Challenging the doctrine of Immutability/foreknowledge/God's plan

[M.Talkingsworth]

Hello All,

Sometimes there are scriptures which seem to call into question the idea that God knows exactly what is going to happen and that he has a single unchanging plan that it unfolding.

In the face of scriptures which seem to indicate that God regretted things, and changed his mind, I wonder how proponents of God's immutability reconcile these passages. Some examples of the passages I have in mind are:

Genesis 6:6
1Samuel 15:11

These two verses speak of God carrying out an action, then later being grieved that he did so. These verses seem to give a picture of God who intitially chose one course of action, then after seeing the result was diappointed and forced to take measures to change things.

How do you reconcilie these?


God bless you,

Matt

[Lost]

Hello All,

Sometimes there are scriptures which seem to call into question the idea that God knows exactly what is going to happen and that he has a single unchanging plan that it unfolding.

In the face of scriptures which seem to indicate that God regretted things, and changed his mind, I wonder how proponents of God's immutability reconcile these passages. Some examples of the passages I have in mind are:

Genesis 6:6
1Samuel 15:11

These two verses speak of God carrying out an action, then later being grieved that he did so. These verses seem to give a picture of God who intitially chose one course of action, then after seeing the result was diappointed and forced to take measures to change things.

How do you reconcilie these?


God bless you,

Matt

I don't believe that God is either outside time or that He knows in every detail what the future events will be - enter free-will.
He can easily fortell and prophecy because He can alter future events to suit His plans when necessary.
Most people don't like these ideas but thats their problem not mine.

[M.Talkingsworth]

I don't believe that God is either outside time or that He knows in every detail what the future events will be - enter free-will.
He can easily fortell and prophecy because He can alter future events to suit His plans when necessary.
Most people don't like these ideas but thats their problem not mine.

Good thought Lost. I had not thought about how this reconciles with prophecy.

God bless,

Matt

[outcast]

Tricky scriptures, ha, ha,

Genesis 6:6 and 1Samuel 15:11.

Let think this through logicaly ok.

If God "repented" as it is worded in those two scriptures that would be saying that God made a mistake. If God made a mistake then He would cease to be God, and would not be God, and if He is not God then we are all damned and going to hell, because Jesus was God in the flesh and He was perfect = without sin or error.

I would rather say their is something about that part that i am not understanding, but wirth the help Of the Holy Spirit and some study i am sure we could discover the reason why it is worded that way ?

don't believe that God is either outside time or that He knows in every detail what the future events will be - enter free-will.
He can easily fortell and prophecy because He can alter future events to suit His plans when necessary.
Most people don't like these ideas but thats their problem not mine.

I am not totaly sure what Lost is trying to say, seems contradicting, need clarity?

I do beleive that God is outside of time.

[M.Talkingsworth]

Tricky scriptures, ha, ha,

Genesis 6:6 and 1Samuel 15:11.

Let think this through logicaly ok.

If God "repented" as it is worded in those two scriptures that would be saying that God made a mistake. If God made a mistake then He would cease to be God, and would not be God, and if He is not God then we are all damned and going to hell, because Jesus was God in the flesh and He was perfect = without sin or error.

I would rather say their is something about that part that i am not understanding, but wirth the help Of the Holy Spirit and some study i am sure we could discover the reason why it is worded that way ?


I looked through all of the contemporary translations of Genesis 6:6 on Bible Gateway and all of them strongly indicate that God felt regret for having made mankind. If God knew in advance how things would turn out, it does not make sense that when they turned out as God expected, that he suddenly regretted it.

God Bless,

Matt

[M.Talkingsworth]

Tricky scriptures, ha, ha,

Genesis 6:6 and 1Samuel 15:11.

Let think this through logicaly ok.

If God "repented" as it is worded in those two scriptures that would be saying that God made a mistake. If God made a mistake then He would cease to be God, and would not be God, and if He is not God then we are all damned and going to hell, because Jesus was God in the flesh and He was perfect = without sin or error.



On the other hand, if God stopped being God, then perhaps there would be no hell since it is God who has prepared hell for the wicked.

God Bless,

Matt

[Littlejoe]

Hi Matt,

Well I have been down this road in my own christian walk. It seems you run into some sticky problems with Genesis (and sometimes other later books). These verses, and some others I have run across sent me on a search for some answers. I had already come to the point where I had reconciled that the scriptures showed that because of our free will, God didn't alway's know what we were going to do. It seem clear by verses uch as these (to name a couple of more):

Jeremiah 3:10

Isaiah 5:1-4.

These verses seem to show that God expects Israel to do one thing, and something else happens. Is it possible that God, by giving us free will, limits his own omniscience to the point that he doesn't ALWAYS know what we are going to do?
This lead me to explore why we believe in the total Omniscience of God. In another thread I posted some of my findings while debating with some of the calvinist and arminians. Here is an expert from one of my posts:


Let's look at what Plato wrote:
Plato, Plato V, Republic I, Book II, p. 191, trans. by Paul Shorey
A dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus
“Is it not true that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition...that the healthiest and strongest is the least altered....And is it not the soul that is bravest and most intelligent that would be least disturbed and altered by any external affection...those things which are well made an in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. That is so. It is universally true then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art admits least alteration by something else. So it seems. But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state...Then does he (God) change himself for the better and to something fairer, or for the worse and to something uglier than himself? It must necessarily, said he, be for the worse if he is changed.”
My interpretation of this is: If God changes he would change for the worst so God doesn't change. (God is immutable)

(All bold emphasis mine)
Now look at what Augustine writes:
Augustine, The City of God, trans. by Marcus Dods, The Modern Library, Random House, New York,1950
p. 250-25l
These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme.....He who is clever judges better than he who is slow, he who is skilled than he who is unskillful, he who is practiced than he who is unpractised; and the same person judges better after he has gained experience than he did before. But that which is capable of more and less is mutable; whence able men, who have thought deeply on these things, have gathered that the first form is not to be found in those things whose form is changeable.
p. 256-257

Now let's see what Calvin wrote on immutability:

“God remains unchangeably the same. God is here contrasted with created beings, who, as all know, are subject to continual changes...he is here placed in a state of settled and undisturbed tranquillity...Although he subjects the world to many alterations, he remains unmoved; and that not only in regard to himself.” 1)
“The book of life being nothing else than the eternal purpose of God, by which he has predestined his own people to salvation. God, it is certain, is absolutely immutable..” 2)
“To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable.” 3)
“Besides as he is the Eternal Wisdom, the Immutable Truth, the Determinate Counsel of the Father.” 4)
“By that immutable counsel of God, by which he predestined to himself whomever he would, was alone effectual for their salvation...That Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.” 5)
“Because his immutable decree had once for all doomed them to destruction.” 6)
“Where it is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change is used figuratively. Shortly after it is added, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not a man, that he should repent.” In these words, his immutability is plainly asserted without figure.” 7)

1) Calvin, John, trans. James Anderson, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. p.462
2) ibid, p. 73
3) Calvin, John. Calvin’s Institutes, Book One, Chapter XVII, c2, p. l03.
4) Ibid, p. 517.
5) Ibid, p. 494.
6) Ibid, p. 522.
7) Ibid, p. 109.

Notice that Calvin says that "he is unmoved". Now contrast that to what Aristotle says:
(Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, The Loeb Classical Library, trans. by Hugh Tredennick, Harvard University Press, 1933, p. 207) “for there is something which always moves that which is moved, and the prime mover is itself unmoved.”
Calvin obviously is borrowing his ideas from Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, and mixing them with his theology of immutability.
Why is Calvin certain that God is immutable? Is this plainly asserted in Scripture? Is Calvin ceratin that God does not change his mind because of Scripture or because of his Platonic influence?
Does Scripture prove God’s immutable counsel. Where is this clear evidence? It is interesting that when Calvin is presented with the evidence that God changes he dismisses it lightly.
Calvin’s explanation that “change” is just a figure of speech is unacceptable. A figure of speech is used to represent one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two concepts allows an analogy to be drawn. There is no analogy between the concepts of “does not change his mind” and “changes his mind”.

Here I show how we "inherited" the ideas we currently have of God. It comes from blending the scriptures and pagan greek philosophers that influenced the "world" they dominated at the time before and after Christ. Augustine was heavily influenced by greek philosophy, and until it was reconciled that God was NOT mutable, with scripture, that he became a Christian. So the bottom line for me is, that God IS immutable (as taught in scripture) with respect to his character, love, mercy and justice, but He is not immutable in the sense of the theologians who have based their theology on the Greek philosophy which states that God is outside of time. This is pretty long so I quit for now.

LJ

[Littlejoe]

Tricky scriptures, ha, ha,

Genesis 6:6 and 1Samuel 15:11.

Let think this through logicaly ok.

If God "repented" as it is worded in those two scriptures that would be saying that God made a mistake. If God made a mistake then He would cease to be God, and would not be God, and if He is not God then we are all damned and going to hell, because Jesus was God in the flesh and He was perfect = without sin or error.

I would rather say their is something about that part that i am not understanding, but wirth the help Of the Holy Spirit and some study i am sure we could discover the reason why it is worded that way ?

don't believe that God is either outside time or that He knows in every detail what the future events will be - enter free-will.
He can easily fortell and prophecy because He can alter future events to suit His plans when necessary.
Most people don't like these ideas but thats their problem not mine.

I am not totaly sure what Lost is trying to say, seems contradicting, need clarity?

I do beleive that God is outside of time.

Hi Outcast,

Well, the problem is compounded when I researched the meaning of the Hebrew word used for "repent". Here's what I found:

Hebrew word - exn (?) transliteration - nacham or nachavm. Strong's Lexicon (only place I could find information about it) :
Nacham - Pronunciation - (naw-kham' )

1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a. (Niphal)
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b. (Piel) to comfort, console
c. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d. (Hithpael)
1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself

So it really does mean to repent or to be sorry! An alternate meaning, that is somewhat related, is a change of mind! So now, if God didn’t mean that He repented, what did He mean?
God used the word nachavm for His own actions at least twenty-six times by my count. Every time it is used of God, it is in a context of changing His mind or purpose in punishing or rewarding a person or group of people

Hope this helps, (and doesn't hurt)

LJ

[Lost]

Hi Matt,

Well I have been down this road in my own christian walk. It seems you run into some sticky problems with Genesis (and sometimes other later books). These verses, and some others I have run across sent me on a search for some answers. I had already come to the point where I had reconciled that the scriptures showed that because of our free will, God didn't alway's know what we were going to do. It seem clear by verses uch as these (to name a couple of more):

Jeremiah 3:10

Isaiah 5:1-4.

These verses seem to show that God expects Israel to do one thing, and something else happens. Is it possible that God, by giving us free will, limits his own omniscience to the point that he doesn't ALWAYS know what we are going to do?
This lead me to explore why we believe in the total Omniscience of God. In another thread I posted some of my findings while debating with some of the calvinist and arminians. Here is an expert from one of my posts:



Here I show how we "inherited" the ideas we currently have of God. It comes from blending the scriptures and pagan greek philosophers that influenced the "world" they dominated at the time before and after Christ. Augustine was heavily influenced by greek philosophy, and until it was reconciled that God was NOT mutable, with scripture, that he became a Christian. So the bottom line for me is, that God IS immutable (as taught in scripture) with respect to his character, love, mercy and justice, but He is not immutable in the sense of the theologians who have based their theology on the Greek philosophy which states that God is outside of time. This is pretty long so I quit for now.

LJ

It is good to find others that think outside the square.
It does not make God any less God because He lives inside time like us and has purposely limited Himself to not knowing what choices we will make. In fact it makes Him seem much much greater to me.

He can still guide and help whoever He chooses whenever He chooses.
He can raise up whoever He chooses to do whatever He chooses to accomplish His plans.
He is in control of events because He can intervene when it is really necessary.

Even predicting that Peter would deny Him 3 times before the cock crowed that day was easy. If Peter had risen to the occasion and refused to deny Him when God prompted those people to ask him, then God could have stopped the cocks from crowing and all would have been prophesised correctly still.

God is all the more amazing because He allows free-will and rides thru time with us and in the end He created us in the hope that some or all might voluntarily decide to love Him and spend eternity with Him - it inspires me to be one of those - wow! that's me I am going to be one of those - with God's help.

Praise Yahwey the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

[atomicpoet]

I think this matter is actually quite simple.

1) If God has limits, is he definitively God? That is to say, isn't the definition of God that he is both a transcendent and immanent being? If God does not have foreknowledge, then he is not transcendent and therefore is not a God at all.

2) With this in mind, since God is transcendent, humans must have some way to relate to him. Enter anthropomorphization. We don't call God "he" because he is actually a "he", but because language finds it convenient to call him such and because humans must describe something that is ultimately incomprehensible. This is also true for any biblical passage that describes a human characteristic as belonging to God. This is why Genesis said he "repented".

The Bible is written as a means for humans to relate to God. With this in mind, while the Bible may be the "perfect" word of God, it is only perfect insofar as humans are capable of understanding it. The word "repent" should be seen through an anthropological lens. It is relating a divine expression in ways human beings can understand.

[Lost]

I think this matter is actually quite simple.

1) If God has limits, is he definitively God? That is to say, isn't the definition of God that he is both a transcendent and immanent being? If God does not have foreknowledge, then he is not transcendent and therefore is not a God at all.

2) With this in mind, since God is transcendent, humans must have some way to relate to him. Enter anthropomorphization. We don't call God "he" because he is actually a "he", but because language finds it convenient to call him such and because humans must describe something that is ultimately incomprehensible. This is also true for any biblical passage that describes a human characteristic as belonging to God. This is why Genesis said he "repented".

The Bible is written as a means for humans to relate to God. With this in mind, while the Bible may be the "perfect" word of God, it is only perfect insofar as humans are capable of understanding it. The word "repent" should be seen through an anthropological lens. It is relating a divine expression in ways human beings can understand.

We should not define God at all - He defines Himself.

[atomicpoet]

I agree in an existential sense. Linguistically, however, we must define what we mean when we say "God". The nature of using language is that the utterer has to define his words to make what he's saying coherent. Hence, why I say that the definition of God is that he is transcendent and immanent.

In layman's terms, that is to say the definition of God is that he is beyond definition, gives definition, and is present in everything definitively.

Unfortunately, we have to define God if we are going to have a discussion about God.

[M.Talkingsworth]

I think this matter is actually quite simple.

1) If God has limits, is he definitively God? That is to say, isn't the definition of God that he is both a transcendent and immanent being? If God does not have foreknowledge, then he is not transcendent and therefore is not a God at all.

2) With this in mind, since God is transcendent, humans must have some way to relate to him. Enter anthropomorphization. We don't call God "he" because he is actually a "he", but because language finds it convenient to call him such and because humans must describe something that is ultimately incomprehensible. This is also true for any biblical passage that describes a human characteristic as belonging to God. This is why Genesis said he "repented".

The Bible is written as a means for humans to relate to God. With this in mind, while the Bible may be the "perfect" word of God, it is only perfect insofar as humans are capable of understanding it. The word "repent" should be seen through an anthropological lens. It is relating a divine expression in ways human beings can understand.

Hi Atomic poet,

I appreciate the green-friendly genre of your name. It far better than the "Fossil-fuel Poets", "Coal Poets", and (shudder) good ol' "Wood-burning Poet". Good for you!


Your response is logically possible. It is possible that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write things about Him which are symbols of the exact opposite of his exact nature (that is, the symbol is of God changing His mind, while God actually never changes at all). However it seems logically improbable that God did this. The question also arises as to the purpose of such a confusing symbol. I wonder why God would choose to "relate a divine expression in ways human beings can understand it" by using terms which are exactly opposite of what is actually happening. As another poster pointed out, symbols are usually similar things which illuminate each other, not exact opposite things which confound each other.

It seems more probable to me that God did actually change his mind and that the passage is not figurative.

But before you rebut my ideas, I would like to know why you hold so strongly to the concept of God's immutability. You gave a reason above, but it was not based in scripture. Do you cling to the immutability of God for philosophical reasons or scriptural reasons.

If they are philosophical, I do not see that God is actually less of a God if God can change. God will be what God will be regardless of what we think God's "definition" should be. It is possible that God actually does have limited power and knowledge yet still created the universe and is the most powerful thing. Could we really say to the most powerful being "you are not God, by definition due to your mutability"?.

I am not trying to "blast" you or even change your mind, but I am interested in your thought process.

God Bless,

Matt

[atomicpoet]

First of all, I don't believe that God is static. I believe he is quite a dynamic being but that he is not dynamic in the sense that we are. We can't comprehend his dynamics, but we have seen it in action: the incarnation is one such evidence of God "changing".

Everything in mind, I believe God is immutable (but not necessarily in the sense you define it) due to philosophical and anthropological reasons. When God initially revealed himself to mankind, it was not through a document, but through creation. This isn't to say that I deny the authenticity of the Bible, but it is to say that we must approach the Bible with hearts illumined with the Holy Spirit.

I personally believe God is immutable because if he wasn't, we're really just worshipping a man with super powers -- which really isn't someone I want to worship. For God to have authority to speak as God he must come from a position that is beyond man. In short, what makes God who he is is that he is "other".


Hi Atomic poet,
It is possible that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write things about Him which are symbols of the exact opposite of his exact nature (that is, the symbol is of God changing His mind, while God actually never changes at all).

I don't think these verses are God changing. Take Genesis 6.6. In context, it is narratively describing an emotional reaction God has towards humankind.


And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

The second fragment of the verse reinforces what the Hebrew word "nacham" means, which means to "console or pity one's self." Hence, I believe God is relating his own feelings about this sinfulness of man in this passage.


As another poster pointed out, symbols are usually similar things which illuminate each other, not exact opposite things which confound each other.

True, and this is why everything must be examined in its anthropological context, i.e., how would Hebrew-speaking Israelites in the 1200 B.C. understand it?


It seems more probable to me that God did actually change his mind and that the passage is not figurative.

Why does this passage have to be about God changing his mind?


God will be what God will be regardless of what we think God's "definition" should be.

Do note what I said before. If God defines himself, wouldn't that mean that he has the power for self-definition? And if he does, he must pass along this self-definition to us so we can understand it -- at least analogically. The Bible is not a document that imprisons our understanding of God's being, but illuminates it. A misunderstanding of a translation of the Bible does not put a cap on who God can be.

God can do as he pleases, and be as he pleases. If he chooses to "not know" something, he sure can. If he wants foreknowledge, he can therefore have that. But something tells me that since God is transcendant, having foreknowledge is a nonsequitur. He doesn't know something before it happens. He just knows it.


It is possible that God actually does have limited power and knowledge yet still created the universe and is the most powerful thing.

So you are saying that if I got my hands on some really fancy technology, I could become more powerful than God? If God has "limited" power, then that could theoretically happen.


Could we really say to the most powerful being "you are not God, by definition due to your mutability"?.

If you define "immutability" as a definition of "static", then I agree we can't really say that. But if you are comfortable with a dynamism and immutability co-existing in one person, then I must say, "You are not God, by definition due to your mutability". Not everyone can join the God club.

Hypothetically, if God is mutable, I'm going to push for some really awesome technology so I can take over the universe.

[Lost]

First of all, I don't believe that God is static. I believe he is quite a dynamic being but that he is not dynamic in the sense that we are. We can't comprehend his dynamics, but we have seen it in action: the incarnation is one such evidence of God "changing".

Everything in mind, I believe God is immutable (but not necessarily in the sense you define it) due to philosophical and anthropological reasons. When God initially revealed himself to mankind, it was not through a document, but through creation. This isn't to say that I deny the authenticity of the Bible, but it is to say that we must approach the Bible with hearts illumined with the Holy Spirit.

I personally believe God is immutable because if he wasn't, we're really just worshipping a man with super powers -- which really isn't someone I want to worship. For God to have authority to speak as God he must come from a position that is beyond man. In short, what makes God who he is is that he is "other".



I don't think these verses are God changing. Take Genesis 6.6. In context, it is narratively describing an emotional reaction God has towards humankind.


And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

The second fragment of the verse reinforces what the Hebrew word "nacham" means, which means to "console or pity one's self." Hence, I believe God is relating his own feelings about this sinfulness of man in this passage.



True, and this is why everything must be examined in its anthropological context, i.e., how would Hebrew-speaking Israelites in the 1200 B.C. understand it?



Why does this passage have to be about God changing his mind?



Do note what I said before. If God defines himself, wouldn't that mean that he has the power for self-definition? And if he does, he must pass along this self-definition to us so we can understand it -- at least analogically. The Bible is not a document that imprisons our understanding of God's being, but illuminates it. A misunderstanding of a translation of the Bible does not put a cap on who God can be.

God can do as he pleases, and be as he pleases. If he chooses to "not know" something, he sure can. If he wants foreknowledge, he can therefore have that. But something tells me that since God is transcendant, having foreknowledge is a nonsequitur. He doesn't know something before it happens. He just knows it.



So you are saying that if I got my hands on some really fancy technology, I could become more powerful than God? If God has "limited" power, then that could theoretically happen.



If you define "immutability" as a definition of "static", then I agree we can't really say that. But if you are comfortable with a dynamism and immutability co-existing in one person, then I must say, "You are not God, by definition due to your mutability". Not everyone can join the God club.

Hypothetically, if God is mutable, I'm going to push for some really awesome technology so I can take over the universe.

If God chooses to limit himself then that does not make God lesser at all.
A lesser god would not give man free-will and face uncertainty but would want to control everything.
Yahwey chose not to do this which shows that He is greater not lesser in my view.
I have absolutely no problem trusting Yahwey who allows free-will, sometimes intervenes and controls outcomes and people, can guide and help us when necessary, can control anything when it is necessary but chooses to intervene as little as possible.
That is a great god.
That is Yahwey - the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.

[atomicpoet]

A lesser god would not give man free-will and face uncertainty but would want to control everything.

What do you mean by "lesser"? Do you mean, "A god I like more?'


I have absolutely no problem trusting Yahwey who allows free-will, sometimes intervenes and controls outcomes and people, can guide and help us when necessary, can control anything when it is necessary but chooses to intervene as little as possible.

I have no problem trusting my girlfriend who allows free will, sometimes intervenes and controls outcomes and people. In fact, at times, I like her a heck of a lot more than I like God. But to make her a goddess is to be an idolater -- and would ultimately be placing my wishes above the truth.

[Lost]

What do you mean by "lesser"? Do you mean, "A god I like more?'



I have no problem trusting my girlfriend who allows free will, sometimes intervenes and controls outcomes and people. In fact, at times, I like her a heck of a lot more than I like God. But to make her a goddess is to be an idolater -- and would ultimately be placing my wishes above the truth.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

[M.Talkingsworth]

Everything in mind, I believe God is immutable (but not necessarily in the sense you define it) due to philosophical and anthropological reasons.

I think I follow you here and do not disagree with you. Generally I understand that God's immutability is an immutability of character. Am I right? This definition is frequently given in the face of verses such as Genesis 6:6.



I personally believe God is immutable because if he wasn't, we're really just worshipping a man with super powers -- which really isn't someone I want to worship. For God to have authority to speak as God he must come from a position that is beyond man. In short, what makes God who he is is that he is "other".


I do not think that this is a valid premise from which to reason that God necessarily must be immutable. Your opinion of what is worthy of worship, although valid and respectable, is nothing more than opinion and may or may not reflect reality. I also think that God, as creator, is sufficiently separated from humankind to still retain deity if he lacks immutability/foreknowledge



I don't think these verses are God changing. Take Genesis 6.6. In context, it is narratively describing an emotional reaction God has towards humankind.


And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

The second fragment of the verse reinforces what the Hebrew word "nacham" means, which means to "console or pity one's self." Hence, I believe God is relating his own feelings about this sinfulness of man in this passage.


Agreed. I think that this verse speaks more to the foreknowledge/God's perfect plan aspect of my introduction. It does not make sense that if God knew with a certainty that humans would end up as they did in noah's day that he could regret what he had done.



True, and this is why everything must be examined in its anthropological context, i.e., how would Hebrew-speaking Israelites in the 1200 B.C. understand it?


The theory that these ways of anthropomorphizing God are in the Bible for our benefit is within the realm of possibility and I think it is a clever idea. I guess my question is why do we cling to the ideas which make us take this very figurative view of passages which are very clearly historical narrative. I am not trying to be belligerent, so if you think you have already answered this question, please restate because I have been too much of a dullard to pick up on it. :smile:



Do note what I said before. If God defines himself, wouldn't that mean that he has the power for self-definition? And if he does, he must pass along this self-definition to us so we can understand it -- at least analogically. The Bible is not a document that imprisons our understanding of God's being, but illuminates it. A misunderstanding of a translation of the Bible does not put a cap on who God can be.

God can do as he pleases, and be as he pleases. If he chooses to "not know" something, he sure can. If he wants foreknowledge, he can therefore have that. But something tells me that since God is transcendant, having foreknowledge is a nonsequitur. He doesn't know something before it happens. He just knows it.


Pretty sure i agree with you here.



So you are saying that if I got my hands on some really fancy technology, I could become more powerful than God? If God has "limited" power, then that could theoretically happen.


Perhaps. However it is also possible that "power" is not limitless. There may be a limited amount of "power" which can be exerted due to logic or what-have-you. But let us suppose that it is possible that a human, through a marvelous (or diabolical) leap in technology was able to generate more "power" than God. In what way would this be a logical contradiction unless we start out with the assumption that God, by definition, is infinitely powerful. That would lead us into a circular argument.



Hypothetically, if God is mutable, I'm going to push for some really awesome technology so I can take over the universe.

You would certainly not be the first according to Revelation 12:7-9

I think the simplest resolution is to explain your reason for adopting the immutabilty/foreknowledge idea. Perhaps simpler language is needed for me if you have already tried to do so and I missed it.

God Bless,

Matt

[outcast]

A better translation of Genesis 6:6 is that God was "Greived" not that He "repented". the confussion is do to the translation, the King James version does not always translate the words the best. On top of that (dont shoot me) ha, ha, Strongs Dictionary is not always the best source of translation of words either. Strongs does a good job of numbering the words.

Gen. 6:6 makes sence because of mans free will. Let me put it this way.

God has created jim to be a Pastor. Jim grows up in the church, and Jim gives his life to Jesus when he is 16, and gets saved . Jim has a stong desire to be a pastor at a young age then when jim gets out of high school he decides to go to college to be a councelor for mental health patients. Now God lays it on jim heart to follow thru with the call of God, but jim ignores the promptings of the Holy Spirit to follow his flesh.

As a result of Jim not fufilling the purpose call and destiny for his life God heart is grieved.
God does have feelings, God is not human like we are, the Bible says that "God is the father of all spirits" God is a spiritual being, However God chooses to relate Himself to His creation in masculine terms like "Father, He, Son, ect.. and He does relate to women too one of His Hebrew names is "Many breasted one", i dont know off hand which one, but if it is a problem will look up.
I know God has feelings because every time Jesus healed someone the bible said He had "compassion" before they were healed. and Jesus was and is God in the flesh.

Let me share a story about the Love of God and his feelings.

about 2 years ago my Pastors met with a drug addict who wanted help and wanted to live for God and he was back sliden.

This was my wife and my first real ministry trip working with a drug addict., I just got home from working 12 hours and my Pastors called me and they wanted me to ask other church people from our group if we wanted to pitch in or donate somthing to help this guy out , he needed a place to live, food, clothing, ect... every thing worked out perfect My wife and i talked to my landlord and seen if he had any available places for rent, and he had 1 room, the place was awful, but the church came together and cleaned it, my wife and i and another couple paid for his first month of rent, another couple bought him 150.00 worth of grocries, and one of the board members bought him clothing.
My wife and i had to drive all the way down to Iowa to get him it was about a 3hr drive, and i only had about 4 hours of sleep. (I work graveyard shift too)
we will call the guy Joe. Joe was short stocky shaved head, goat tee smoked, and had white supremict tatoos all over him, i had a revelation of "fear and much trembling"

being a former drug addict myself i know all the lies, crap they say, and what to look for.
I would let this guy come over to my house and shower we cooked meals for Him, he was going through counceling and comming to church regularly, i took him out to look for work.
He failed drug test, then he started drinking he pawned off my Pastors brand new stero player at a bar, that my Pastor had gotten for his wife which is also a pastor as a Christmas gift gift, the gift was worth 300.00, Then he stole me and my wifes glass set we got as a wedding gift ,
I was mad as a hornett, then we had a camp meeting and we had two special speakers from North Carolina, who Prophesied over him and he was like a little boy in tears, He freely confessed all of his actions to the church people and he appologised, and said that he wanted to go to some Mission place in Iowa where they council drugg addicts and homeless people and where it was familiar to him. and so we all helped him get prepaired to go.

Joe was short stocky he had muscles, racist, and spent 13 years in prison was a meth addict, he was verry periond!! even when he was sobber.

Before he left we were having a mens bible study over a the Pastors house it was me my Pastor and a Apostle, and one of my co- workers. Joe was arguing with the Pastors about the hyper calvanisim, and how Joe when he got out of Prison fell in love with a midget women and they both were studying for ministry, and wanted to get married, and the leaders of his church, said that it was not God will for them to get married, she left him for crack cocaine and thats when he started using again, and he has held on to the beleif that it was somehow his fault that his fiance left him and started smoking crack . at that time I wanted him gone from our church in my flesh i wished he would disapear, i was so angry at him i could care less what happened to him and then BAMM!!!! the Holy Spirit Hit me and and brought to my remebrence the scripture where Jesus was moved with compasion to heal the leper, and i imeadietly was crying and weeping and prayed for him, i said all that because God does feel grievance, love, compasion for His creation, but God will not overide mans free will, to choose to live for him or leave him.


When Joe was prophesied over The Prophete's (female Prophet) said to him " God wants you to know that their are some issues in your life that you have been hanging onto that is not your fault, I see a woman who left you and God says she has a free will.
then his call was called out Cool!!!!!!! She had no prior Knowledge or anything about Joe.

Today i dont know where joe is but last year he was back in detox.

[Littlejoe]

A better translation of Genesis 6:6 is that God was "Greived" not that He "repented". the confussion is do to the translation, the King James version does not always translate the words the best. On top of that (dont shoot me) ha, ha, Strongs Dictionary is not always the best source of translation of words either. Strongs does a good job of numbering the words.

Strong's was all I could find and grieved is one of the choices listed if you recall. I looked at biblegateway.com at all the versions (english ones anyway). NIV is the ONLY one that translates it "grieved". NIV is a good version, however it's not considered one of the most accurate LITERAL translations. The NASB has one of the be reputations as does the ESV. Also the NKJV is highly thought of. ALL of them translate it as "God was sorry..."

Gen. 6:6 makes sence because of mans free will. Let me put it this way.



God has created jim to be a Pastor. Jim grows up in the church, and Jim gives his life to Jesus when he is 16, and gets saved . Jim has a stong desire to be a pastor at a young age then when jim gets out of high school he decides to go to college to be a councelor for mental health patients. Now God lays it on jim heart to follow thru with the call of God, but jim ignores the promptings of the Holy Spirit to follow his flesh.

As a result of Jim not fufilling the purpose call and destiny for his life God heart is grieved.
God does have feelings, God is not human like we are, the Bible says that "God is the father of all spirits" God is a spiritual being, However God chooses to relate Himself to His creation in masculine terms like "Father, He, Son, ect.. and He does relate to women too one of His Hebrew names is "Many breasted one", i dont know off hand which one, but if it is a problem will look up.
I know God has feelings because every time Jesus healed someone the bible said He had "compassion" before they were healed. and Jesus was and is God in the flesh.


What your refering to here is what Matt and Atomicpoet were discussing. The term is anthropomorphism. Ascribing to God human attributes. But we are made in HIS image, so we must have some attributes that he has.


Let me share a story about the Love of God and his feelings.

about 2 years ago my Pastors met with a drug addict who wanted help and wanted to live for God and he was back sliden.


This was my wife and my first real ministry trip working with a drug addict., I just got home from working 12 hours and my Pastors called me and they wanted me to ask other church people from our group if we wanted to pitch in or donate somthing to help this guy out , he needed a place to live, food, clothing, ect... every thing worked out perfect My wife and i talked to my landlord and seen if he had any available places for rent, and he had 1 room, the place was awful, but the church came together and cleaned it, my wife and i and another couple paid for his first month of rent, another couple bought him 150.00 worth of grocries, and one of the board members bought him clothing.
My wife and i had to drive all the way down to Iowa to get him it was about a 3hr drive, and i only had about 4 hours of sleep. (I work graveyard shift too)
we will call the guy Joe. Joe was short stocky shaved head, goat tee smoked, and had white supremict tatoos all over him, i had a revelation of "fear and much trembling"

being a former drug addict myself i know all the lies, crap they say, and what to look for.
I would let this guy come over to my house and shower we cooked meals for Him, he was going through counceling and comming to church regularly, i took him out to look for work.
He failed drug test, then he started drinking he pawned off my Pastors brand new stero player at a bar, that my Pastor had gotten for his wife which is also a pastor as a Christmas gift gift, the gift was worth 300.00, Then he stole me and my wifes glass set we got as a wedding gift ,
I was mad as a hornett, then we had a camp meeting and we had two special speakers from North Carolina, who Prophesied over him and he was like a little boy in tears, He freely confessed all of his actions to the church people and he appologised, and said that he wanted to go to some Mission place in Iowa where they council drugg addicts and homeless people and where it was familiar to him. and so we all helped him get prepaired to go.

Joe was short stocky he had muscles, racist, and spent 13 years in prison was a meth addict, he was verry periond!! even when he was sobber.

Before he left we were having a mens bible study over a the Pastors house it was me my Pastor and a Apostle, and one of my co- workers. Joe was arguing with the Pastors about the hyper calvanisim, and how Joe when he got out of Prison fell in love with a midget women and they both were studying for ministry, and wanted to get married, and the leaders of his church, said that it was not God will for them to get married, she left him for crack cocaine and thats when he started using again, and he has held on to the beleif that it was somehow his fault that his fiance left him and started smoking crack . at that time I wanted him gone from our church in my flesh i wished he would disapear, i was so angry at him i could care less what happened to him and then BAMM!!!! the Holy Spirit Hit me and and brought to my remebrence the scripture where Jesus was moved with compasion to heal the leper, and i imeadietly was crying and weeping and prayed for him, i said all that because God does feel grievance, love, compasion for His creation, but God will not overide mans free will, to choose to live for him or leave him.


When Joe was prophesied over The Prophete's (female Prophet) said to him " God wants you to know that their are some issues in your life that you have been hanging onto that is not your fault, I see a woman who left you and God says she has a free will.
then his call was called out Cool!!!!!!! She had no prior Knowledge or anything about Joe.

Today i dont know where joe is but last year he was back in detox.

Not sure how this relates...but o.k. nice story. However, God wasn't moved to compassion here in Genesis, He destroyed most of mankind.

LJ