Basically, it's the ability to have control over one's own environment, future, and "destiny".
God is said to be omniscient, and this poses a special problem for free will: if God knows the future, that means that the future is predictable and immutable. This, in turn, means that our actions are predetermined. We may have pondered long and hard over which action to take, but the very act of pondering is as predictable as the execution of a complex computer program.
Note that this reasoning also applies to God: if God is omniscient, then he knows what he will do, and must inevitably do what he already knows he will do.
If the above is not true, and as you said, are actions are NOT set in stone, then god is not omniscient, because he doesn't know what will happen in the future, and that is mandatory for omniscience to be present.
I believe when it comes to our choices, with them not being set in stone as I mentioned earlier, the "would" doesn't exist. So for instance when Christians talk about free will, we usually sum it up within the choices of being with God or going your own way. The choice hasn't been made yet for most people, most people don't even know about it if the God of the Bible is true. People aren't born, destined to choose God or go their own way. It wasn't settled at birth that once I reached my 14th birthday, on that day I was going to make the choice of being with God, or that day I would choose not to be with God. The only way for an omniscient being to know what choice was going to be made before it was made, is if it was already set to be that way from the beginning.
So when it comes to our choices, they really don't have a future until one is made. So, if you look at it this way, God knows what choices we will be presented with. God knows the future of whatever choice we make, but the choice is ours to make. Beyond the "making a choice" and the future beyond the choice, there is nothing for an omniscient being to know.
On a little bit of an aside, when christians say God knows the future, they generally probably do mean God knows what choices we are going to make. Yet that is not accurate. God can see or know our thoughts, so from that alone He could "guess" what action we will take in the future. God Himself does things, so for instance if a prophet in the Bible said something would happen later on and it happened, of course it happened because it was God who did it. So that's another way for God to know the future, yet the choices we make aren't set. In that case, there is nothing to truly know. Later on I'll give you some examples in the Bible that shows God did not know what man "would" do. (Also, with all that said, if you come to agree with me on my reasoning yet say that makes God not omniscient, then I'll accept that understanding. Not that I would say God isn't omniscient, but that I would accept you saying He's not. And lastly, God has new thoughts all the time. So He does not know everything He will do, and His choices aren't set either. That is to say, He may create something else after this age, just like an inventor making new things)
Do you have internal battles with yourself over your beliefs being that we know for an absolute fact genesis could not be true?
There's definitely conflict just by looking at things. The observations we have definitely goes against a lot of things written in Genesis. Yet, I don't see Genesis as most see it. For me, there's still much to study concerning what it says. I'm of the belief that Genesis couldn't be fully understood until this scientific age we are living in. Ultimately, I have reason to keep looking into this thing. I'm in the process of hypothesizing on aspects concerning Genesis, and later experimenting with them.
With that, many say that is not science. Science is about observing the world around us, and forming hypothesis from those observation. Well, I totally agree with that. What I'm doing is definitely different. I believe that if God exist, and He gave us an account that told us things that happened since the beginning of time until now, I should be able to take that account and verify many more things than simply observing the world as it is today. Science is limited to our observations. What I'm doing is working with an account that tells of things that are no longer observable. So I should come up with even better theories than science can give us in a way. So you have the practice called science, but what I'm working would be a super science. I would coin it as "omniscience". (Working with an origin account and observation of the world) That's how I see things right now.