From: https://www.quora.com/Does-proof-that-god-exists-prove-it-is-the-god-you-believe-in

Question: Does proof that god exists prove it is the god you believe in?

Answer by

Brendan Cilia, seeker of spiritual knowledge, devotee of logic

No.

By definition God is:-

Infinite— encompassing everything imaginable; immeasurable; omnipresent

Eternal— existing beyond the scope of time; always existed, always will exist; without beginning or end

Omnipotent— can do anything; infinite in power

Omniscient— having complete and unlimited knowledge and awareness; perceiving all things.

This is so because the above characteristics are the ultimate in definable godliness: everything (infinity), always (eternity), unlimited and unrestricted (omnipotence) & knowing all possible things (omniscience). Any forthcoming proof of God would necessarily rely on the above characteristics.

Any other differing definition of God that people have is logically fallacious.

Replies:

Trevor Klassen
The definition itself is logically fallacious. This description of a god creates unavoidable paradoxes that make its very existence impossible.

Brendan Cilia
What paradoxes?

Trevor Klassen
True omniscience would mean that the entity which possesses it would basically be paralyzed. It could not ‘act’ on anything, or think anything, as it already knows everything. What could it change? What rules could it make for its creation, if it already knows what every single quark in the universe is going to do? Omniscience creates a powerless god, and also negates the idea of free will. An omniscient god certainly couldn’t have been caught unawares by the deception of a talking serpent, or the disobedience of a naked woman.

Need more?

Brendan Cilia
Please logically explain how true omniscience would cause such a being to be paralysed. I fail to come to that conclusion.

And of course God wasn’t caught unawares by the talking snake or the disobedience of Adam & Chava. I’d be very surprised if many religious believers in the bible actually thought that.

It seems you’re projecting your human limitations onto an entity which by definition is infinitely more sophisticated than humanity.

Also, free will exists despite God’s omniscience, and it is it entirely possible that true free will exists, despite being paradoxical to our inherently limited human capacity for understanding, due to God’s attribute of omnipotence.

Trevor Klassen
Omniscience erases free will in the most obvious ways. If god knows how every person is going to turn out before they are even born, then there is no choice. The entirety of time and space has already happened in god’s mind, and he can do nothing to change anything. If he could change something, it means he didn’t know the outcome already, and is therefore not omniscient. If he is omniscient, he already created my choice at the beginning of time, so there really is no free will. This is obvious if you really think about it. All the ‘omni’s’ you attribute to your god are impossible qualities to begin with, because of the paradoxes they create.

If god was not caught unawares, then he knew exactly what the serpent was going to do, he knew what Eve was going to do, he knew what Adam was going to do, but he still put the tree, the fruit, the serpent and Eve together. This makes god responsible for evil. Eve was set up to fall, giving your god license to become the complete asshole described in the Old Testament.

Brendan Cilia
Trevor, your argument is an abductive one. You are not logically verifying your claims.

a) You have not deductively argued how omniscience of God leads to no free choice

b) You have not deductively argued how omniscience of God means God is powerless.

c) You are using your unverified conclusion of no free will to conclude God is responsible for evil.

I’m not trying to be an asshole here but you haven’t logically proven anything of what you’re claiming, it is all supposition at this stage.

If the entirety of space and time has already occurred in God’s mind, it merely alludes to His greatness— he already knows our free will choices and already accounts for that.

That he already knows what our free will choices will be does not preclude the fact that he allows us to choose them within our realm of space of time in which He is beyond.

Trevor Klassen
The logic is inescapable. If he is omniscient, he can’t change anything. It doesn’t require an argument or proof, it’s a property of being truly all-knowing. It’s kind of in the definition of omniscient. If he already knows every decision I will make, then I am not really making any decisions. He created the universe in which I can make no change, and neither can he. How can he change any part of reality, without it being something he already knew he would do? This means nothing was changed. If you can’t see this inescapable paradox, it’s because you don’t want to. I think I used simple enough language to explain how it works. You’ll need to show me now how omniscience doesn’t create this paradox, instead of falsely saying my words mean nothing.

Brendan Cilia
It is somewhat paradoxical to our human understanding, but I’ll try to explain.

Can we change past actions? Can I change something I did 5 years ago?

The definition of God is that He created time and space and exists beyond it while being inextricably within time and space. For Him the universe is just as much reached it’s end destruction as He remains there at the very first moment of the Big Bang. The fact that He permeates time and space throughout is a concept we have to try to understand while being inextricably stuck within it.

Free will occurs because in decision-making we are placed equally in between good and evil, equally able to go one way or the other. God created an environment in which the human being, when faced with a decision, is pulled equally in either direction of right and wrong, making free will possible. That God knows what we will choose doesn’t preclude the fact that in that moment of time we are able to choose what we eventually will have chosen. I honestly fail to see what you are claiming.

If I know everything about the combustion engine, am I precluded from mechanically working on one due to my all-encompassing knowledge of the engine?

Trevor Klassen
So, he’s both outside time and space, but inextricably within time and space as well? He can have an effect on time and space, matter and energy, but at the same time he can’t be detected, because he’s beyond our scope of understanding? You know this doesn’t make sense. What you have done is created an entity that cannot be falsified, meaning that there is no way to ever know whether or not it’s real, even if no trace of it is ever found, because you’ve built in magical properties that make him the ultimate hide and seek champion. He’s there, but he’s invisible. He intervenes in the physical world but you can’t detect his presence or effect physically. It’s all so obviously made up.

Brendan Cilia
Perhaps it seems “made up” to you Trevor and difficult to swallow, but you have not provided any logical explanation to why He can’t be both outside time and space, but inextricably within time and space as well if He is infinite. And why He can’t have an effect on time and space, matter and energy, but at the same time can’t be detected if He is omnipotent, and beyond our scope of understanding if He is omniscient, and we are not.

And I agree, we cannot presently know if He is real or not through the scientific method. But we can know He is real individually through our own efforts in truth-seeking. If He is real then logically it means He able to make Himself known to people.

Trevor Klassen
Because there is no logical way for anything to be outside and inside at the same time. It’s an illogical premise, and you know it. You are making your god above logic, so don’t expect me to provide logical reasons to refute what you say. You have set up the definition so that it can’t be proved wrong (or right).

Brendan Cilia
I have set up the definition in which God is verifiable through logic. 😉

“Because there is no logical way for anything to be outside and inside at the same time.”

Of course there can—something that encompasses both the outside and the inside. Oxygen is both inside and outside my house. Gold is both inside and outside the earth.

Trevor Klassen
He is not verifiable through logic if his qualities and attributes are not governed by logic. Logic only proves something if you accept the opening premises as true. Your opening premise is that god exists, which is a circular logic.

Your analogies of oxygen and gold are meaningless. Do either of them exist inside and outside of the universe? Do either of them exist inside and outside at the same time? Can oxygen hide its properties and effects on other substances, so that it can’t be detected? Can gold create worlds and universes, and answer prayers? This takes the argument nowhere.

Brendan Cilia
I’m not claiming God’s existence is verifiable through logic, I’m saying the logic of the possibility of His existence is sound.

Perhaps you can’t accept my analogies of oxygen and gold. But through it I have logically proved how something can be outside and inside something simultaneously. You claimed it was an illogical premise, which it is obviously not. And gold and oxygen most definitely do not have infinite properties so cannot possibly have the conditions of something that is infinite.

Thus we are at the point in the debate where I’ve stated, logically, why a God can exist, and you’ve been unable to successfully logically refute that.

(EDITED)

Trevor Klassen
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur, even self-contradictory. You are thinking in circles (which is, of course, the only way to maintain belief in a theistic god).

You have only proved that an object can be surrounded by a gaseous element. The claim is both outside and inside the universe. This is simply not the same thing. Oxygen gas is made up of molecules, some of which can be inside, and others outside. But one molecule cannot be both outside and inside. You are right, there is nothing illogical about oxygen being inside and outside of a house, but your god is not oxygen, and the universe, time and space are not a house. Your analogy requires there to be (and there obviously is) space outside of the house. Is there space outside of space, in which god can exist? Is there time outside of time? That’s what’s illogical.

Brendan Cilia
“Your first sentence is a non-sequitur, even self-contradictory.”

Touché, I have corrected it: I’m not claiming God’s existence is verifiable through logic, I’m saying the logical possibility of His existence is sound.

Analogies are by definition examples of what is similar or comparable. I would certainly argue that the fact of God existing within and -out of the physical universe (due to His property of infiniteness) is definitely similar or comparable to the fact of oxygen existing within and outside my house, and gold existing within and outside of the earth.

“..but your god is not oxygen, and the universe, time and space are not a house. […] Is there space outside of space, in which god can exist? Is there time outside of time. That’s what’s illogical.”

Of course God isn’t oxygen and the universe, and time and space not a house! Is there something outside of space in which God can exist? Why not? Can you prove otherwise? Is there something outside of time? Probably; the universe is finite so science is telling us it began at the beginning of time. What was before, what is after?

Trevor Klassen
Have none of my examples given you any indication that the properties of omniscience and omnipotence are actually logical impossibilities? Yet you still cling to the thinnest of threads, hoping something logical supports your belief. Sorry, nothing does. So now we’re down to the possibility of your god’s existence being logically sound. Well, no, not if your god is defined as having these logically impossible traits. The logically possible god is the god of deism, or pantheism. All other gods must be taken on faith, and faith alone. Logic, reason and evidence do not support the existence of any scriptural, personal, intervening god who answers prayers and cares what you do with your genitals. All those gods are logically unsound, and belief in them, in any non-allegorical, non-metaphorical way, is illogical and anachronistic in the age of reason.

Brendan Cilia
“Have none of my examples given you any indication that the properties of omniscience and omnipotence are actually logical impossibilities?”
None. Because that itself is unsubstantiated and an illogical supposition. Until you can logically prove—which you haven’t—why it is impossible for God to be omniscient and omnipotent I can only presume you are clinging to your understanding of the world, despite logical inferences of other reasoned possibilities.

Trevor Klassen
I think I did use logic to show how these properties lead to paradoxes and logical impossibilities. All you have said is “no you didn’t” without explaining how my assessment is wrong. You are trying to have it both ways. God is logical, but god is not subject to the rules of logic. I can’t prove anything about a character that isn’t bound by the rules of proving things.

Brendan Cilia
Well your claim is: complete omniscience prevents omnipotence. But you haven’t proven that claim, logically, nor at all.

Care to provide a logical deduction for such?

Trevor Klassen
I already did this. If he knows everything, past present and future, he can’t do anything he didn’t already know he was going to do, which means he doesn’t really react to what people do or say or think. He can’t react to anything, he can’t change anything, and he can’t change anyone’s preordained destiny. Our fates were written the moment he created the universe. If he created Hell, then everyone going there was going there no matter what, because he already knew who is going to go before he dreamed everything up. The moment something changes, omniscience is broken. This is why the description of god as omniscient is completely incompatible with the stories in Genesis, or the bible in general. God is routinely surprised, and angry. Why? He had to know everything that was about to happen. Please explain to me how this biblical god could be omniscient, but not held responsible for the existence of evil and pain and disease and death?

Brendan Cilia
In other words:-

A: God knows everything, past, present and future.

B: Therefore, he must already know what people will do.

Conclusion (C.): He can’t react to what people do.

Can you not see the logical fallacy in that line of reasoning?

Knowing already what people will do does not preclude him from already knowing how he will react!

You can’t get from B. to C. in the above logically at all. C. is a completely false inference.

Trevor Klassen
He’s not really reacting. He’s just playing out exactly what was already pre-ordained to happen. He’s not actually able to do anything after creating a world he cannot change. No fallacy.

Brendan Cilia
You’re implying here that we, human beings, have no free will!

Is that what you believe?

Basically you are saying:

A: Everything is preordained.

B: Therefore I have no free will.

C: If I have no free will then neither does God.

OR

A: I have free will to pick and choose my actions.

B: Though God knows what I’m going to do and say and He also knows how He is going to react.

C: Even though God had the power to create the vast physical universe, and me with free will, He has no power to grant Himself free will.

ALSO

C. God has preordained everything from the beginning of time, but none of that was from His own free choosing.

Trevor Klassen
No, that is not what I believe. It’s what an omniscient god necessitates. I don’t believe in that god, or any god, and I do believe we have free will because there is no such god. Your ABC’s here don’t add up.

Brendan Cilia
That is your arguments though, even if you don’t believe the veracity of the assumption of God’s existence.

Please correct them for me.

Trevor Klassen
I’m not arguing that that is what I believe. I’m arguing that omniscience leads to those conclusions. There is nothing to correct. The god doesn’t exist, and the omniscience doesn’t exist, those are just necessary results if omniscience were possible. Omniscience means no free will for anybody, gods included.

Brendan Cilia
How so?

Trevor Klassen
I already explained it. If he truly knows everything, he can’t do anything he hasn’t already done when he created the universe. He can only “play out the tape”, as it were, or else he would be changing things, which means he didn’t know he was going to do that. Changing any predetermined outcome breaks the omniscience. He can only sit and watch, or, if involved, he can only be involved in exactly one way, without deviation. Free will means you need to be able to make choices. What choices can an omniscient being make? If two options are presented, and a choice is to be made, this means that the chooser could not have known the options beforehand, and could not know how they would choose before the options come up. So no choices, and no new actions are possible for an omniscient being. How else can I explain it?

Brendan Cilia
Thank you. I understand your point of view now.

Everything you have said is correct.

There is only one flaw, you are not seeing the full picture.

Everything you have stated applies to omniscience alone. Without omnipotence. Nothing you have stated precludes an omniscient being from also being omnipotent. Yes, if God is omniscient alone, and knows everything that will happen, including how he will (re)act, he is indeed unable to do any and every thing. But whereby can you assume that because He is omniscient He cannot be omnipotent?

He knows everything and can do anything. Using my previous example of a combustion engine; I can know every possible thing about combustion engines and can also be able to do every possible thing with a combustion engine. The former doesn’t preclude the latter, in fact the former precedes the latter.

I think your problem in comprehending this, aside from the fact that you cannot accept the existence of a god, is that you yourself are not omniscient. You don’t know everything there is to know, and certainly you don’t know every possible imaginable possibility.

Nothing you have already stated precludes an omniscient being from being omnipotent also. I reiterate, you are merely talking about omniscience by itself.

Trevor Klassen
Actually I have not been addressing omniscience alone. The whole point of everything I said about omniscience is that it makes omnipotence, or even great power, impossible. I don’t understand how you can say I haven’t addressed omnipotence in this way. It was the whole argument. These two ‘omni’ qualities are logically incompatible. On one hand you say “Everything you said is correct”, and then you go on to say something that goes against everything you just admitted is correct.

Brendan Cilia
If you are considering omniscience without accounting for omnipotence, what you are claiming is right.

The two (omniscience and omnipotence) however are not contradictory no matter how you illustrate and portray one or the other.

I can claim about myself: “I know everything, and can do anything I wish”.

Despite being clearly false for a finite being such as myself, the two are clearly not a logical contradiction of terms, no matter how you elucidate the former and latter part of the claim.

As I demonstrated, knowledge precedes ability. I do not have the ability to run without knowing how to walk. In fact knowledge necessitates ability. The greater one’s knowledge, the greater one’s ability. The idea that the more one knows the less able they are to act is nonsensical; it is a counter-intuitive proposition.

You’re acceding that the more one knows, the greater one’s ability to act—except when one’s knowledge has reached infinity. That itself is illogical. For example, if I had billions of dollars, I would be able to act and purchase an exceedingly great amount of items—but there is a finite point of my purchasing power. If I had infinite dollars, there is no limit to my ability to purchase; my purchasing power is unhindered due to my attribute of unlimited money.

Logically speaking the more one knows, the more power of action they have. More knowledge inherently implies greater ability. The opposite is also true. For example: animals have a lesser knowledge than the average human and it is evident that they have a lesser ability to do the things a human can.

Trevor Klassen
You are still clearly missing the obvious point that, in dealing with omniscience, I am already dealing with omnipotence. You can’t have one with the other logically. You can have omniscience, but that leaves you powerless. You can be really powerful, but you can’t use any power if you already know everything that’s ever going to happen. You can only use powers to change things or do things if you don’t know the future, which means you aren’t omniscient. You can’t really talk about one without involving the other. So, sorry, I have accounted for omnipotence already.

Brendan Cilia
I think we need to address the inherent nature of knowing everything in relation to eternity—the quality of not existing within time.

Of course if I know everything I retain the power to change or do things. You are claiming that because I already know future outcomes I am unable to affect them in any way. That is true only looking forward into the future from the present.

If I exist outside of time, past, present and future is irrelevant because one moment ago has happened while simultaneously hasn’t happened—an entirely logical premise when considering timelessness.

The claims you are making are only relevant within time and space.

Trevor Klassen
Imagining something being outside of time and space is basically invoking magic. It doesn’t mean anything. It isn’t a position of logic of any kind. It’s an escape clause so that your god can have impossible qualities.

Brendan Cilia
No it isn’t. One cannot imagine themselves being outside of time and space for we are inextricably within it. The fact that science states that the universe, time and space, is finite and had a beginning posits the notion of a first cause. If cause and effect is a compulsory condition within the universe, then why would one suggest it definitely isn’t a condition of the universe itself as a whole? Science here too agrees with this premise, as scientists are actively seeking answers to the question of the cause of the Big Bang. Whatever the cause of the Big Bang, that cause existed or exists outside of time and space.

Trevor Klassen
Science is not agreeing with anything you are saying here. Science would say, to anyone who claims there’s a being that exists outside of time and space, “prove it”. It’s just a wild assertion that can’t be tested or falsified or verified. It is exactly like invoking magic.

Brendan Cilia
Science is agreeing that there must be a ‘first cause’. Atheists choose not to accept that this first cause could be sentient.

Trevor Klassen
The science of cosmology does not agree that there must be a first cause. Please cite any credible cosmologist who says there must be a first cause. Religious apologists do not count, because they don’t use science to make that claim, even if they believe it.

Brendan Cilia
So they say the Big Bang just happened to occur in a vacuum without explanation? Fair enough, one is entitled to believe that.

But that is not what we are debating. I have stated that a God must be altogether infinite, eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. I have demonstrated how none of these attributes are logically contradictory when present together.

Trevor Klassen
Why don’t you actually go read some cosmology to see what they actually claim about the early universe, and what they don’t. You are making claims about science that aren’t true left, right and centre in your arguments.

Where have you demonstrated that? All you have said is that I am wrong, over and over, in different ways. You have offered no reasoning or examples or analogies that aren’t immediately shown to be wrong.

Brendan Cilia
It seems that I have aptly demonstrated that, because after extrapolation you have been unable to refute what I’m saying other than come up with new reasons why I am wrong, which I then explain how such is accounted for.

“You have offered no reasoning or examples or analogies that aren’t immediately shown to be wrong.”

Let’s finish this up. How about you explain once and for all how the collective properties of: infinity, eternity, omniscience and omnipotence, together, are logically incompatible with each other as a whole?

I’ve offered a plethora of reasons, examples and analogies which you have not even for one been able to deny on logical grounds.

Trevor Klassen
I’m not sure you know what ‘aptly’ means, but I have clearly and easily refuted your points every time you didn’t really make one. The logical errors are obvious each time, but you come back and simply repeat your earlier assertion, and pretend like you’ve addressed my logic.

Knocking down omniscience and omnipotence ought to be enough. Infinity or eternity are not properties of your god, anyway. They may or may not exist. We don’t know.

Brendan Cilia
Aptly: suitably, appropriately

If there are logical errors in my arguments, you didn’t point them out, you merely suggested I was invoking magic.

I have reasonably demonstrated how with omniscience, omnipotence, infinity and eternity altogether, what I am stating about the necessary and integral attributes of God are in fact reasonably and logically sound… to which you replied “It is exactly like invoking magic.” That isn’t at all a rebuttal of how all those properties can hypothetically exist simultaneously within a being but more like an admission of failure to logically disprove it.

Trevor Klassen
Does that word really fit what you were trying to say? You suitably, appropriately demonstrated something? Okay.

Brendan, I have done nothing but point out the logical errors, over and over. All you have done is repeat your claims, and repeat your opinion that your claim is logical, without providing any more logical arguments. Claiming that you know that there is anything beyond space and time, and that it’s, of course, your god, is an empty claim. It can never be refuted or proven, because nobody can go outside of time and space to check. It’s a ridiculous claim, but it is all you have left when actual logic and evidence and reason gang up on you. Playing that card ends all debate, because it renders your belief impervious to verification or refutation. It’s a cop-out, non-explanation of anything at all.

Brendan Cilia
You haven’t pointed out the logical errors though, and if you tried to, I then consolidated the logical consistency via the explanation of and re-introduction of the original claims of my premise (as outlined in my initial answer).

You then feebly resorted to asserting I am invoking magic.

I was never trying to prove God to you, merely proving that the belief in the existence of God isn’t illogical. Which it isn’t.

Indeed belief in God is presently impervious to verification, which is one reason I haven’t been trying to convert you in the slightest way.

I wholeheartedly assert with full conviction (defined as “a fixed and firm belief”, seeing as though we are now playing the semantic game) that knowledge of God is entirely possible.

I’ll leave you with the text of Mishlei (Proverbs) chapter 2

בְּ֭נִי אִם־תִּקַּ֣ח אֲמָרָ֑י וּ֝מִצְוֺתַ֗י תִּצְפֹּ֥ן אִתָּֽךְ׃

My son, if you accept my words and treasure my commandments;

לְהַקְשִׁ֣יב לַֽחָכְמָ֣ה אָזְנֶ֑ךָ תַּטֶּ֥ה לִ֝בְּךָ֗ לַתְּבוּנָֽה׃

If you make your ear attentive to wisdom and your mind open to discernment;

כִּ֤י אִ֣ם לַבִּינָ֣ה תִקְרָ֑א לַ֝תְּבוּנָ֗ה תִּתֵּ֥ן קוֹלֶֽךָ׃

If you call to understanding and cry aloud to discernment,

אִם־תְּבַקְשֶׁ֥נָּה כַכָּ֑סֶף וְֽכַמַּטְמוֹנִ֥ים תַּחְפְּשֶֽׂנָּה׃

If you seek it as you do silver and search for it as for treasures,

אָ֗ז תָּ֭בִין יִרְאַ֣ת יְהוָ֑ה וְדַ֖עַת אֱלֹהִ֣ים תִּמְצָֽא׃

Then you will understand the fear of the LORD and attain knowledge of God.

כִּֽי־יְ֭הוָה יִתֵּ֣ן חָכְמָ֑ה מִ֝פִּ֗יו דַּ֣עַת וּתְבוּנָֽה׃

For the LORD grants wisdom; Knowledge and discernment are by His decree.

וצפן [יִצְפֹּ֣ן] לַ֭יְשָׁרִים תּוּשִׁיָּ֑ה מָ֝גֵ֗ן לְהֹ֣לְכֵי תֹֽם׃

He reserves ability for the upright and is a shield for those who live blamelessly,

לִ֭נְצֹר אָרְח֣וֹת מִשְׁפָּ֑ט וְדֶ֖רֶךְ חסידו [חֲסִידָ֣יו] יִשְׁמֹֽר׃

Guarding the paths of justice, protecting the way of those loyal to Him.

אָ֗ז תָּ֭בִין צֶ֣דֶק וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט וּ֝מֵישָׁרִ֗ים כָּל־מַעְגַּל־טֽוֹב׃

You will then understand what is right, just, and equitable—every good course.

כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא חָכְמָ֣ה בְלִבֶּ֑ךָ וְ֝דַ֗עַת לְֽנַפְשְׁךָ֥ יִנְעָֽם׃

For wisdom will enter your mind and knowledge will delight you.

מְ֭זִמָּה תִּשְׁמֹ֥ר עָלֶ֗יךָ תְּבוּנָ֥ה תִנְצְרֶֽכָּה׃

Foresight will protect you, and discernment will guard you.

לְ֭הַצִּ֣ילְךָ מִדֶּ֣רֶךְ רָ֑ע מֵ֝אִ֗ישׁ מְדַבֵּ֥ר תַּהְפֻּכֽוֹת׃

It will save you from the way of evil men, from men who speak duplicity,

הַ֭עֹ֣זְבִים אָרְח֣וֹת יֹ֑שֶׁר לָ֝לֶ֗כֶת בְּדַרְכֵי־חֹֽשֶׁךְ׃

Who leave the paths of rectitude to follow the ways of darkness,

הַ֭שְּׂמֵחִים לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת רָ֑ע יָ֝גִ֗ילוּ בְּֽתַהְפֻּכ֥וֹת רָֽע׃

Who rejoice in doing evil and exult in the duplicity of evil men,

אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָרְחֹתֵיהֶ֣ם עִקְּשִׁ֑ים וּ֝נְלוֹזִ֗ים בְּמַעְגְּלוֹתָֽם׃

Men whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their course.

לְ֭הַצִּ֣ילְךָ מֵאִשָּׁ֣ה זָרָ֑ה מִ֝נָּכְרִיָּ֗ה אֲמָרֶ֥יהָ הֶחֱלִֽיקָה׃

It will save you from the forbidden woman, from the alien woman whose talk is smooth,

הַ֭עֹזֶבֶת אַלּ֣וּף נְעוּרֶ֑יהָ וְאֶת־בְּרִ֖ית אֱלֹהֶ֣יהָ שָׁכֵֽחָה׃

Who forsakes the companion of her youth and disregards the covenant of her God.

כִּ֤י שָׁ֣חָה אֶל־מָ֣וֶת בֵּיתָ֑הּ וְאֶל־רְ֝פָאִ֗ים מַעְגְּלֹתֶֽיהָ׃

Her house sinks down to Death, and her course leads to the shades.

כָּל־בָּ֭אֶיהָ לֹ֣א יְשׁוּב֑וּן וְלֹֽא־יַ֝שִּׂ֗יגוּ אָרְח֥וֹת חַיִּֽים׃

All who go to her cannot return and find again the paths of life.

לְמַ֗עַן תֵּ֭לֵךְ בְּדֶ֣רֶךְ טוֹבִ֑ים וְאָרְח֖וֹת צַדִּיקִ֣ים תִּשְׁמֹֽר׃

So follow the way of the good and keep to the paths of the just.

כִּֽי־יְשָׁרִ֥ים יִשְׁכְּנוּ אָ֑רֶץ וּ֝תְמִימִ֗ים יִוָּ֥תְרוּ בָֽהּ׃

For the upright will inhabit the earth, the blameless will remain in it.

וּ֭רְשָׁעִים מֵאֶ֣רֶץ יִכָּרֵ֑תוּ וּ֝בוֹגְדִ֗ים יִסְּח֥וּ מִמֶּֽנָּה׃ (פ)

While the wicked will vanish from the land and the treacherous will be rooted out of it.

Brendan Cilia
Good luck Trevor and I wish you the best on your search for truth.

Trevor Klassen
Okay, thanks. You too.