I saw that in some of the discussions the Rabbi took the position that it is possible that the Holy One does not know the future choice, and nevertheless that lack of knowledge is not a deficiency in relation to Him, and so on.
And now I think that this position cannot be maintained after all, since from the perspective of the Holy One there is no such concept as time.
That is the essence of the jumble.

Note: and therefore it is simple and obvious that the concept of lack of knowledge with respect to the future or the past, or at any time at all, cannot apply to Him, since so to speak He is present at every moment.

It is still not clear. Are you proposing a solution to the contradiction, that is, claiming that there can be foreknowledge of free choice? Or are you claiming that even though this is a contradiction, it is impossible to deny it to the Holy One?
See what I wrote in my series of columns on knowledge and free choice about this “explanation.”

First, I am claiming that even if the relation between knowledge and free choice is seen or understood as a contradiction, the answer still cannot be to deny the Holy One’s knowledge regarding future choice. And that is for two reasons:
A. Because such a denial would constitute a deficiency, Heaven forbid, in relation to Him.
B. Because in any case His reality is above time; that is, with respect to Him there is no before and after, or past and future. Therefore it is impossible to deny the Holy One knowledge of the future, since the Holy One exists on a plane above time and above past and future.

And by the way, I think there is another solution to this question, for example if we say that the choice causes the knowledge and not the reverse.
Or for example if we say that since the Holy One’s knowledge exists on a plane above the time known and grasped by human intellect, then that knowledge should not be understood or regarded as prior, either physically or logically, in terms of cause and effect.
And so too the choice itself, when it is actually chosen, would not be regarded as caused by that knowledge or as a result of it, since the Holy One’s knowledge of that choice did not precede it at all.
For just as the knowledge of that choice was, from the perspective of the Holy One in Himself, there from all eternity, so too the choice that was actually chosen stands, from the perspective of the Holy One, as having been chosen from all eternity, since from the perspective of the Holy One in Himself there is no past, present, or future at all.

I’m not sure I understood these poetic flourishes. Why not write clearly and sharply? You probably mean to answer that you wrote the two claims I was debating between. In any case, it is all explained in my series of columns there. On both claims.

It seems I really wasn’t clear. What I meant to write was that it is impossible that the Holy One in Himself would not know what is going to happen in the future, because that would mean He was lacking, Heaven forbid. [And by the way, I also addressed the second claim you wrote.]
And indeed I saw the columns you wrote, and I have a few comments.

A. Regarding what was brought in the question of knowledge and free choice, section B, “the timeline”: the claim there that the Holy One is above time was rejected, because it explains only how the Holy One knows what will happen in the future, but on the other hand it does not explain why that very knowledge does not itself contradict free choice.
But I think these two issues depend on one another, because if the Holy One knows what will happen in the future because He is above time [and not because of a combination of causes leading technically and deterministically to knowledge of the future], then it follows that His knowledge will never align with the line of past and future in our reality, and therefore it likewise would not serve as a cause of, or coercion toward, that choice which is made specifically in time.
And thus the knowledge would not be understood as preceding the choice, but only as parallel to it and so to speak accompanying the choice; in such a way that the knowledge or information regarding the choice exists only in that reality stripped of past and future [namely, so to speak, His reality], whereas the actual choice exists in the reality that operates according to time [our own reality]. [And therefore the example of “Osmo’s story” is not relevant to the present issue.]

B. It does not seem that the intent of the Or HaChaim on the Torah [Genesis 6:5], cited in the article you wrote, is that the Holy One denied Himself the knowledge. Rather, it seems to me that his intent is that the Holy One denied only the influence of the information with respect to created beings, and if so the opposite is true: the knowledge was not denied to the Holy One, but specifically to created beings and to the influence of that knowledge upon them [from functioning as a necessity with respect to choice].

C. A comment on the words of the Or HaChaim there, where you wrote that the Holy One’s withholding knowledge from Himself is similar to a situation in which Osmo would not enter the library and would not read the book.
That seemingly requires explanation, because even if the Holy One indeed withheld the knowledge from Himself, where does it exist? Unlike the information in Osmo’s book, which exists independently.

1. I explained why there is no deficiency here.
2. I explained why saying He is “above time” (I don’t understand what that means) solves nothing.
3. Regarding the Or HaChaim, the knowledge is not located anywhere. He prevented the existence of the information by giving us free choice.
4. Everything else was explained.
I’ve exhausted this.

One last question: is the statement “If I knew Him, I would be Him” consistent with relating the Holy One to time [time is well understood by the intellect]?

I can’t help repeating myself: you express yourself unclearly. Your concepts are undefined. What does “relating the Holy One to time” mean? Besides, we are talking about the concepts as they appear to us. For us, everything is measured in terms of time. I explained that there too.

Are experiences like the taste of pizza also measured in terms of time?
Or for example, is our very understanding that there is such a thing as infinity also measured that way?
Is the present itself time?
[By relating the Holy One to time I mean limiting the Holy One by the creation that He Himself created [a logical failure]. And if He Himself did not create time, then from all eternity He was limited by time and was never perfect…]