nwuyag:
I request tht you check your assertion again.
Those omni-omniness abilities bring more confusion than one can imagine. Splitting omniscient into two only makes it worse. I don't want to go further.

But it is when you explain how it is even worse that I will understand your point better.

nwuyag:
You should notice the way I tried replying you, unlike me, so as not to enter into insults.
Anyway, didn't you not see the words "ask AGAIN"?. No, I did not open this thread to understand the meaning of anyword. What I was looking for was a verse that said "God is omniscient " or "god knows everything". You guys began posting rubbish, while you also wanted to talk about the meaning of a word which I am not interested in. I purposely asked again cos it seemed we were not on the same line. But I no longer need an answer, the posts here alone are convincing. You guys are confused.

The primary thing you need to know or be reminded of is that the REALITY of something is different from the UNDERSTANDING. That you do not understand God, or that we do not understand God does not erase the reality of God or of His attributes. That you do not get to clearly understand that God knows everything or is omniscient does not remove the FACT that God knows everything or is omniscient.
Its like in school, there is a textbook filled with 'facts' and truths. You might have a good lecturer and you might be unfortunate to have a bad lecturer to explain and teach the contents of the book. The astuteness or incompetence of the lecturer does not remove the truth and the fact in the textbook. So, don't be so hasty to conclude that if you do not get answers(though i already showed that you do not want an answer and you just claimed that you do not need an answer) or get get good answers, then the textbook MUST be wrong.

There are Bible verses that say that God knows everything. Here is one.
1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

Evidently, i am sure that you are not okay with that. This is why i wanted to get you to actually think, against your default of wanting to refute/rebut whatever christian explanation that may be given. The usual practice of the unbelievers here is to kind of sedate their conscience by rebutting any christian answer(good or bad), instead of understanding and learning from the christian position/POV. So, the unbeliever is out to attack/rebut not out to learn/understand. In learning, you get to think and make solid conclusions. In attack, one tends to be bigoted and myopic.
In etymology, context needs to be considered instead of some dogmatic insistence on dictionary. The dictionaries themselves get their meanings from context. That is why a word can have more than one meaning. A word can have 2 meaning in dictionary A and 5meanings in dictionary B. A word can have two opposite meanings. A word may not even be in a dictionary. A word may have one meaning in a general dictionary, and a different meaning in a professional dictionary(like a Medical dictionary or Engineering dictionary or geology dictionary etc). In the same vein, the context of the Bible should supersede any other meaning when discussing something FROM the Bible. This is because the Bible has its own definition and context of meanings, phrases and words. The Bible will tell you and define that God is love, i do not know of a dictionary that will say that. The Bible has its own definition for truth that is different from Oxford. It has its own meaning for being dead or being alive. And so on and forth. That is why, if the Bible says that God knows all things or that God is omniscient, you need to go back to the Bible and see the meaning, instead of trying to force and limit the Bible to google's meaning.

@^^^


Touché. Word up Image123

JMAN05:

But it is when you explain how it is even worse that I will understand your point better.

I am a little busy at the moment. So just stay tuned.

Image123:

The primary thing you need to know or be reminded of is that the REALITY of something is different from the UNDERSTANDING. That you do not understand God, or that we do not understand God does not erase the reality of God or of His attributes. That you do not get to clearly understand that God knows everything or is omniscient does not remove the FACT that God knows everything or is omniscient.

See, I was once a xtian, so dont tell me nonsense . All those buushyt are cool mind stuff. I can still kneel down and pray or do those religious stuff. I know how cool it is to feel that there someone you are talking to or there is somepower within you and those delusions. So dont act like you understand anything that i dont. There is no special thing to understanding the bible. I will stop there. I know your next question. I dont want to derail. I ve taken note of the bolded.

Its like in school, there is a textbook filled with 'facts' and truths. You might have a good lecturer and you might be unfortunate to have a bad lecturer to explain and teach the contents of the book. The astuteness or incompetence of the lecturer does not remove the truth and the fact in the textbook. So, don't be so hasty to conclude that if you do not get answers(though i already showed that you do not want an answer and you just claimed that you do not need an answer) or get get good answers, then the textbook MUST be wrong.
[quote]
Since i said I dont need an answer, why bother replying? have you got itchy fingers?
I dont know wtf you are trying to say @ bolded.
I previously summed up my position. What has anyone's incompetence got to do with me? Or are you the incompetent one?.
[quote]
There are Bible verses that say that God knows everything. Here is one.
1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

This is what you should have done since and if you did not know, you should have simply stated. Its not a crime. Instead of those verbose posts

Evidently, i am sure that you are not okay with that. This is why i wanted to get you to actually think, against your default of wanting to refute/rebut whatever christian explanation that may be given. The usual practice of the unbelievers here is to kind of sedate their conscience by rebutting any christian answer(good or bad), instead of understanding and learning from the christian position/POV. So, the unbeliever is out to attack/rebut not out to learn/understand. In learning, you get to think and make solid conclusions. In attack, one tends to be bigoted and myopic.

Ofcourse not. I guess i will only add this to my cart of bible inconsistensies. Since you ve shown me this, i can then go back to your previous posts to see what you were trying to say.

In etymology, context needs to be considered instead of some dogmatic insistence on dictionary. The dictionaries themselves get their meanings from context. That is why a word can have more than one meaning. A word can have 2 meaning in dictionary A and 5meanings in dictionary B. A word can have two opposite meanings. A word may not even be in a dictionary. A word may have one meaning in a general dictionary, and a different meaning in a professional dictionary(like a Medical dictionary or Engineering dictionary or geology dictionary etc). In the same vein, the context of the Bible should supersede any other meaning when discussing something FROM the Bible. This is because the Bible has its own definition and context of meanings, phrases and words. The Bible will tell you and define that God is love, i do not know of a dictionary that will say that. The Bible has its own definition for truth that is different from Oxford. It has its own meaning for being dead or being alive. And so on and forth. That is why, if the Bible says that God knows all things or that God is omniscient, you need to go back to the Bible and see the meaning, instead of trying to force and limit the Bible to google's meaning.

Your assertions are completely false.
You dont even know how to make good analogies
Truth is highly subjective.
I just checked my dictionary for the meaning of "truth". My dictionary showed me 4 meanings of truth and one of them was righteousness.{Farlex dictionary}. Whatever you want to say is the meaning(cos you can quote shyte even if it means denying what you previously held on to} will be related to any of the four.
Truth(1); That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject , or generally on all subjects.
(2); Righteousnss; true religion. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ(John 17). To practice what God commands. John 3;21( He that doeth truth cometh to light)
Did you check your dictionary properly before posting all these?
I cant start typing all the definitions of "dead" and "alive" on my phone. Religious definions are already there, but i am sure that whatever you want to say is already generalised there.
If you are being asked, by the bibles definition, what is love, You will simply say; God is love? Wont you need to elaborate. Mere saying God is love makes no sense.
With the same dictionary;
Omniscience;the quality or state of knowing everything, having infinite knowledge; an attribute perculiar to God.
There is a trick that you are trying to play which i dont like. Every word has an inherent meaning which cannot change irrespective of how and where its being used. You cannot change that, otherwise you have set up a different word entirely.
I might not be 100% correct. But dont bring silly assertions in correcting me.
I hope I made sense. Thanks for pointing me out to the verse

dp

@nwuyag, u just typed nonsense. No word has inherent meaning. The meaning of a word comes mainly from the context of use. Moreover, in spiritual matters which totally transcend human experiences, no human-earthly word can fully convey their essences. At best, we try to render the meaning approximately.

For instance, how can u explain "colour" to a man born blind? Colours are definitely not part of his experience, and so such, he will not fully comprehend and may totally deny the existence of colour. But you, a seeing man, sees colours around. My point is, it is extremely difficult to explain phenonmena that totally transcend human experience.

But what is the use of arguing the existence of colours with a man born blind? Again, of what use is it arguing with an atheist, that is a spiritually blind man. No use, bro, no use. Reality is self evident. If you like play around with meanings or images of reality in your head, it doesn't stop or change reality.

Again, no use arguing with you. Thanks.

With regards to the meaning of words, if you say words have inherent meaning. How then can you explain the fact that over the course of centuries, meaning of words change gradually? If in the next 400 years, the meaning of the word "ominscience" change slightly different from what it means now. Would you then say the attribute of God that we consider to mean omniscience has also changed?

We give meaning to words, not the other way round. And the meaning we give, depends on a number of factors including context of use, our awareness, education, experience and understanding.

Clinging to fixed dictionary meanings that will change in future editions is preposterous and seeking to understand the Divine on their basis is simply foolhardy.

But what is the point arguing with a deaf man from birth about the existence of sound?

Thanks....

nwuyag
i guess i'll need to wait for you to get on a laptop to modify our post. i barely understand what you're trying to say. Let's make do of some civility too.By the way, i answered your question from the start. You can go back and read mre patiently. i understand you're not interested in reasoning, no problem.

Image123: nwuyag
i guess i'll need to wait for you to get on a laptop to modify our post. i barely understand what you're trying to say. Let's make do of some civility too.By the way, i answered your question from the start. You can go back and read mre patiently. i understand you're not interested in reasoning, no problem.

Don't mind him. He's just a mischievous atheist.

alcuin: With regards to the meaning of words, if you say words have inherent meaning. How then can you explain the fact that over the course of centuries, meaning of words change gradually? If in the next 400 years, the meaning of the word "ominscience" change slightly different from what it means now. Would you then say the attribute of God that we consider to mean omniscience has also changed?

We give meaning to words, not the other way round. And the meaning we give, depends on a number of factors including context of use, our awareness, education, experience and understanding.

Clinging to fixed dictionary meanings that will change in future editions is preposterous and seeking to understand the Divine on their basis is simply foolhardy.

But what is the point arguing with a deaf man from birth about the existence of sound?

Thanks....

Why then will God choose an imperfect medium such as words of the bible, to communicate with us?

In a way, ur argument above is enough grounds to debunk the bible as hogwash!

Since, as you said, the true meaning of words can be lost over time, we can't be ABSOLUTELY sure of the true meaning of the bible! Or did God personally footnote ur own edition of the bible?

david_hume:

Why then will God choose an imperfect medium such as words of the bible, to communicate with us?

In a way, ur argument above is enough grounds to debunk the bible as hogwash!

Since, as you said, the true meaning of words can be lost over time, we can't be ABSOLUTELY sure of the true meaning of the bible! Or did God personally footnote ur own edition of the bible?

lol....I would love to answer you but it will take us way off the topic of this thread. But just a question, do you really think God spoke English, Greek or Aramaic words to bible writers

nwuyag:

[size=16pt]See, I was once a xtian,[/size]

so dont tell me nonsense .

All those buushyt are cool mind stuff. I can still kneel down and pray or do those religious stuff.

I know how cool it is to feel that there someone you are talking to or there is some power within you and those delusions.

So dont act like you understand anything that i dont. There is no special thing to understanding the bible.

I will stop there. I know your next question. I dont want to derail. I ve taken note of the bolded.

@nwuyag

Knew you were a backslid christian

Come clean, what happened? What was it?

What tipped the scales? What pushed you over the edge?

Noticed the way, you've been acting all over the forum and conducting yourself - went through your posts, read them all, all your posts.

What is the cause of your emotionally charged resentment behavior, especially towards things pertaining to God and Christians?

What rattled your cage? What pissed or is pissing you off?

A problem shared is a problem halved. Hmm?

Kabieosi:

@nwuyag

Knew you were a backslid christian

Come clean, what happened? What was it?

What tipped the scales? What pushed you over the edge?

Noticed the way, you've been acting all over the forum and conducting yourself - went through your posts, read them all, all your posts.

What is the cause of your emotionally charged resentment behavior, especially towards things pertaining to God and Christians?

What rattled your cage? What pissed or is pissing you off?

A problem shared is a problem halved. Hmm?

His eyes got opened.

@rationalmind

I haven't abandoned our collabo
- soon come

alcuin: @nwuyag, u just typed nonsense. No word has inherent meaning. The meaning of a word comes mainly from the context of use. Moreover, in spiritual matters which totally transcend human experiences, no human-earthly word can fully convey their essences. At best, we try to render the meaning approximately.

For instance, how can u explain "colour" to a man born blind? Colours are definitely not part of his experience, and so such, he will not fully comprehend and may totally deny the existence of colour. But you, a seeing man, sees colours around. My point is, it is extremely difficult to explain phenonmena that totally transcend human experience.

But what is the use of arguing the existence of colours with a man born blind? Again, of what use is it arguing with an atheist, that is a spiritually blind man. No use, bro, no use. Reality is self evident. If you like play around with meanings or images of reality in your head, it doesn't stop or change reality.

Again, no use arguing with you. Thanks.

If I may ask; is this image123's second account?
You sound like I was quoting you all this while. You seem butthurt.
I understand you perfectly well. I ve had the experience. And I am happy that I cannever go back there. By the way, I am not an atheist, so dont be quick to conclude. I am not as stupid and as gullible as you are to believe anything without serious questioning. Even from my last post, I said that I may not be 100% correct.
I am not playing around with anything. You have displaced your common sense, and thats why you cant deduce what I meant by inherent.
Like you said; there is no point, no point. I think we are on two parralel roads.

rationalmind:

His eyes got opened.

I understand what is happening to him. It happened to me before. He will get out of it in due time. Even you too. Then, you will look back on this thread as laugh at yourself realising that greatest foolhardiness lies where you thought yourselves wise. Thanks.

alcuin: With regards to the meaning of words, if you say words have inherent meaning. How then can you explain the fact that over the course of centuries, meaning of words change gradually? If in the next 400 years, the meaning of the word "ominscience" change slightly different from what it means now. Would you then say the attribute of God that we consider to mean omniscience has also changed?

We give meaning to words, not the other way round. And the meaning we give, depends on a number of factors including context of use, our awareness, education, experience and understanding.

Clinging to fixed dictionary meanings that will change in future editions is preposterous and seeking to understand the Divine on their basis is simply foolhardy.

But what is the point arguing with a deaf man from birth about the existence of sound?

Thanks....

meaaning; oh! this dictionary is wrong now, lets hope that in the next 400 years, they would have changed the word to what I want it to be. Interesting!. Considering that the same bible was in existence when the present definition was promulgated.

rationalmind:

His eyes got opened.

perfect summary

alcuin:

lol....I would love to answer you but it will take us way off the topic of this thread. But just a question, do you really think God spoke English, Greek or Aramaic words to bible writers

Do i REALLY think God spoke...?
Should you be asking an atheist this kind of question?
Am i missing something here?

Kabieosi:

@nwuyag

Knew you were a backslid christian

Come clean, what happened? What was it?

What tipped the scales? What pushed you over the edge?

Noticed the way, you've been acting all over the forum and conducting yourself - went through your posts, read them all, all your posts.

What is the cause of your emotionally charged resentment behavior, especially towards things pertaining to God and Christians?

What rattled your cage? What pissed or is pissing you off?

A problem shared is a problem halved. Hmm?

What do you mean by a backslider?
I am appreciative of your approach because you did not result to those irritating rants. You see, my own journey out of religion is not like those common stories of others(from the threads I guess). I have encountered a lot. I have put some in posts, but a lot of it is too personal. When I joined NL, after a while, i noticed that no one is actually passing any information across between xtians and atheists due to the arrogant approach of both parties. And obvously, I am in more support of the atheist's claims. So its why I thought that reasoning things calmly will be better. I get pissed easily, when I feel someone is trying to trick me to something which I think is going on in this thread. I dont know how people manage to argue logic on very long threads. Its why I guess.
However, Let me just say that religion is not meant for everyone. You might not understand. If there is any god out there, he should understand.

@ rationalmind and david hume
Did you guys deduce what I was trying to say by "inherent"?
what I meant was there is a small unit in the definitions of a word, which no matter the time or its usage or corrections, will never change. Eg, There is no way the word "make" (which can be used in many ways) mean "take". Did you get me well?, Correct me where I am wrong. I dont think alcuin or image123 are in the best position to do that.

nwuyag: @ rationalmind and david hume
Did you guys deduce what I was trying to say by "inherent"?
what I meant was there is a small unit in the definitions of a word, which no matter the time or its usage or corrections, will never change. Eg, There is no way the word "make" (which can be used in many ways) mean "take". Did you get me well?, Correct me where I am wrong. I dont think alcuin or image123 are in the best position to do that.

Hehehe.....the tiny unit u allude to, who invented it in the first instance? Man, of course. The meaning of which must reflect the limit of his understanding. Get it.

nwuyag:
meaaning; oh! this dictionary is wrong now, lets hope that in the next 400 years, they would have changed the word to what I want it to be. Interesting!. Considering that the same bible was in existence when the present definition was promulgated.

Listen to yourself. You acknowledge that the bible was in existence before the present definition was promulgated. Why then do you seek to understand the bible with the present definition? You know quite well that the bible meaning may be different. When I pointed out that the word "omniscience" as used in the bible and other sacred literature is different from what it connotes now. You cried fowl, preferring to stick to present definition. And yet again, you implicitly acknowledge it.
Now, who promulgates the meaning? God or man?

Sorry for calling an atheist. And for the record too, I'm not a Christian.

Thanks.

Don't get me wrong, man promulgating meanings to words does not mean that he is incapable of conceiving truth. What it implies is no matter how far he goes he must always be limited in his understanding. He can never comprehend absolute truth, which is GOD HIMSELF.
So, hammering on fixated meanings (as coined by men) only limits one and using the meanings as a yardstick to measure TRUTH is plainly unhealthy.

Thanks.

nwuyag: @ rationalmind and david hume
Did you guys deduce what I was trying to say by "inherent"?
what I meant was there is a small unit in the definitions of a word, which no matter the time or its usage or corrections, will never change. Eg, There is no way the word "make" (which can be used in many ways) mean "take". Did you get me well?, Correct me where I am wrong. I dont think alcuin or image123 are in the best position to do that.

I understand what u mean...lol
By their analogy, the word good will have lost its meaning in 1000yrs or so. NON of the current dictionary meanings will be able to give people of the future an idea of what it meant!!!

alcuin:


Hehehe.....the tiny unit u allude to, who invented it in the first instance? Man, of course. The meaning of which must reflect the limit of his understanding. Get it.



Listen to yourself. You acknowledge that the bible was in existence before the present definition was promulgated. Why then do you seek to understand the bible with the present definition? You know quite well that the bible meaning may be different. When I pointed out that the word "omniscience" as used in the bible and other sacred literature is different from what it connotes now. You cried fowl, preferring to stick to present definition. And yet again, you implicitly acknowledge it.
Now, who promulgates the meaning? God or man?

Sorry for calling an atheist. And for the record too, I'm not a Christian.

Thanks.

The bolded is where the confusion comes. The bible is also too long for me to start searching to get an answer. Is your answer the universally accepted one? If no, So why should I take it?.

alcuin:


Hehehe.....the tiny unit u allude to, who invented it in the first instance? Man, of course. The meaning of which must reflect the limit of his understanding. Get it.

Were christians not around when it was first promulgated?
why wasnt it changed?. Is there any evidence that there was a disagreement when it was first promulgated?
Just like some other guy I read above(which i confirmed) said; in the 17th century, theologians introduced 2 types of omniscience. And I have stated that doing that only brings about more confusion when including the omnipotence idea. There are some holes to that which I guess is the reason why the idea was dropped

Sorry for calling an atheist. And for the record too, I'm not a Christian.

Then you are a what?
Thanks.
[/quote]

nwuyag:
The bolded is where the confusion comes. The bible is also too long for me to start searching to get an answer. Is your answer the universally accepted one? If no, So why should I take it?.

Well, whose problem is it that you can't search for an amswer yourself?
Nothing is universally accepted. Not even God, science, religion. Universal acceptance is not a yardstick to measure TRUTH.
My intention is not for you to take my answer, which, as I have said is personal. I arrived to my understanding through painstaking study and meditation. I suggest you do same. You may have a clearer and better knowledge.
I saw this quote somewhere and it struck me...."the quest for God may be a collective endevour but the discovery of God is absolutely personal".

Thanks.

alcuin: Don't get me wrong, man promulgating meanings to words does not mean that he is incapable of conceiving truth. What it implies is no matter how far he goes he must always be limited in his understanding. He can never comprehend absolute truth, which is GOD HIMSELF.
So, hammering on fixated meanings (as coined by men) only limits one and using the meanings as a yardstick to measure TRUTH is plainly unhealthy.

Thanks.

You make me ask how one comprehends absolute truth. Or should I say that how YOU comprehend absolute truth. Something tells me that all this will end in "the mysterious answer"

nwuyag:
You make me ask how one comprehends absolute truth. Or should I say that how YOU comprehend absolute truth. Something tells me that all this will end in "the mysterious answer"

I have never said man can comprehend absolute truth. It is impossible. Absolute Truth is infinite. Man is finite. Just as one cannot cover the infinte with a finite blanket. Man, simply cannot absorb absolute truth.
All truth, man can concieve is relative to himself, meaning as seen from his finiteness. Hence, such truth are called relative truth. The extent of which is proportional to man's ability.
Absolute Truth is totally out of the question.
Even, at the peak of perfection, man will still see through his finiteness as inherently, man is finite.
Only God is absolute and infinite.

Thanks.

david_hume:

I understand what u mean...lol
By their analogy, the word good will have lost its meaning in 1000yrs or so. NON of the current dictionary meanings will be able to give people of the future an idea of what it meant!!!

Your logic is staggering. I think it borders on ignorance. Are you perchance saying that meanings of words do not change with time? In fact, it may well happen that the word "good" will be extinct in the next 2000 yrs. I even doubt if it existed 3000 yrs ago.
Consider the word "Lucifer". Isn't it worrisome that the word meaning "bearer of light" is now given to the so called spirit of darkness? If in the next 2000 yrs, going by this trend, the word becomes synonymous with darkness, will u ever think it was once associated with light and beauty? That is, if you stand on current meanings.
That was just an instance. I'm not a Luciferian apologist.
Thanks.

alcuin:

I understand what is happening to him. It happened to me before. He will get out of it in due time. Even you too. Then, you will look back on this thread as laugh at yourself realising that greatest foolhardiness lies where you thought yourselves wise. Thanks.

I'm sure about two things. I will one day die and all religions are false. Nothing, I mean NOTHING will make me go back.