Does God change his mind?

[OnceConvinced]

A Christian member of our forum recently pointed out a bible contradiction for all to see:

This verse was presented first:
Numbers 23:19 "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

The Christian then attempted to trump it with a contradictory scripture where God DOES change his mind, thus exposing a blatant bible contradiction:

Jeremiah 18:8 "But if that nation about which I spoke turns from its evil way, I'll change my mind about the disaster that I had planned for it."

Here are further verses that show God changing his mind:

Exodus 32:14
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Jeremiah 18:10
if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. (wow this is a verse where God says he will break his promise!!)


So questions for debate:

Does Got change his mind?
If he does change his mind, how do we know he hasn't changed his mind about much of what he expected from us in the New Testament?
If he does change his mind, how can we really know what he wants of us today?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 450 by hoghead1]

We agree there are errors in 'scripture' because it is the work of men. I agree that those many errors do not prove some God did not provide some inspiration for what ultimately is a flawed document. The problem is, once it is admitted the 'scripture' is fallible, it ceases to be scripture because we don't know what parts are from a god and what parts are flawed or human. In addition, the flaws are not minor. There are real whoppers like the 6 day creation, Abraham being ordered to kill his son, and many others including the internal contradictions.

So, since we know the Bible is flawed and since we don't know which are flaws and which passages might be accurate representations of this god's intent, NONE of it can be relied upon to represent the views of that 'God.'

[Blastcat]

The fact God lures or inspire us does not guarantee the results will be perfect.

perfect plan goes OUT the window

[Danmark]

The simplest way of finding out is to ask him.

This is the equivalent of "The Bible told me so."
It is not acceptable argument here.
The statement presupposes a god exists, one that responds to questions.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 451 by Danmark]

Wait a sec. You just said we know certain passages are flawed, then you say we don't know which ones are flawed. Please make up your mind. When you read the Bible, you have to do so with discretion, just as when you read any other book. Granted, some passages in Scripture are out the window, but others do have solid ground to them. If you get stuck on a particular passage, as to whether it is valid or not, then you have to use your own judgment. For example, I disagree with those passages in the OT that present God as punitive, juridical, the Ruthless Moralist. But I do agree with other passages than present God as essentially loving. I don't think of teh Bible as some sort of instruction book or definitive answer book. I think of the Bible as a kind of gateway to enter into the realm of the transcendent, come close to God. As far as I am concerned, the gateway is pretty rickety, but that's OK. It's just the entrance, where the journey begins, not the end. It's like, say, you are getting a faint signal coming in from some beat up old radio. You know you are not hearing it well, etc. You don't assume this is it, all there is. You assume you have opened up a portal to another dimension which needs be explored much further.

[marco]

Yes, but you see, you haven't explained to me why errors in a "divinely inspired work" mean it should be dumped. Common sense would tell you that if you are going to dump something because it is not infallible or requires judgment calls on your part to determine the truth, then you are going to have to dump all of history.

Nobody's dumping it. I am saying that it is unsafe to build a belief system on verses that might well be false. Truth is not built on falsehood. I agree that there are beautiful passages in the Bible but people may derive their views from the uglier sections of Deuteronomy. As indeed they did!

A symphony conductor inspires the orchestra, but cannot guarantee they will always follow his or her lead, and often they don't. Same with God and ourselves.

It isn't the same. You glibly use an analogy and assume a one to one correspondence in your fabrication.

Plus, I view God as working like a carpenter, working with the grain, not over and against it. God can only move us as far as we allow and are ready.

Yes, and that is YOUR view, of no use in illustrating what God does. I recall the story of a little girl drawing a picture. Her teacher asked: "What are you drawing, Mary?" And the child replied. "I am drawing God." The teacher, as teachers do, retorted that nobody knew what God was like and the child answered: "Well they soon will."

I get the same message from Hoghead - sometimes. Go well.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 451 by Danmark]

Wait a sec. You just said we know certain passages are flawed, then you say we don't know which ones are flawed. Please make up your mind. When you read the Bible, you have to do so with discretion, just as when you read any other book. Granted, some passages in Scripture are out the window, but others do have solid ground to them. If you get stuck on a particular passage, as to whether it is valid or not, then you have to use your own judgment. For example, I disagree with those passages in the OT that present God as punitive, juridical, the Ruthless Moralist. But I do agree with other passages than present God as essentially loving. I don't think of teh Bible as some sort of instruction book or definitive answer book. I think of the Bible as a kind of gateway to enter into the realm of the transcendent, come close to God. As far as I am concerned, the gateway is pretty rickety, but that's OK. It's just the entrance, where the journey begins, not the end. It's like, say, you are getting a faint signal coming in from some beat up old radio. You know you are not hearing it well, etc. You don't assume this is it, all there is. You assume you have opened up a portal to another dimension which needs be explored much further.

I think you missed the point Danmark was making. Let me try.
A document is either divinely inspired and therefore we should accept it as absolute truth or it is flawed and therefor untrustworthy as an infallible document.
If any part of the document can be shown to be flawed it can no longer be considered perfect. If one part of it is known (and can be demonstrated to be) flawed or contradictory, then we can no longer trust any of the document. We can no longer assume that the rest of it is divinely inspired.
When you deal with an absolute claim (the Bible is inspired) even one error puts the entire document in doubt.
Example: My doctor says I have cancer because it shows up on an Xray. I am in line for an operation. My doctor calls back and said the xray machine was having some problems. Do I have the operation or does the possible quirk in the xray machine put the analysis of cancer at risk ?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 451 by Danmark]

Wait a sec. You just said we know certain passages are flawed, then you say we don't know which ones are flawed. Please make up your mind. opened up a portal to another dimension which needs be explored much further.

Please don't misquote me by using a truncated version of what I wrote and doing so out of context. [Using the 'quote function' would help]
This is what I wrote and Joe1950 explained it perfectly for you:

The problem is, once it is admitted the 'scripture' is fallible, it ceases to be scripture because we don't know what parts are from a god and what parts are flawed or human.

But even that quote was based solely if one accepts YOUR claim about the inspiration of a god. MY view is that the Bible is entirely the work of men; 100% of it. My view is that THERE IS NO GOD of orthodox theism as described in the Bible.

[Danmark]

I disagree with those passages in the OT that present God as punitive, juridical, the Ruthless Moralist. But I do agree with other passages than present God as essentially loving. I don't think of teh Bible as some sort of instruction book or definitive answer book. I think of the Bible as a kind of gateway to enter into the realm of the transcendent, come close to God. As far as I am concerned, the gateway is pretty rickety, but that's OK. It's just the entrance, where the journey begins, not the end. It's like, say, you are getting a faint signal coming in from some beat up old radio. You know you are not hearing it well, etc. You don't assume this is it, all there is. You assume you have opened up a portal to another dimension which needs be explored much further.

In other words you decide what is of value and what is trash; not God. Fine, but what makes you think ANY of it is from God? The faint signal from far away may simply be from a source other than a god; that is, it is entirely human.

I agree that the Bible may provide a 'gateway' to get one thinking of the sublime, but according to your own analysis, it is not a guide to god or to the 'transcendent' since ultimately YOU decide what is valid. Its value is the same as that of a stone you gaze at, allowing you to enter the contemplative realm of your own unconscious. It also has value in revealing what others have thought about the possibility of something transcendent. It has that in common with other great literature.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 454 by hoghead1]

[center]

We don't rightly know just how WRONG the Bible is[/center]

You just said we know certain passages are flawed, then you say we don't know which ones are flawed.

We know of some that are.. we DON'T know if there are any major flaws in OTHER parts as well, that we CANNOT verify.

Theology?
Maybe they got big chunks of that wrong, too.

The human authors of the Bible were FLAWED.
We don't know by HOW MUCH.

[marco]

The simplest way of finding out is to ask him.

This is the equivalent of "The Bible told me so."
It is not acceptable argument here.
The statement presupposes a god exists, one that responds to questions.

That's because we are in a place where such a supposition is correct. In any event I was being facetious when I suggested the simplest way was to ask God, but if one is to take my words with solemnity, then many people do believe that ASKING results in RECEIVING. Not my view, but the prevailing view in this discussion area.