God's triune relations (personal includes will, intellect, emotions) requires duration/sequence/succession (time), even if there are no specific events or a first event. God is dynamic, not static, changing in His triune relations and experiences (hence divine temporality vs timelessness). Ps. 90:2 There is a before and after creation. The no beginning-no ending God is eternal, but this does not mean timeless since duration is a reality if one is personal (God is).
godrulz, let’s break this down a bit so that it becomes clear what it is that you are saying:
1) “God's triune relations ... requires duration/sequence/succession (time)”
2) “...even if there are no specific events or a first event”
3) “The no beginning-no ending God is eternal”
4) “...but this does not mean timeless since duration is a reality if one is personal”
On the one hand you say that God’s triune relations require time (1), then go on to say that this is so, even if there are no specific events (2). But specific events, that is, duration/sequence/succession are things that pertain to time and without which time would not be, or rather, to speak about time is meaningless without such concepts. It makes no sense to say that God’s triune relations involve time even if there are no specific events, for time involves sequential relations between events that succeed one another.
Then you go on to say that God has no beginning or ending and is thus eternal (3). This, of course, is true. However, you then deny a necessary corollary of eternality which is timelessness and thus end up affirming that God is both temporal and timeless by inserting duration into that which is eternal and has neither beginning nor end (4). But duration presupposes the beginning or ending of an event and the beginning or ending of another. It takes a specific amount of time or an interval. That which has neither beginning nor ending (God), cannot have duration or be temporal.
With regards to Genesis 1:1, your claim that this refers to “the beginning of our unique measure of time”
is refuted by the fact that in Genesis 1:14 God creates the two lights for the express purpose of them being signs for seasons, days and years. This text actually fits better with your claim than Genesis 1:1 which is better taken as referring to the absolute beginning of time. This also fits with the fact that it is the position of these lights that humans would use across history to determine time.
The passing of days starting from day one even before the lights were made, signifies that time is now passing and that time was not before the beginning. Genesis 1:1 does not says “When God began to create...”
or “The day God created Heaven and Earth”
as if implying the passage of time before the creation. It says “In the beginning...”
referring to the absolute beginning, not of the creation itself, but on which the creation was made.
Two motifs...knows some of future as settled (his ability) and other aspects as unsettled (our contingencies).
Well, godrulz, Scripture does not presents two motifs on this issue. No restriction or compartmentalization is made on God's knowledge of the future.
"O eternal God, who knowest hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to pass"
He knows all things before they come to pass, no distinction between a settled/unsettled future is made. Likewise, the verses on Isaiah do not restrict God's knowledge of the future to just the things that he will bring about by his ability.
"The things that were first, behold they are come: and new things do I declare: before they spring forth, I will make you head them."
"Who is like to me? let him call and declare: and let him set before me the order, since I appointed the ancient people: and the things to come, and that shall be hereafter, let them shew unto them."
It is clear from the Scriptures that God knows the future and they do not place any restriction on this knowledge. His ability to declare the future is actually the proof he gives for being the one true God (Isaiah 48:3-7).
Deducing that God doesn’t knows the future from verses that say “nor did it come into My mind”
or “He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines”
demands a forced interpretation of said verses, for the verses are not making an explicit declaration about the nature of God’s knowledge. The clear and explicit statements in Scripture that affirm God’s knowledge of the future actually preclude giving these and similar verses such an interpretation.
By what means God knows the future is a separate issue from the fact that He knows it. You are confusing things, godrulz, by taking the verses on Isaiah as referring to God's ability to bring any future thing to pass and not to the simple fact that he knows the future (which is what they actually affirm).