Prove it. I know that "sheol" means "the grave" literally, but "gehenna" also means "trash pit" literally. Nevertheless "gehenna" was used by Jesus do refer to Hell. How is this any different? And if God would not want to be in a toilet, as you say, then why would he want to be in a grave?
He knew what would have happened, because He knew the people He was speaking of. Because they had existed. He cannot say if the people of Wonderland would act a certain way if He performed miracles there. And that is my point.
But it didn't happen. Yet he knew it. Which undermines your contention that God cannot know something that doesn't exist. That event doesn't exist, regardless of whether the people in it do.
Because He had the information He needed. You're really stupid.
Why would he have the information at that point but not before? Abraham still had the ability to change his mind, so according to the open view God could have still been wrong about Abraham. The only way he would know for sure is by letting Abraham go through with it. Then he could have raised Isaac from the dead.
And further proof of your stupidity.
The Angel was quoting God, you moron. God told the angel what to say. He told the angel to tell Abraham that He now knew.
Where does it say that the Angel was quoting God at this point? In this passage he refers to himself in the first person and to God in the third person. However, later on when He
is quoting God He is explicit about it, saying "says the Lord". So it seems that you are adding something to the passage that isn't there.
I think I did. If the Law in question was given by God before the events recounted in Jeremiah, then it seems clear that God knew that men were capable of such a thing.
How convinced are you that Leviticus was completed before God said this?
When Leviticus was composed is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not God gave that law in the time of Moses. I think most conservative Christians believe that he did. If you have a different view I'd like to hear it.
All He really had to do was remind these people that Peter was a disciple of Jesus. And when three people had asked, He was done.
So then he knew for a fact that three people would be willing to confront Peter about this?
This foreknowledge is not determinate.:nono:
So Jesus could have been wrong? Was He guessing or not?
It also must be noted that this does not mean that God knows specifically when I will have that choice.
That may be, but Jesus had a good idea of the time frame for Peter's denial. Before the rooster crowed.
Time travel does not, and will not ever, exist. It is an impossibility due to the non-existence of any time other than the present.
This is what confuses me about your position. Here you say that no time other than the present exists. But later you say that the past is set in stone. If the past doesn't exist, then how can it have any content or attributes?
And I don't know the first word. This is the first time I have ever heard/seen it.
Simpliciter basically means "simply" or "without qualification". It is used to contrast with the idea of tensed existence, or existence at a time.
I don't really see how I have not explained myself.
Because you seem to be switching between two incompatible theories of time.
The future is open. It is not set in stone. The past is not open. It cannot be changed. It has already happened. It is set in stone.
OK. This is basically the open-future or growing-block theory of time. My point is that you reject the possibility of time travel into the past due to the past being fixed. This is no different from the tenseless theory that is employed by the settled view. So if time travel is a logical absurdity in your theory, then it is in mine as well.
Have I sufficiently answered your question? If so, please answer mine.
If I remember correctly, the Bible says that God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them.
