Could you and Cameron143 please stop with your strawman whack-a-mole routine, mischaracterising what people post in an attempt merely to parody the argument being made and poison the well. That is not good faith debate.
The straw man was the lie that Open theists must deny that scripture that says God knows what we will say before we speak. I pointed out that "before" in that text does not have to mean "from everlasting" ( "eternity past" being an oxymoron). It only needs to mean immediately before, and if so would be conveying God's present infinite knowledge of the present state of all things, not His present infinite knowledge of everything that you will say into endless time. Rather than explain why this could not be the meaning of the text, you again merely misrepresented open theism and parodied the answer rather than rebutting it. Open theists do not "speak as though God is no better than any human with an MRI machine and a little bit of education in psychology and neurology." Nor did I.
God can anticipate the words about to be spoken by every creature in the universe at one time. No human with an MRI machine and a little bit of education in psychology and neurology" can come close to that. How about dealing with the arguments posted, rather than this wasting your life playing games to avoid understanding hard to swallow facts.
Does God need to know from everlasting all past, present and future events in order for Him to know what you will say before you say it. Clearly not, because you just admitted that even a human can do that without having such exhaustive foreknowledge.
Does the omnipotent God need to know from everlasting all past, present and future events in order for Him to make a decree today and cause it to happen in one years time. Clearly not. Using His omnipotence He can cause that goal to eventuate.
So, the text clearly does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge, and is perfectly compatible with open theism. Admit that and maybe try some other verses. But your methodology of resiling from all admissions that might weaken your case, misrepresenting the unrebutted claim to pretend the text was not answered adequately and then erecting a straw man parody to knock down or jumping to a new verse is not serving you well if you are truly interested in learning truth.