Wood http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6692 Todd Wood Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:31:26 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6692 What is Sharon LDS talking about? And YD, I honestly can't remember, do LDS scriptures have any "omnis" when describing the attributes of God? What is Sharon LDS talking about?

And YD, I honestly can’t remember, do LDS scriptures have any “omnis” when describing the attributes of God?

]]> By: The Yellow Dart http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6691 The Yellow Dart Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:26:39 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6691 JTJ and Sharon LDS, Thank you both for stopping by FPR! I don't have time this morning to respond to all of the comments here, but I will be back around later. Have a good day! Best wishes, TYD JTJ and Sharon LDS,

Thank you both for stopping by FPR!

I don’t have time this morning to respond to all of the comments here, but I will be back around later. Have a good day!

Best wishes,

TYD

]]> By: Sharon LDS in Tennessee http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6690 Sharon LDS in Tennessee Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:29:57 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6690 From a pratical, personal viewpoint - taken from much consultation with another human, who is stricter and more knowledgeable in scriptural and General Authority quotes....I've found discussions on doctrine and principles...as well as realistic applications on a daily basis thereof, to be much more elevated, expansive and clear...BECAUSE of the "where one or more is gathered" principle. The workings of the spirit, when present, are so exponential......MORE, indeed, MUCH MORE comes forth from both parties engaged in the discussion, than even inherently possible. The scripture about both being edified, rejoicing, understanding is VERY VERY True !!! An unseen flow of intelligence and consclusion with pure wisdom occurs....yet undiscovered possibilities as well as conclusions. Amazing process. Amazing opportunity when two "great" minds discuss, or as presented in this overview...when God allows / invites / uses the 'input' of other divine beings to "discuss" or consider matters....divine or mortal. This experience of this process is very very enjoyable and lifting NO MATTER what the doctrin or the principle involved. This must occur from the blending and inter-connection of TWO or MORE intelligences of a HIGHER spiritual condition / nature. LIGHT......TRUTH.....and all things pertaining to Eternal Life are better...when SHARED! Would love some feedback. Thanks for your great coverage of important matters. From a pratical, personal viewpoint – taken from much consultation with another human, who is stricter and more knowledgeable in scriptural and General Authority quotes….I’ve found discussions on doctrine and principles…as well as realistic applications on a daily basis thereof, to be much more elevated, expansive and clear…BECAUSE of the “where one or more is gathered” principle. The workings of the spirit, when present, are so exponential……MORE, indeed, MUCH MORE comes forth from both parties engaged in the discussion, than even inherently possible. The scripture about both being edified, rejoicing, understanding is VERY VERY True !!! An unseen flow of intelligence and consclusion with pure wisdom occurs….yet undiscovered possibilities as well as conclusions. Amazing process. Amazing opportunity when two “great” minds discuss, or as presented in this overview…when God allows / invites / uses the ‘input’ of other divine beings to “discuss” or consider matters….divine or mortal.
This experience of this process is very very enjoyable and lifting NO MATTER what the doctrin or the principle involved. This must occur from the blending and inter-connection of TWO or MORE intelligences of a HIGHER spiritual condition / nature. LIGHT……TRUTH…..and all things pertaining to Eternal Life are better…when SHARED!
Would love some feedback. Thanks for your great coverage of important matters.

]]> By: JTJ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6689 JTJ Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:39:29 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6689 Since Moses is not the author of the Talmud references cited, I'll go out on a limb and say the most probable explanation is scribal preference on how to tell probable myths and or legends. For the Isaiah reference, I'll speculate the most probable is similarly a man made interpretation of an actual event, less the metaphysical manifestation. Your topics and research are well thought out and presented. Kudos TYD. Since Moses is not the author of the Talmud references cited, I’ll go out on a limb and say the most probable explanation is scribal preference on how to tell probable myths and or legends. For the Isaiah reference, I’ll speculate the most probable is similarly a man made interpretation of an actual event, less the metaphysical manifestation.

Your topics and research are well thought out and presented. Kudos TYD.

]]> By: TOm Rosson http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6688 TOm Rosson Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:09:32 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6688 I really like this passage from noted Luthern turned Eastern Orthodox scholar Jarsolav Pelikan <b>The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)</b> pp. 22: <blockquote>In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.</blockquote> I perhaps take Pelikan too far, but I think in the above passage we see a way to resolve many Biblical paradoxes. God does not change and yet He changed. God knows all and yet the Bible tells us that He did something or observed something to see what the result would be. God has all power and yet free agents exists that are able to choose for themselves. I believe that the emphasis upon God’s unchangingness is as Pelikan states, God does not waver from His faithfulness to the Covenant He has made. Men waver all over the place. I believe that the emphasis upon God’s all-knowing-ness is that God KNOWS that come what may He can bring to pass the fulfillment of his Covenantal obligations. I also like Ostler’s added bit that God know ALL possible outcomes, likely outcomes, and everything else without knowing absolutely what littler details in the future will be. I believe that the emphasis upon God’s all powerfulness is associated with His supreme power and the inability of any or all beings who might work against Him to frustrate His plans especially His plans relative to the fulfilling of His Covenantal obligations. So, the post apostolic early church IMO emphasized an absoluteness associated with God that consistently applied IMO means that God is impassible (He does not notice our love, our pain, our reaching out to Him). And God is all knowing and all powerful such that we have no freedom and merely act in accordance with the pre-programming our ex nihilo body/soul received. But, the Jews and Early Christians did not try to resolve these paradoxes partially because they instinctively linked the absoluteness with the Covenantal aspects of their relation with God. Charity, TOm Rosson I really like this passage from noted Luthern turned Eastern Orthodox scholar Jarsolav Pelikan
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22:

In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.

I perhaps take Pelikan too far, but I think in the above passage we see a way to resolve many Biblical paradoxes.
God does not change and yet He changed.
God knows all and yet the Bible tells us that He did something or observed something to see what the result would be.
God has all power and yet free agents exists that are able to choose for themselves.

I believe that the emphasis upon God’s unchangingness is as Pelikan states, God does not waver from His faithfulness to the Covenant He has made. Men waver all over the place.

I believe that the emphasis upon God’s all-knowing-ness is that God KNOWS that come what may He can bring to pass the fulfillment of his Covenantal obligations. I also like Ostler’s added bit that God know ALL possible outcomes, likely outcomes, and everything else without knowing absolutely what littler details in the future will be.

I believe that the emphasis upon God’s all powerfulness is associated with His supreme power and the inability of any or all beings who might work against Him to frustrate His plans especially His plans relative to the fulfilling of His Covenantal obligations.

So, the post apostolic early church IMO emphasized an absoluteness associated with God that consistently applied IMO means that God is impassible (He does not notice our love, our pain, our reaching out to Him). And God is all knowing and all powerful such that we have no freedom and merely act in accordance with the pre-programming our ex nihilo body/soul received. But, the Jews and Early Christians did not try to resolve these paradoxes partially because they instinctively linked the absoluteness with the Covenantal aspects of their relation with God.

Charity,
TOm Rosson

]]> By: The Yellow Dart http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/thats-not-in-the-bible-gods-omniscience/#comment-6687 The Yellow Dart Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:42:03 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1834#comment-6687 Owen, Thanks for stopping by FPR and participating! I think I agree with what you are saying, but how does your suggestion interact with, for instance, Yahweh's dialogue with Moses in the first passage I cited? And do you have any suggestions for the two passages from Genesis? Best wishes, TYD Owen,

Thanks for stopping by FPR and participating!

I think I agree with what you are saying, but how does your suggestion interact with, for instance, Yahweh’s dialogue with Moses in the first passage I cited? And do you have any suggestions for the two passages from Genesis?

Best wishes,

TYD

]]>