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?

[marco]

NO, of course not. Nobody is infallible. However, that isn't exactly the issue here. When we read the Bible or any work in "history," we have to use our discretion, fallible as that may be, too. All we can do is try and do the best we can.

You are optimistically assuming that decisions over history are like decisions in theology. They are not. We can reach historical conclusions from a wealth of experience. After all, history repeats itself. On making decisions about Biblical ideas - unless we are really just talking of historical or geographical detail - we are guided by our own bias or our own brand of faith.

How do we know what is true in the Bible? As I said before, it all depends on what extra-biblical sources you bring into the picture.

I am not talking about historical details such as whether Irenaeus knew Polycarp or whether Polycarp knew John. We are dealing with assumptions about God's influence and about matters of faith. If we discard events like the raising of Lazarus, the Cana miracle, the parting of the Red Sea, the metamorphosis of Lot's wife... then we might as well look for God in Shakespeare.

Your position is rather shaky.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 501 by marco]

Gee, you know, I'd love to respond to your post here. I have some very important points in mind I'd like to share. However, I have resolved to stay on track. I'm trying to set a shining example for others to follow. So I am going to postpone any further comments on this matter until the appropriate OP crops us. Meanwhile, let's get back to whether God changes.

[marco]

[Replying to post 501 by marco]

Gee, you know, I'd love to respond to your post here. I have some very important points in mind I'd like to share. However, I have resolved to stay on track. I'm trying to set a shining example for others to follow. So I am going to postpone any further comments on this matter until the appropriate OP crops us. Meanwhile, let's get back to whether God changes.

Commendable as your shining path plan might be, I feel you are wasting your pearls. What is lauded in the atria of academia, at least in the theological antechambers, counts for very little among hoi polloi.

As I said, the path towards discussing God's changeability requires us to look at God's qualities, which in turn requires us to say whence we have got our notions of the deity. Problems then arise over our sources, our interpretations and over our too confident trust in our personal view of what divinity means. That, I think, is why discussion invariably reaches an ad hominem level, not from rancour, but from necessity, since the God we are discussing is often no more than the hot opinion of the other person. He changes therefore in accordance with the will of his human inventor. I think this is obvious.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 503 by marco]

I don't follow you here. Are you saying the others here should be viewed as just hoi polloi and so forget about 'em, or what?

Yes, sometimes discussion get hot. Occupational hazard. When that happens, we all need to work to get back on track.


Yes, everyone here is expressing their "opinions." That's given. That's what we are all here to do. The discussion should focus on they that "opinion" is held, what the rationale is, which I what I have been trying to do. But first, I want to get back on track, stick with the OP, not get into side issues, such as taking to the "hoi polloi,"a as you put it, the fact tempers sometimes flare, etc.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 504 by hoghead1]

Oops. Last para. should start, "The discussion should focus on why they hold such an opinion..." I am again haunted by typo's.

[tryme]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]



Here's a simple answer---- there is no God! lol. And even if there is, he sure ain't in the Bible.
Here's a simple answer ----- the Bible was written by many different authors from many different cultures of many different generations with many different intentions! Of course shit ain't gonna line up.

[Blastcat]

I'm trying to set a shining example for others to follow.

And pray tell, what is this path?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]


Here's a simple answer---- there is no God! lol. And even if there is, he sure ain't in the Bible.
Here's a simple answer ----- the Bible was written by many different authors from many different cultures of many different generations with many different intentions! Of course shit ain't gonna line up.

Moderator Comment

Hi, Tryme. Just a couple of things.

This is the Theology, Doctrine and Dogma subforum, so as such the bible is considered authoritative.

Secondly you have used offensive language in your post. Please avoid this in future.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[marco]

I don't follow you here. Are you saying the others here should be viewed as just hoi polloi and so forget about 'em, or what?

I am certainly not saying this, since I am among hoi polloi and I not so self-effacing.

Let me explain my choice of words. I said:

" .... atria of academia, at least in the theological antechambers, counts for very little among hoi polloi. "

I am using hoi polloi in suitable antithesis to the halls of theological academe and Marco would find himself among the uninitiated -hoi polloi - in that he has not been baptized into high theology. It is a comment on the gulf that divides our views and the way they are respectively (but one hopes respectfully) expressed.

The discussion should focus on they that "opinion" is held, what the rationale is, which I what I have been trying to do.

I suppose "they" is a substitute for "the way" . The question of God's mind and its changes requires us to delve into what is understood by God so occasionally it seems we move away from the point.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 509 by marco]

Yes, we, or at least you, are getting way off the OP here, which is why I suggest that your concerns would be best addressed in sub-forums I have found here on educational requirements, etc. I came here to discuss changeability as it relates with God. That's the focus of the OP and that's the topic I'm sticking with.