"It" in the sentence you complain of modifies "self-knowledge", not God the Father (or God the Son for that matter).
Sometimes in quick-draw nitpicking you shoot yourself in the nit.
I didn't say the author never referenced God as Him/personal. But if you present God as both impersonal and personal, the Bible doesn't do that. (It only presents Him as personal).
The reference is to self-knowledge, not to God. [Logophile]
"It" in the sentence you complain of modifies "self-knowledge", not God the Father (or God the Son for that matter). [AnAmericanMother]
You know, that might be a cover, except you don't read well in the larger context, do you?
I referenced this author's "it" citation later in his article. So how do you explain this author's erlier reference?
The idea of God developed by Western Greek philosophers on the basis of reason before the advent of Christianity congrues remarkably with aspects of God as found in revelation, such as His omnipotence and omniscience, His unchangeability, his nature as an ultimately simple and absolute Being which is in fact Being Itself.
"Being Itself?"??? What a joke!!!
Even animals have personal genders. But I'd cut him some slack referencing some critter as a "Being Itself."
How would either of you like it if I referenced either of you as a "Being Itself?"
So what we wouldn't ascribe to a fellow human being, this guy will ascribe to God, Himself?
Sorry. But you both flunked reading in the larger context. "Being Itself" has NOTHING, ZERO, NADA to do with "self-knowledge."