I have. And I'm not saying you're wrong. But your reasoning is reductive and inconclusive.
There is no reason to dumb down a highly nuanced theological position. Especially, something so crutial as our understanding of Omniscience and omnipotence. Even if you spark conversation, your premise is off-base.
Reductive, because you're mis-reprsenting Biblical contract law (Covenants) and non-conclusive because your theological take on God is internally inconsistent.
You have to argue that God lied about who and what He is in Scripture in order to make the assertion that He doesn't know what will happen.
# Did God Say
>You have to argue that God lied about who and what He is in Scripture in order to make the assertion that He doesn't know what will happen.
I don't have to do that at all, especially because you merely asserted it without evidence.
**B**ut you did say something interesting here.
The first deception began with the question, "_Did God really say..._"
Now in the OP I quoted scripture.
> Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you...
If God knew with absolute certainty that He would not drive them out at this point in the text, wouldn't that make Him a liar?
**And...**
Isn't that consistent with your position?
Did God really say He would drive out these people?
Yes, He did, and we both know that God is not a liar. So this statement has to be true in the same way that the command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge was what God said and what He meant.
That's kind of my point. The promise to drive these people out is conditional. And it doesn't happen. Arguing that this proves God doesn't know what will happen and is therefore not omniscient, is the same as arguing that God intended the Cross as a backup plan in case humans couldn't fulfill the law.
A major theme of the old testament is that humans cannot fulfill the law, thus deomstrating that salvation must be by faith alone through Christ alone.
