[killallthewhiteman]

I see omniscience as complete knowledge.

It is arguable that there is one reality in which knowledge is contained in, therefore knowledge is not derived from consciousness or acquisition of knowledge. When we discover knowledge we are discovering something that already existed but were not aware of.

For example when were born into this world we don't know what apples are but as we grow older and experience more of reality many people come to realize that apples exist and an even smaller amount of people become experts on apples.

The point is just because an individual lacks a certain knowledge does not mean the knowledge does not exist. All knowledge is always their, its just most people experience a fraction of it especially because our minds are limited.

Of course history and future are part of knowledge, but its only in the context of time. History a holistic view of any knowledge in the context of time.

I see knowledge that can be understood with the mind and the soul as different to knowledge of the body.

To put it this way: Complete knowledge is an understanding of anything that can be experienced, all of which has a context. Just like a human can maintain alot of knowledge he/she would still not know much of other peoples knowledge, ontology or actions, if a human were to maintain complete knowledge the human would be a marvelous scholar for sure; but would not be a psychic or a prophet.

But if God did know about all knowledge, actions and experiences as said previously that does not necessarily or automatically mean an interfering God hence a lack of free will.

If God loves us then God respects our decisions whether it is to be with him or without him.

The semantics on this issue seems to stem from debate against an impersonal God. That is only one denomination of theism.