Adam and Eve hid behind some trees and God didn't know where they were. It makes no sense for an omniscient being to ask anyone "where are you".
The parent to your comment gave one example because it's the first. But there are many. Here's another one, again from an early point in time, that shows regret.
Genesis 6:5-9
> And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
> And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Immediately after this, God first decides to end humanity, but later changes his mind again after focusing his attention selectively on Noah.
> And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created [...] for it repenteth me that I have made them.
> But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
> These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
---
Truthfully, the bible is full of tensions and contradictions. You can't explain them without developing an opinion/interpreting the book holistically.
The God of the Old Testament is physical, emotional, and generally more demanding and hands-on with humanity; the language clearly implies that he possesses a locus of attention that he directs where he chooses. He interacts physically with humans, and not-infrequently changes his mind.
The God of the New Testament, is more ethereal, transcendent, and more consistent in the emphasis of grace and mercy.
That the debate on subjects like these, even among fellow Christians, has literally been ongoing since Christ's death, is probably evidence that all these ideas cannot be reconciled. They are merely there for us to contemplate and interpret.
We have his teachings in writing. Do you only believe in knowledge that is personally manifested to you? If so, then you wouldn't believe in any history.
I'm referring to the miracles attributed to him, which are used as the conclusive evidence that he was God in the flesh.
> We have his teachings in writing.
How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? You do not even know the historical identities of the authors of the gospels. Nor do you have his teachings in the original language that he spoke.
"The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
"Most historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[108]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Histo...
To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen?
More readings on this topic:
https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-histori...
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-...
Recall that I responded to a GP that said all this is "beyond doubt." You're arguing a strawman with me. (On a personal note, I do believe in many of the miracles attested to Jesus, but that isn't evidence to me that he was God in the flesh.)
As for your links, I counter suggest you read the works of Dr. Bart Ehrman.
I don't think your reason for your assertion is valid. Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything.
You might have other reasons for doubting His divinity, but I don't think the one you've professed is a good one.
[1] "Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
> Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything.
Of course it does. You now rely on the testimony of these small of group of people (who you do not even know the identities of), rather than Jesus himself, or witnessing him directly.
> You now rely on the testimony of these small of group of people
So according to you, Jesus would have to manifest to many more people to pass your belief test. How many more would do? More than 500? 1000? Your requirement seems arbitrary to me.
> rather than Jesus himself, or witnessing him directly.
Again, if that's your requirement, then you should discount all of history.
[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_...
> major, massive doubt when you read Ehrman's work
If I rely on Ehrman's work, aren't I relying on he said/she said?
And you seem to be moving goal posts here. First you said that there is doubt because of the small number of witnesses "only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity" Now you're casting doubt based on the type of witness (eye witness vs self witness)
You've brought up the term strawman twice now without explanation. Care to explain exactly how I'm arguing a strawman?
It is NOT beyond doubt. You haven't proven how there is absolutely NO DOUBT to these claims.
> And you seem to be moving goal posts here.
How am I moving goalposts? The two types of witnessing have been there in my reasoning since the beginning. There is doubt since you didn't eyewitness him yourself, and then there is doubt that the hearsay that reached you regarding him is true. One follows the other since you have to rely on the one you have access to.
Again it's a strawman because I never said I discount witness testimony. You're making the case that just because witness testimony can be true, therefore witness testimony in the case of Jesus, must be true. That doesn't follow.
> You haven't proven how there is absolutely NO DOUBT to these claims.
That hasn't been my aim all along though. I would never argue or try to prove there is no doubt to these claims. I fully accept there is a large element of faith to religious claims. And I readily admit as believer, my faith is not perfect and I have doubts. But my ratio of faith to doubt is high enough to get me over the fence to belief. As an aside, I always argue that everyone everywhere live their lives by faith. [1]
My assertion has been your reason for your doubt, namely that Jesus only manifested to a relatively small group of people, is not valid. But I think we can agree to disagree at this point.
That's an odd thing for you to say. In the absence of certainty, there is always doubt. No matter how infinitesimal.
How they came to believe this is another matter.
> For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things (1 John 3:20).
> Known to God from eternity are all his works (Acts 15:18).
> The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good (Proverbs 15:3).
The idea of omniscience leads to paradoxes like the one above. Can you know what it is to be non omniscient and be omniscient.
I think God can choose to understand and know what He wants to know. If he chooses to forget sin, He can. Meaning the strict definition of omniscience would not apply.
I'm no theologian or philosopher so there is a good chance I'm simply missing something or don't understand these words.
If the axis of your response is going to be this, then I suggest we only continue speaking about the Bible on the level of Koine Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Old.
Since you want to be maximally true to the words. As do I.
This implies that God is incapable of fully knowing the experience of humans without becoming human, hence God is not omniscient; since now his omniscience is contingent on becoming contingent.