Does God repent or change his mind? (to Farrell)
David Court hoover1@netcom.ca
Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:38:48 -0400 (EDT) (00893619528, 199804261438.KAA06245@tor-srs1.netcom.ca)
At 08:34 AM 4/17/98 -0400, David Court wrote:
>MCGILL
>Can anyone explain the seeming contradictions:
>
>Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
>Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of
>man, that he should repent."
>Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I
>will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I
>repent."
>
>vs.
>
>Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do
>unto his people."
>
>Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the
>earth...And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
>the face of the earth...for it repenteth me that I have made him."
>
>Jonah 3:10"...and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he
>would do unto them; and he did it not."
>
>James 1:17"...the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither
>shadow of turning."
>
>Does God change his mind? It seems to me that people change their minds
>for reasons like something came up that they didn't know about, or
>because they made an imperfect choice, if God is omniscient and perfect
>would those reasons apply to him?
>
>(DAVE 4/14) Wonderful question. One that I have been contemplating
>recently as well (the one example that really hits me is the relationship he
>has with Moses, where he often changes his actions based on Moses' plea).
>There are many examples, as you've pointed out, of instances where he has
>"changed" his mind, or been influenced by something, or his actions have
>been conditional upon something specific happening etc.
>It seems rather counter to the concept of omniscience that God would ever
>change his mind, when he is fully aware of all that there is to know.
>On the other hand, if God is a truly sovereign being, he more than likely
>transcends the time-space continuim that binds us. With that in mind, our
>"time" may be but a snapshot in his existence (our entire timeline may be a
>single occurrence to him). Could this make it more reaonsbale to assume
>that he hears all prayers instantaneously? And if so, they accumulate at
>the instance of our creation to have an impact?
TILL
Of course, Dave would never even consider the possibility that this problem
can be explained by simply assuming that Yahweh was just a deity that the
Hebrews had created in their image.
(DAVE 4/25) Farrell: That is a valid possibility which any sincere student
of the Bible would have to consider.
Farrell
Since humans act to change their minds,
they simply imagined their god to be the same way.
(DAVE 4/25) Farrell: Again, I don't disagree with your comments. It makes
perfect sense that our perceptions of God, or of anything else for that
matter, would be in terms of what we understood or comprehended. How could
you envision or perceive something beyond your faculties of understanding?
Farrell
In the matter of
Yahweh's chosen kings having a habit of turning out to be bad eggs, there is
a very rational explanation for this. Kings existed and reigned for a time.
In an ethnocentric society like ancient Israel, which thought that it was
the chosen people of Yahweh, they would quite naturally assume that Yahweh
had a direct hand in deciding who would be kings. That would have been
their explanation for why Saul, David, Solomon, Josiah, or any specific king
served. They served because they were chosen of Yahweh to be kings. In a
lineage of kings, however, there are bound to be some bad ones in the bunch,
so when this happened, biblical writers explained this by claiming that so
and so "did that which was evil in Yahweh's sight." Bad kings would create
enemies, and enemies would sometimes rebel or even assassinate the kings.
When this happened, the biblical writers had a simple explanation: these
kings had done that which was evil in Yahweh's sight, and so he had them
removed. That such a premise as this would conflict with the premise that
an all-knowing god had selected these bad eggs to be kings in the first
place probably didn't occur to them, or else they rationalized it away as
biblicists today rationalize away problems like this one we are talking
about. Dave's suggested solutions to the problem are good examples of the
extreme verbal gymnastics that biblicists will resort to in order to keep
their faith in biblical inerrancy intact.
(DAVE 4/25) Farrell: First, I didn't offer a solution, but commented. My
comments were not gymnastics, but fair observations. Your comments above
however ARE the "verbal gymnastics" you describe for one basic reason: you
are making your conclusions ALREADY CONVINCED that the Bible is wrong, so
you will find any other explanation to convince yourself (and others) of
this - I thought logic and science didn't presuppose anything. Your
explanation has no support, and is conjecture at best. Is it right?
You still haven't addressed the issue of why God would not "choose" a king
who he knew would disobey him. Why could he not do this?
Regards.
Dave
"An inevitable result fo autonomy is relativity. If men are their own
creators, then the social environment, destiny, and meaning of existence
created by one group of people, in one place and time, are not necessarily
relevant to another group of people in a different historical context.
Those in each society bring into being a system of thought and values that
has meaning only for those who create and live within it. This is
particularly true in the realm of morals...."
- Tony Campolo