PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE:God repenting and nacham



GrayPilgrim
March 4th, 2002, 11:12 PM
As OVers use the God repenting language as a proof text I see this as illegitimate here's why

To start here is NIDOTTE on nacham--

ni - be sorry, console oneself

pi- relieved

hitp- be sorry have compassion, repent, comfort oneself, be relieved, ease oneself

Okay then we see that ahh repent could be a possible rendering in the Hithpael. Only in Numbers 23:19 is God the subject of the Hithpael of nacham where this is a viable rendering, (not Genesis 6!) and their we see the little particle lo' at the head of the verse stating that it is not consistent with God's character that he should change his mind.

Then what about those passages that speak of God "nacham"ing well that is simple, he feels regret and sorrow for as Ezekiel said:


As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

geoff
March 4th, 2002, 11:21 PM
well said... apart from the typos...

hey, what happened to the beige pilgrim, the offwhite pilgrim, and the almost black pilgrim?

GrayPilgrim
March 4th, 2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by geoff
well said... apart from the typos...


What typos? :rolleyes:, oh if they would only get a Hebrew font on this sight!


hey, what happened to the beige pilgrim, the offwhite pilgrim, and the almost black pilgrim?

I don't know, ask JRR Tolkien, oops I guess we'll have to wait since necromancy is right out!;)

geoff
March 4th, 2002, 11:37 PM
hey, i live in middle earth, so they say (new zealand.. home of LOTR now) - want me to ask gandalf hahaha

Knightowl
March 5th, 2002, 09:03 AM
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?


1 Samuel 15:29
"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

1013
March 5th, 2002, 01:37 PM
from knightowlGod does not repent

correct. in those situations God does not repent. we could take the simplistic approach and remove these passages from their context of bribing God with sacrifice in numbers or with empty repentence in samuel.

funny thing is I don't have to ignore the context in these passages nor do I have to go far outside the context of exodus 32 and suggest something that has no Biblical precident (moses plays a pretend game with God), but that is precisely what you are doing knightowl.



Gray Pilgrim

I'm going to respond to you here for both this thread and the items mentioned in the illusory thread.

Lucky for you, I have found my lexicon by Holladay.

A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: based upon the lexical works of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner

Copyright 1988.

niham
nifal - 1. regret: a) have regrets, a change of heart 1 Samuel 15:29; b) niham 'al allow oneself change o heart regarding, relent regarding Ex 32:12.

granted I said that it meant a change in one's mind on page 18 of "illusory free will" but I don't commit the evangelical fallacy of seperating emotions from mental functioning because for some odd reason, some feel that a change in emotions is not a change in mind.

regardless in Ex 32:12, moses was asking for a change in plans and NASB properly translates it that way. There is no way around this. Would you have us believe that moses just wants God to feel bad for what he said he would do and then go ahead and do it while feeling bad about it? That's the impression I get from the short def. you give of the nifal.

In verse 14 it says that God repented (also the nifal) after all and strangely, God does not do what he says that he would do, wipe out the isrealites and start all over. That is strange if God just feels bad about doing what he said he would do because God can't change his plans so you might say.

Is moses special? Frequently in the Bible people prevail upon God to change what they percieve that he intends to do. We have every reason to assume that these people truly believe that God intends to do something and they truly believe that they may prevail upon him to change his plans.

For Balak and Saul, God is not a man that he should be manipulated. For Hezekiah, Amos, Moses, Abraham, and anyone else that loves God and has a relationship with him for whom we do not have explicit niham passages, God is quick to show mercy and relent from what he said he would do.

geoff
March 5th, 2002, 01:42 PM
1013,

Feeling sorry is NOT like changing your mind in the sense of changing your plan. That contradiction you made of yourself in you last post makes your post make no sense...

1013
March 5th, 2002, 01:58 PM
geoff,

no.

I'm going to wait for gp's or knightowl's response

Arminian
March 5th, 2002, 01:58 PM
Interesting topic. From Numbers 14:

Then the glory of the Lord appeared at the Tent of Meeting to all the Israelites. 11 The Lord said to Moses, "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they."
13 Moses said to the Lord , "Then the Egyptians will hear about it! By your power you brought these people up from among them. 14 And they will tell the inhabitants of this land about it. They have already heard that you, O Lord , are with these people and that you, O Lord , have been seen face to face, that your cloud stays over them, and that you go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. 15 If you put these people to death all at one time, the nations who have heard this report about you will say, 16 'The Lord was not able to bring these people into the land he promised them on oath; so he slaughtered them in the desert.'
17 "Now may the Lord's strength be displayed, just as you have declared: 18 'The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.' 19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now."
20 The Lord replied, "I have forgiven them, as you asked. "

1013
March 5th, 2002, 09:36 PM
good stuff arminian.

Of coarse I haven't looked closely but niham doesn't seem to be in this passage.

but that is of no consequence because God is clearly changing his plans in these passages.

Futhermore, we have every reason to believe that Moses thinks God intends to do something that moses tries to persuade him not to do. And Moses succeeds

geoff
March 5th, 2002, 09:47 PM
Ov'ers tend to use this passage to reinforce their [mis]understanding of nacham, by trying to prove that God DOES change his mind here... or actually, that God's limited foreknowledge is revealed here.

Its another thread however, and is easily disproved, for example, if they are right, then God is taught something that he didnt know by Moses, who DID know... which is complete barf material

Knightowl
March 6th, 2002, 12:34 AM
in those situations God does not repent.

The language used in these passages is broader in nature.

we could take the simplistic approach and remove these passages from their context of bribing God with sacrifice in numbers or with empty repentence in samuel.

What is simplistic is your characterization of contrary views rooted in the clear meaning of these passages. God does not say "I will not repent." He says, "I do not repent." Big difference.

funny thing is I don't have to ignore the context in these passages...

No, just the language of these passages.

...nor do I have to go far outside the context of exodus 32 and suggest something that has no Biblical precedent (moses plays a pretend game with God), but that is precisely what you are doing knightowl.

That is your simplistic charactization of that passage, not mine.

1013
March 6th, 2002, 10:54 AM
geoff raised a point that should be addressed.

Did Moses teach God something? No. God could have proceeded with the plan he described and have answered all of Moses objections. What does God care about how the eqyptians feel? If God wiped the jews out and started over with moses, he would've still been faithful to the promise to Abraham, and so on.

Moses changed God's mind because Moses had a special relationship with God and that was not one of manipulation but love.

both of you have a grand tendancy to ignore significant arguments.

Neither of you offered any decent understanding of exodus 32 nor numbers 14.

My paradigm can handle all of the passages brought up so far. your's can't.


God does not say "I will not repent." He says, "I do not repent." Big difference.

He says "I am not a man that I should repent." God doesn't have to change his mind if he doesn't want to. He is not a man, he is not weak like a man that he should cave in to bribery and persistent pestering. He is not capricious that if you ask him one moment, he'll say something different than he would at a later moment. All of that was taking place And this was said to someone who was trying to manipulate God. It was said to someone in particular, period. You would have us believe that none of this is important in terms of what effects God.

again in typical maelstrom fashion, you advance an argument ignoring the damaging things that have been said about your view. Moses believed that God could change his mind and there is no reasonable way to escape that. You're old answer demonstrates that you believe the text to have a maleability that it doesn't.

Both Moses and Balak were trying to change God's mind, except Moses was doing so far more explicitely. He demanded that God should turn from his anger and relent and all with the idea of getting God to do other than what he said he would do. Moses and balak got different results.


Furthermore, what's to prevent me from from taking numbers 23:19 like you guys would other niham passages? As Gray Pilgrim has stated, it is a hitpael form and it could mean to be sorry, have compassion, repent, comfort oneself, be relieved, ease oneself.

maybe God is just saying that he won't feel bad about his decision not to curse the israelites. I don't take it that way, but that is no different than you folks would suggest with other niham passages.

geoff
March 6th, 2002, 12:54 PM
My paradigm can handle all of the passages brought up so far. your's can't.

Actually, your paradigm says Moses was able to convince God that God was wrong... That God didnt know God would look foolish, etc, etc.

That really does NOT sound like handling the passages at all. In fact, its proof you dont.

GrayPilgrim
March 6th, 2002, 02:43 PM
1013 please show which Hebrew word you are translationg as should. Silly me I can't seem to find it.

Arminian
March 6th, 2002, 02:53 PM
13:


Of coarse I haven't looked closely but niham doesn't seem to be in this passage.

but that is of no consequence because God is clearly changing his plans in these passages.

I agree. He said "I will," but then he didn't. Philosophical catagories aside, God Changed his mind.

geoff
March 6th, 2002, 03:08 PM
Only if you want the passage to cause the problems theologically that I have already mentioned.

That doesnt even count for the fact that this passage can be satisfactory explained with out the errors arising from the assumption you are making

Arminian
March 6th, 2002, 03:21 PM
From the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis vol.3

(nhm), ni. be sorry, console oneself; pi. releaved (hapleg.); hitp. be sorry, have compassion, repent, confort oneself, be passion (hapleg.)...

2. The meaning of be sorry, repent, change one's mind. (a) the word is used to express two apparently contrasing sentiments in 1 Sam 15, where God says, "I am greived (nhm) that I made Saul king" (v. 11; cf v. 35), but where Samuel aso announces that "the Glory of Isreal does not lie or change his mind (nhm), for he is not a man, that he should change his mind (nhm)" (29). The explanation seems to be that God does not capriciously change his intentions or ways of acting, It is the change in Saul's behaviour that leads to this expression of regret. The refrence is notable as being one of the rare occasions when God is said to repent or change his mind concerning something intended to be good (cf. Gen 6:6)

(b) In many cases the Lord's "changing" of his mind is a gracious response to human factors. Thus in Jeremiah we often read that repentance on the part of the people (usually swb, but nhm in Jer 8:6 and 31:19) will make it possible of God to repent, change his mind (nhm) 18:8, 10; 20:16; 26:3, 13 19; cf. 42:10. Note God's response to Amos's pleas on behalf of Isreal (Amos 7:3, 6).

Arminian
March 6th, 2002, 03:26 PM
Geoff:


Only if you want the passage to cause the problems theologically that I have already mentioned.

I'm not concered with the ends. I'm concerned with the means.

1013
March 6th, 2002, 05:58 PM
Gray Pilgrim, every translation I looked at including the NASB translates it that way and according to my Hebrew Syntax by Ron Williams, this is a legitimate way to take the imperfect. It is the obligative of the imperfect.

God is not a man that he is obligated to change his plans.




as always geoff does not understand open theism nor does he care to. John Sanders explicitly denied the view geoff just outlined in The God who risks. With openness, it is as I have already written. God could have done as he threatened and remained true to his promises and character.

geoff
March 6th, 2002, 06:02 PM
Arminian:

GP has already shown that to be wrong

Besides... you should know that the best translations is NOT usually the one that causes huge theological problems... (i admit... it is sometimes, ie RARELY... VERY VERY RARELY the case)

1013:
Col Sanders is a very confused man... besides... you cant get away from the problems... no matter how much you deny them.

1013
March 6th, 2002, 06:04 PM
*chirp, chirp, chip* (cricket sounds) :p

geoff
March 6th, 2002, 06:07 PM
ah yes...

perhaps you should see a doctor?

GrayPilgrim
March 6th, 2002, 06:37 PM
1013 (BTW what does that mean?)

I've been trying not to get overly technical, but here it a little smattering of text-linguistic grammar, which is based on formal categories as opposed to whim to get what something is. A yiqtol [imperfect is a poor term as it fails to describe the function of the prefixed verb form thus using qtl (to kill) as a paradigm yiqtol] may be translated as having a modal force under certain circumstances.

1) Is this verb a part of direct speech?

If yes go to (a), if no go to (2) [BTW I can tell you those rules later, but as it is not germane to the topic at hand, other than that it is when a verb form is outside its normal domain that it tends to take on the modal force you want it to have]

a) What form is the verb (0+yiqtol, w+yiqtol, wayyiqtol, 0+qatal, w+qatal, 0+qetol, w+qetol, 0+yaqom, w+yaqom, etc.)? In this case w+yiqtol

b) What is the normal domain of the verb form? w+yiqtols are a discourse verb. By that I mean an overwhelming majority of w+yiqtols are found in direct speech.

c) What is the normal behavior of the verb form in its normal domain? We see from the 31 uses in the book of Numbers, that all 31 are part of direct speech (this is the same general trend throughout the Pentateuch as well) so we can safely label it a discursive form, thus your hoped for modal force is not the force of this verb. Moreover, they all have a nonmodal force. In Numbers 6 in the priestly blessing the actually take an imperatival mood, still not modal though!

Hope you could follow my mumbo jumbo, just think I actually like this stuff, tells you how sick I must be!

I filled out a little more of (c)

geoff
March 6th, 2002, 06:40 PM
right on!

Knightowl
March 6th, 2002, 07:29 PM
Has He said, and will He not do it?
~Sometimes.

Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
~Not in this case, but...

Arminian
March 6th, 2002, 08:04 PM
Geo:


GP has already shown that to be wrong

No, he hasn't.


Besides... you should know that the best translations is NOT usually the one that causes huge theological problems... (i admit... it is sometimes, ie RARELY... VERY VERY RARELY the case)


Again, I don't care about the ends; I care about the means. I already provided an identical circumstance in which God said "I will," yet did not.

Now, as a reader, I understand the purpose of the narrative. I don't attempt to philosophize it. Our purpose is to experience the text, not repackage it.

Keep in mind that I'm not an OV'er. You have my philosophical sympathies. (And I mean it!!):)

geoff
March 6th, 2002, 08:29 PM
Armyman!

Well, its all very well to read it... anyone can read it anyway they like, that does not mean that the way the understand it is capturing the understanding and intention of the author.

Elsewhere Moses is dead set against a changing God, so why would he put this in, to confuse us? Why would Moses make himself look better then God here? he wouldnt. Simple.

Either you are misunderstanding what he has to say, or Moses is screwed in the head.

Arminian
March 6th, 2002, 08:54 PM
Geo:


Elsewhere Moses is dead set against a changing God, so why would he put this in, to confuse us? Why would Moses make himself look better then God here? he wouldnt. Simple.

Where does Moses put fort this philosophy against changing God's mind? God said, "I will," Moses reasoned with him, and then God didn't do it.

There are no words to reinterpret here. We merely observe what happened. Narrative works that way. We don't get to take control of it.


Either you are misunderstanding what he has to say, or Moses is screwed in the head.

On the contrary, I feel no need to force the episode into my philosophical grid. I actually observe God not doing what he said he would do. I don't feel uncomfortable with that, because I understand that the narrative was written for another purpose.

1013
March 6th, 2002, 09:57 PM
Knightowl


Has He said, and will He not do it?


Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

How appropriate are these words in the context. Balak places his hopes in the capriciousness of God and such is not the case.

essentially God is saying in modern language, "look you moron, what did I just say. why would I say it and not do it."

once again, the context is as nothing to you, but as to "has he not said" we can ask "said what?"

"He has blessed and I cannot revoke it"

"will he not do it?" Do what?

"'See what God has done!' Look, a people rising up like a lioness"


once agian, I can affirm this, but in your insistence, you would nullify passages Jerimaiah 18:7-8 as well as the passages we have been discussing.


7 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.


Gray Pilgrim

It was pretty much over my head. perhaps you could help me with terms like modal in that context and direct speech.

And how would you translate these without "should." Why would you think the imperfect of potential (which I take to be your approach) would be more appropriate.

GrayPilgrim
March 7th, 2002, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by 1013
Gray Pilgrim

It was pretty much over my head. perhaps you could help me with terms like modal in that context and direct speech.

And how would you translate these without "should." Why would you think the imperfect of potential (which I take to be your approach) would be more appropriate.

Modal = twist. By this I mean you take an indicative like "I eat". Then you twist it with a nuance like "I must eat" or in hits case "I should eat".

Direct speech is a quote set of by certain markers. In English we use quotation marks. While in Hebrew they don't have any quotation marks, there is a marker for the beginning direct speech, ‘amar. So that which follows ‘amar is a quote, interestingly other speech words in Hebrew don’t seem to perform this function with any consistency.

My approach to this passage would be in a rough translation would go like this—

“God is not a man, that he lies, or a son of man, that he change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

Notice the simple indicative mood of the verbs as opposed to the modal “should lie” or “should change”. Part of the reason that you don’t find this in any translation is the tyranny Latin grammar has had on Hebrew syntax. Unfortunately the best Hebrew grammar is in German, which is not my strong suite in languages anymore, Wolfgang Schneider Grammatik des Biblischen Hebraisch.

Later!

1013
March 7th, 2002, 10:11 AM
How unfortunate that Latin learning should have such an ill effect as that is my next acedemic goal.

at any rate, I have some examples from Ronald J Williams that have the obligative of the imperfect and are part of direct speech.

Genesis 20:9, II Sam 13:12, and, though I'm not sure what williams is thinking of in this passage, its probably what NASB translates "needs to be awakened" in I Kings 18:27.

all of these are set off by amar.

Now you say all of our oppressed modern translations have been tyrannized by latin, but even supposing, for a minute, that the translation they have given may be less likely than yours, it does not mean that theirs is wrong and yours is right but only that given the way hebrew typically works, yours has a higher probability of being right. Given that, what for me tips the scales in favor of my understanding is that it fits the context very well. Some fella is trying to take advantage of a capriciousness that he hopes is God's. He gets a no from God and goes back three or four more times. And this understanding does not confilict with what we know of God's history of relenting from his plans more than once, a few of the best examples being what has been discussed here without address from your side.

And granted, you claim that their grammer is influenced by latin for ill, they nevertheless are experts who have unanimously treated this passage in the manner I am suggesting.

geoff
March 7th, 2002, 12:52 PM
now, that was a *buuuurp*

1013
March 28th, 2002, 10:38 AM
bump

geoff
March 28th, 2002, 05:16 PM
...supposing, for a minute, that the translation they have given may be less likely than yours, it does not mean that theirs is wrong and yours is right but only that given the way hebrew typically works, yours has a higher probability of being right. Given that, what for me tips the scales in favor of my understanding is that it fits the context very well.

I suspect, and in fact am certain, that GP took context into account (as he should)... which effectively null and voids your argument

1013
March 28th, 2002, 08:07 PM
Then let him speak for himself.

geoff
March 28th, 2002, 08:30 PM
He shouldnt have to, as it is obvious from what he has already said...

that means, he has already spoken...

saniol
March 28th, 2002, 08:43 PM
I'd like to use the example of Moses "convincing God to change His mind" to make a point about this whole discussion.

If we are to take the hard and fast literal approach to this passage and assert that God changed his mind here, then we also have to deny God's omnipresence because in that same passage he says that he is going to go down to the city and see if what he has heard about it is true.

If we interpret all of this in the same way, then we have to deny God'd foreknowledge, his omnipresence, and his exhaustive knowledge of the past (because he wants to see if what he heard is true).

Are you willing to deny all of those perfections in God. I'm not.

We must understand that God is so far above us that we cannot comprehend his ways. So, in order to help finite mankind understand a little of how he works, God uses language in Scripture to "describe" what has happened. It is not meant to pull God down to a human level.

1013
March 28th, 2002, 08:43 PM
geoff, do us all a favor and shut up for a change. You've offered nothing but speculation on what someone else thinks. real cheap. Your last post as do so many others of yours offers nothing to the conversation and evidences, in the words of the proverbs, a perverse love of quarrels.

[the preceding was written before I became moderator. I have mixed feelings about this post and I believe as a moderator I would frown upon this.]

1013
March 28th, 2002, 08:56 PM
If we are to take the hard and fast literal approach to this passage and assert that God changed his mind here, then we also have to deny God's omnipresence because in that same passage he says that he is going to go down to the city and see if what he has heard about it is true.

wrong story. this isn't about sodom and gomaorrah. God did not say that that he had to go down and see the city in exodus 32.

But what does that story of sodom and gomorrah mean for God's omnipresence. I don't know, but I don't use it as a basic hermeneutical example. I don't see that it is justified to interpret exodus 32 with difficulties with our theology with concern for abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah.



If we interpret all of this in the same way, then we have to deny God'd foreknowledge

God knows the future as it truly is and if some of the future is undetermined and open to possibilities, God's foreknowledge means that he knows it as undetermined and open to possibilities and not settled. If God's foreknowledge doesn't match an indeterministic future, and the future is indeed indeterministic in the sense that multiple possibilities are open at certain junctions, then God is not omniscient.


Are you willing to deny all of those perfections in God.

I'm willing to deny that we can always know everything that perfection entails.


We must understand that God is so far above us that we cannot comprehend his ways.

we must understand God as well as we can understand what he has revealed in scripture and through the holy spirit. God has revealed that he changes his plans for those he loves such as moses. Saniol, I encourage you to read this thread and consider the strength of the perception that moses beleived that God could change his plans and he acted upon it. I chanllenge you as all the others have failed to do (they didn't even try) to offer an alternative explanation that is true to the text.

[quote]God uses language in Scripture to "describe" what has happened. It is not meant to pull God down to a human level.[quote]

Of course.

Surly-DwarF
March 28th, 2002, 09:17 PM
1013 ...a perverse love of squirrels.

Shame on you Geoff!

Surly-DwarF
March 28th, 2002, 09:26 PM
1013 If God's foreknowledge doesn't match an indeterministic future, and the future is indeed indeterministic in the sense that multiple possibilities are open at certain junctions, then God is not omniscient.

This sounds like an open denial of God's omniscience to me.


God has revealed that he changes his plans for those he loves such as moses.

Wrong. That's a totally unsubstantiated assertion. I know I said I was going to cease dialogue with you, Rob, and I am, but that doesn't mean I won't point these things out for the benefit of others.


I chanllenge you as all the others have failed to do (they didn't even try) to offer an alternative explanation that is true to the text.

I haven't been following this thread, but I find the above statement to be highly dubious. In fact, I'm sure it's flatly incorrect, and it's the quintessential example of what I've been talking about the last 3 days.

1013
March 28th, 2002, 09:27 PM
mike, at least you have had the decency to apologize when someone has been offended at your behavior. Geoff has never done this.

and yes, this is a perverse love of quarrels. there is no content.

perhaps you wrongfully think I post without a point except to tick people off. admitedly, I have stooped to geoff's level at geoff.

but it is the delema of proverbs 26:4-5

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.


atmittedly, my own pride desires to see that goeff is not wise in his own eyes. But that is a fools quest and I am a fool for responding to him at all.

1013
March 28th, 2002, 09:56 PM
This sounds like an open denial of God's omniscience to me.

How is it a deniel of God's omniscience to say that He knows all of reality in its entirety as it truly is?


Wrong. That's a totally unsubstantiated assertion. I know I said I was going to cease dialogue with you, Rob, and I am, but that doesn't mean I won't point these things out for the benefit of others.

I'm not worried about substantiating everything in every thread. the issue in this thread is primarily God changes his mind or not. Not the why, but I have supplied a why that is reasonable and its reasonableness can be demonstrated. God's has changed his plans in favor of the desires of those who love him such as moses and hezekiah and he changes his plans for the penitent such the people of Nineveh. He did not change his plans in favor of those who simply desire to manipulate Him such as Balak or saul.


I haven't been following this thread, but I find the above statement to be highly dubious. In fact, I'm sure it's flatly incorrect, and it's the quintessential example of what I've been talking about the last 3 days.

This is an incredible grossly erroneous assessment. GRAY PILGRIM, GEOFF AND KNIGHTOWL HAVE ALL AVOIDED THE TEXTS THAT ARMINIAN AND I HAVE POINTED OUT. I addressed theirs, but they did not address ours. Knightowl attempted one in a another thread elsewhere just before this thread which he didn't try to argue any further.

your post above is the quintessence of the problem here. Look in the mirror for a change.

you say my assertion is dubious. you give no reason why. of course it isn't substantiated ON THIS PAGE because both arminian and I have laboriously done so on the last couple of pages. This isn't a huge thread dwarf.


I haven't been following this thread

and you have attacked my way of doing things.

geoff
March 29th, 2002, 03:12 PM
Surly,

perverse love of quarrels? shame on me...

The only perverse thing around here is 1013 (well, not the *only* perverse thing, but you get my meaning).

Harking back to Rob's entry in this forum, it was He who first got in a huff and started calling people 'stupid', 'idiots' etc

Anyway, thats beside the point... his current 'huff' is because I pointed out that GP's language was clear... hmm why should I have to apologise for that? What could possibly be wrong with that? I dunno... Not much of anything he says makes sense to me...

1013
March 29th, 2002, 03:51 PM
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.


and now he's a liar

geoff
March 29th, 2002, 06:32 PM
"4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

You just did.

Surly-DwarF
March 29th, 2002, 07:41 PM
Geoff,

Sorry, I wasn't seriously saying Shame on you. I guess you guys missed the lil joke I tried there, maybe because the "quote" font type is so small. Rob had said something in an earlier post about you having a perverse love of quarrels, and I immediately, because of my warped brain, thought "perverse love of SQUIRRELS", and said to myself that I had to do a mock quote. But it apparently fell flat, hehe. See? ;)

geoff
March 29th, 2002, 07:44 PM
ahh i c... yeah it is small.. hehe... and I just looked back at the original post to see what he said instead of reading your post... more fool me

Surly-DwarF
March 29th, 2002, 08:20 PM
1013 mike, at least you have had the decency to apologize when someone has been offended at your behavior. Geoff has never done this.

Rob, I did what I felt I needed to do, and will again if need be.


How is it a deniel of God's omniscience to say that He knows all of reality in its entirety as it truly is?

I'm tempted to say nevermind because now I understand what you meant, namely that God does have omniscience, just not EDF, but as I reflect on the entire statement I find it very difficult to see how you can claim to believe God has anything remotely approaching real Omniscience that is greater than any mere mortal possesses. But, whatever. I really am not looking to debate on this thread right now.


I'm not worried about substantiating everything in every thread. the issue in this thread is primarily God changes his mind or not. Not the why, but I have supplied a why that is reasonable and its reasonableness can be demonstrated. God's has changed his plans in favor of the desires of those who love him such as moses and hezekiah and he changes his plans for the penitent such the people of Nineveh. He did not change his plans in favor of those who simply desire to manipulate Him such as Balak or saul.

All right. In light of what I just said, I'm going to let it slide, even though I strongly disagree that God has changed His mind/plans in the way you claim. I may come back here and get into it with you if and when other things are slow and I have the time.


This is an incredible grossly erroneous assessment.

Whose word should I take for it...yours or mine?


GRAY PILGRIM, GEOFF AND KNIGHTOWL HAVE ALL AVOIDED THE TEXTS THAT ARMINIAN AND I HAVE POINTED OUT. I addressed theirs, but they did not address ours. Knightowl attempted one in a another thread elsewhere just before this thread which he didn't try to argue any further.

Ok, if you say so. I won't contradict you since I haven't gone back and read it all yet, but I do still doubt it. I can't really see those guys slinking away with their tails tucked between their legs like a pack of whooped mongrels because you and Arminian gave them hell and they were dumbfounded. Sorry, I just can't.


your post above is the quintessence of the problem here. Look in the mirror for a change.

I'll try, but I'm not so purty.

1013
March 30th, 2002, 08:22 AM
I'm tempted to say nevermind because now I understand what you meant, namely that God does have omniscience, just not EDF

great, I'm really glad you see where I'm coming from, (at least on this small account.)


but as I reflect on the entire statement I find it very difficult to see how you can claim to believe God has anything remotely approaching real Omniscience that is greater than any mere mortal possesses.

there is a vast amount of knowlege to be had on what is settled that is not available to us. Furthermore, in an indeterministic universe, there is far more to know in terms of what possibilities will be open to the future. In a deterministic universe, God only has to know what events will occur for him to be omnisicient. But in an indeterministic universe, God has to know possible alternatives (which in many, if not all cases is not infinite in number but extrememly large) and that exponentially increases the amount of knowledge to be had, far beyond that necessary in a deterministic universe, that we mortals could never hope to acheive, in order for him to be omniscient.

But foreknowledge isn't the primary issue here in this thread. After all, arminian, subscribes to EDF.


Whose word should I take for it...yours or mine?... Ok, if you say so. I won't contradict you since I haven't gone back and read it all yet, but I do still doubt it.

read it and weep.

I just read it all this morning for review (in less than half an hour, maybe even 15 min) these are not long posts. Knightowl, focuses on numbers 23, which I address, and Gray pilgrim focuses also on numbers 23, in particular the syntactal issues, which I also address. Nobody tries to address the passages that Arminian and I discussed at length. At most Geoff, said that the way we handle it creates theological difficulties. (of course it does, for him) but he offered no alternative way to take them. Of course had he done so, someone else would've had to take that up because then, I was not responding to geoff, not directly because I was sick of him and his tom foolery even then.

It has been a pretty assymetrical discussion.

Knightowl
March 30th, 2002, 11:54 AM
GRAY PILGRIM, GEOFF AND KNIGHTOWL HAVE ALL AVOIDED THE TEXTS THAT ARMINIAN AND I HAVE POINTED OUT. I addressed theirs, but they did not address ours. Knightowl attempted one in a another thread elsewhere just before this thread which he didn't try to argue any further.

Ok, if you say so. I won't contradict you since I haven't gone back and read it all yet, but I do still doubt it. I can't really see those guys slinking away with their tails tucked between their legs like a pack of whooped mongrels because you and Arminian gave them hell and they were dumbfounded. Sorry, I just can't.

Sometimes, RL is just too demanding. At times like those, arguing with Flat-Earthers and their theological equivalents just isn't worth it.

1013
March 30th, 2002, 01:23 PM
I'm starting to think that you are knowingly lying to yourself intellectually knightowl.

So frequently you post absolutely nothing when you don't know what to say to a good arguement. some dumb assesment that attempts to demonstrate nothing is often what you end up offering.

It is a glaring omission that none of you have addressed our passages.

For all those flat earthers we've got mathematics and empiracle data. It can be shown that the earth is round. You can't even show a reasonable explanation for the obvious and most natural implication of the passages we've raised that confilict with your view.

if anyone should be compared to flat earther's it's you and your ridiculous "moses knows God pretends to change" argument that you didn't dare pursue in this thread. I addressed that attempt and it is really bad. Real flat earth quality. So you can can be mature enough to honestly deal with the all too natural and normal implications that we raised with our passages.

lets cut the junior high antics and honestly address the issue. No one should place their faith in your assessment. give an explanation or hold your peace. This is a discussion forum for discussion.

1013
May 8th, 2002, 12:38 PM
bump

Surly-DwarF
May 8th, 2002, 01:09 PM
Ok Rob,

Sooo, I'm only able to come here rather sporadically of late and have limited time, but I'll try to carry on this thread with you as I'm able if no one else wants to. At least to a certain point. I'll give my best answers to any questions/arguments, as long as we don't keep covering the same old ground and as long as I detect no evasion, double-speak etc. But, since I haven't been one of the main players here and the thread is cold, I don't know where to begin. You said you and Arminian had some verses that no one was able give a reasonable accounting for. Do you want to talk about one of those or what? Ball's in your court.

Mike

geoff
May 8th, 2002, 01:37 PM
Surly,

A reasonable accounting was given to the verses, 1013 arbitrarily decided that the evidence was insufficient... You could do it all again, with, indubitably the same result, I guess.

1013
May 8th, 2002, 02:48 PM
Ball's in your court.

Despite four pages this is a very short thread. It will take you 20 minutes or less.


I'll give my best answers to any questions/arguments, as long as we don't keep covering the same old ground and as long as I detect no evasion, double-speak etc.

Don't worry. I don't do that. maybe someone has a perception problem :noid:


I'll give my best answers to any questions/arguments

remember that I decide what I find compelling and that is not arbitrary. If you have answers that satisfy you, bueno, but don't demand that I think with your reasoning.

Surly-DwarF
May 8th, 2002, 03:57 PM
Geoff,

Uh, yeah, you're probably right and I'm beginning to have second thoughts, but just for kicks I might read through the whole thing when I get a chance and see if there's any point to it.

1013
May 8th, 2002, 05:52 PM
Wow mike. You worry that I might be evasive and excercize double speak and yet here you are once again prejudging before examining the evidence.

Are you serious about this or are you going to read this just for kicks. But when you read through it and can honestly recognize the evasions, you'll get a kick alright.

But there is a point to it. Remember, I did not start this thread. Gray Pilgrim did and he nor anyone else defended that position as biblically consistent (our passages were not addressed) nor necessarily arising from the text, (you could take his view on the particular passages that were discussed by the immutabilists here, but on account of rules written by the grammarians and the treatment of other experts, there is room for disagreement) and account of the former, the classical position has failed as far as this thread is concerned.

It's all there plain as day.

By the way, the meat and potatoes of this thread is only 2 pages plus a couple more posts. Time constraints really are no excuse.

geoff
May 8th, 2002, 07:03 PM
Mike:

1013 said

remember that I decide what I find compelling and that is not arbitrary. If you have answers that satisfy you, bueno, but don't demand that I think with your reasoning.

Ie:

It doesnt matter waht you say, or what evidence you produce, I am going to believe what I believe regardless.

Surly-DwarF
May 9th, 2002, 12:52 PM
Geoff,

Yeah, going on past experience, it wouldn't surprise me, but I still might review the thread and make a few comments, especially after he chided me up there. Not because I think there's any validity to it, but because he thinks there is and I want to act in good faith. Or something. Not exactly sure what I mean. I just don't want him to think I'm any worse of a guy than he already does. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but anyway :)

Surly-DwarF
May 9th, 2002, 01:03 PM
1013 Wow mike. You worry that I might be evasive and excercize double speak and yet here you are once again prejudging before examining the evidence.

I'm not prejudging, Roberto. I have an inkling of what's to transpire, backed up by experience.


Are you serious about this or are you going to read this just for kicks. But when you read through it and can honestly recognize the evasions, you'll get a kick alright.

I'm seriously going to read through it for kicks and because I AM going to evaluate the arguments used on both sides to see what I think of them. That should make you happy, right? You charge that Geoff, GP and Mael evaded. I guess we'll find out.


But there is a point to it. Remember, I did not start this thread. Gray Pilgrim did and he nor anyone else defended that position as biblically consistent (our passages were not addressed)

Geoff seems to think so. But again, we'll see.


...nor necessarily arising from the text, (you could take his view on the particular passages that were discussed by the immutabilists here, but on account of rules written by the grammarians and the treatment of other experts, there is room for disagreement) and account of the former, the classical position has failed as far as this thread is concerned.

It's all there plain as day.

Ok, I understand what you're saying and what you truly feel has happened, but that is a pretty strong claim, and in light of the bludgeoning the OV has taken on other threads, I'm not overly optimistic on your behalf.


By the way, the meat and potatoes of this thread is only 2 pages plus a couple more posts. Time constraints really are no excuse.

Ok, ok. I'm just not very fast...

Mike

geoff
May 9th, 2002, 01:37 PM
Mike,

lemme send you a rocket pack

:D

1013
May 9th, 2002, 03:15 PM
I'm not prejudging, Roberto. I have an inkling of what's to transpire, backed up by experience.

well, my experience tells me that you have not interpreted your experiences well mikerto. I'm really not interesested in these general assessements because they are never backed up by specifics and I find them offensive. If I knew they had a basis in truth, It would be different. If you ever want to seriously discuss this, perhaps Geoff's god test thread is still around to be bumped(I assume that thread might be typical of what you are complaining of). To be sure, I had to think through some things in the middle but I am convinced that I my position came out stronger, and then to top it off, arminian, who holds to edf came out and repeated some of the same things I had said and this without even reading my posts. But lets not discuss that here but in that thread and only if you want to bump it. If its gone, I suppose you could start the topic over again and that might get us somewhere but it won't be exactly the same as examining the methodology.

Also, perhaps you treat systems of thought as if they ought to be frozen and if someone changes something for a problem, perhaps you think that that is evasive, or doublespeak or what have you. But mike we think paradigmatically and paradigms can undergo several significant changes and still hold strongly to the central positions. It isn't doublespeak or evasions but is quite natural and rational and it is the way science functions. It is both unavoidably subjective and objective. But my paradigm never underwent any significant changes in that thread. As to whether there were actually changes or I just merely got better at defending the position, I haven't made up my mind on that and it has been awhile.


That should make you happy, right? You charge that Geoff, GP and Mael evaded.

Ironically, geoff is the only one who barely addressed the other verses, but intead of giving an alternative explanation (sorely needed) he just said, "well this just creates theological problems" and the problems were rebutted to which Geoff just repeated himself without rebutting the rebutts, just as he did in the annhilation thread very recently on the corporate election buisness with regards to individuals. No significant attention is given by geoff and no attetnion by anyone else.


and in light of the bludgeoning the OV has taken on other threads, I'm not overly optimistic on your behalf.

again experience is interpreted. I've got a different interpretation :D


Ok, ok. I'm just not very fast...

bueno

Surly-DwarF
May 16th, 2002, 10:36 AM
bump

1013
May 18th, 2002, 11:16 PM
Although Gray Pilgrim has failed to make his case against taking sense of the imperfect form of nachum in the numbers 23 passage as the obligative as I have provided biblical counter examples from grammarian Ron Williams, it has come to my attention that there is another passage cited by bill betzler that would've served Pilgrim and knightowl's purposes better for their claims and that is Malachi 3:6 which is translated "I do not change".

I bring this up that because I have focused on demonstrating that the context contributes to the case for taking nachum in numbers as the obligitive of the imperfect. But as that may not be possible nor is it picked up upon by any translators for Malachi 3:6, we are back to a challenge that knightowl made. He since the passage said "I do not change" instead of "I won't change," (and of course as I have shown his instistance for that verse is on shaky ground) we should take that as broadly as possible meaning total immutibility.

I only challenged that that verse said that at all. I said it was was of obligation. God didn't have to change. I didn't challenge that "I do not change" as opposed to "I should not" could not be limited by context.

But as that will not work for Malachi 3:6, knightowl's claim should be examined again for this verse.

For malachi 3:6 I will once again point to the context only this time, I will say that in light of the context, even if I could argue that this was the obligative of the imperfect, I'm not sure that I would want to because it is not just the case that God is not obliged to change but rather that he doesn't change in these instances.

What is the context here? In 3:5 God lists evils that he is against. He does not change on account of those. Then in 3:6 and on, God speaks of issues relating to his promises of his people. The sons of Jacob will not be consumed.

So here do we see that the changlessness necessarily refers to all possible changes? Not at all but rather in how God judges, and concerning the preservation of his people. In this, he will not and does not change.

Now to those who would insist otherwise, that we should take this statement in the broadest sense possible, I'll say that we just don't use language that way. I could say "I do not lie" and someone could come up to me and say "well what about the time long ago when such and such hApped and you said..." Well obviously the context of what the case is currently is in view as opposed to my whole life. Or what if you walked up some lady and pinched her bum. She could smack you and say "I don't go in for that kind of behavior." Well if she's married she might go in for that kind of behavior after all, but not in a context outside of marriage. But was she wrong to say to you what she did? not at all.

Surly-DwarF
May 20th, 2002, 12:42 PM
I've started going thru the thread to see what I make of it. Not sure how soon or how long of a response I'll be making yet. I've been thinking over the Numbers and Exodus passages. Now I guess I'll have to add Malachi to them. At any rate, it might be helpful if you'd tell me exactly what you think they're trying to tell us. It seems to me that you are interpreting them as teaching God changed His mind or purpose about some things He fully intended to do, based on the intercession of another i.e. Moses. Is that it, or is there more to what you're saying? I want to give you the chance here to very clearly state what you're asserting and the IMPLICATIONS of your interpretations. Like I said, I think I already have a pretty good idead, but I don't want to go off on a wild goose chase.

Mike

geoff
May 20th, 2002, 02:02 PM
Mike,

Maybe I can help here:

Rob is trying to tell us that those passages indicates God has changes, and that at least some of the future is uncertain and unknowable by God.

Call out the posse if I am wrong...

yee haw, git along lil doggies
(ever wondered what it would be like to hear John Wayne reading the sunday morning bible reading? lol)

1013
May 20th, 2002, 06:27 PM
Well, what I've pointed out is that how moses acts and what he says indicates that he believes that God can change his mind.

What arminian has emphasised is that God said he would do something and then he doesn't do it. Either he lied or he changed his mind.

Nothing has been said about this except for what little (very little) that Geoff said. No alternative understanding has been given.

As for the verses against God's repentence, they have a context and ought not be removed from that context to say things that they don't. My first volley of responses for this emphasized the context of the numbers passage and syntactical issues. For Malachi 3:6, as far as I can tell, the syntactical issue is not the same and I have emphasized the context and have pointed to the normality of the way I have taken the language there.

geoff
May 20th, 2002, 06:40 PM
Moses DOESNT say God can change his mind at all, especially in Ex 32, what He DOES says is that God would be acting inconsistantly with His Own nature if He did do what He said.

If God can not act any other way apart from in accordance with His own nature, Moses was fairly safe pointing it out, now wasnt he?

Thats the point... the passage was never intended to show God 'changes' but rather that God grants Mercy in accordance with His nature, and that His people need someone to intercede for them (a type of the Messiah).

I would suggest the Word Commentary on this passage, as it has a fairly technical and relatively objective view on it.

1013
May 20th, 2002, 06:45 PM
2nd post

I am waiting for your response surly.

I'd like to mention that when I spoke of implications, I believe that I was talking about the implications of what moses believed. If Moses had certain beliefs as a result of his highly important encounters with God, it is certainly reasonable for us to conclude that his beliefs are accurate.

geoff
May 20th, 2002, 07:01 PM
We can only come to any conclusion about what Moses believed by What He sais, and what he said was that God would not be acting in accordance with His own Nature if he destroyed Israel arbitrarily.

1013
May 20th, 2002, 07:06 PM
My conversation is not with just anyone surly, but if you like what someone else says, you can repeat it and argue along those lines if you like.

geoff
May 20th, 2002, 07:13 PM
hahahha...

now there's a confidence inspiring post

Surly-DwarF
May 21st, 2002, 09:16 AM
Rob,

Thanks for boiling your position down for me somewhat. You'll have an answer, or some kind of statement-like thingy before too long hopefully. You may have noticed I'm not posting on other threads till I finish dealing with this one. I think what Geoff has said so far is pretty on the mark, though I may have more to say about it or slightly different slants when I give my reasons, though I'm sure I'll be repeating some of what he and others have said. In other words, though I'm still giving the whole matter thought, I haven't been obliged to alter my views. Mainly, I'm considering the best way to point out how I think the "God actually changes His mind" argument(s) comes up short (very short). Because, in my honest judgment, being as unbiased as I know how to be, I think they're untenable. But that probably doesn't surprise you.

Mike

1013
May 21st, 2002, 11:07 AM
You may have noticed I'm not posting on other threads till I finish dealing with this one.

bless your heart


I think what Geoff has said so far is pretty on the mark

just so you know, anything that you do not bring up will not be addressed by me as far as what he says is concerned. I will point out that rebuttle is not enough. You must refute what I've said or I will bring up what you've neglected. Geoff has offered nothing in the way of refutation but only rebuttle and I have refuted his previous rebuttles to which he just repeated himself without addressing the refutation. (refutation is a direct attck on the reasoning put forward. a rebuttle is not direct but a reason not to hold the opposing position without directly addressing the the specific arguments laid out for that position) But there is something new on the previous page that he has mentioned recently that would be worthy of discussion. But it is not worth discussing with him.

1013
June 1st, 2002, 08:18 PM
boint!

geoff
June 1st, 2002, 09:05 PM
i am moved to pity...

seriously...

jeremiah
June 1st, 2002, 09:30 PM
If one is incapable of ever imposing their will upon a superior being, then one's hopes lie in the chance that something said, or done, or given, might please the superior one so that he would change his mind or will. In the Bible, God has changed His course of action by such appeals and the counsel of his own will. He has changed from dealing with a sinful and disobediant people from justice to mercy or mercy to justice. However his character has not changed and I think that is what is meant but not explicitely stated in Numbers 23-19. God cannot lie, it is against His character, therefore He would never have to repent of lying, for example. He will always deal with sin, but He does change His response while still being true to His judgments and mercies.
I think that is a partial answer to why Satan continues to fight the Lord. He knows God deals with people in two ways, justice and mercy. Yet with himself only in judgment. There is no redemption for fallen angels! Therefore he hopes to turn the heart of God against all of mankind as at the flood.{except for Noah} . Since God does repent towards the way he has judged individuals and nations. It is Satan's last and only hope to also change God's character and Word, or at least change God's heart from LOVING mercy, to condemning all of us.
Unfortunately for Satan God can no longer condemn all of us who have already obtained His mercy,without also condemning His own Son.

geoff
June 1st, 2002, 09:34 PM
interesting thoughts Jeremiah

Surly-DwarF
June 3rd, 2002, 01:16 PM
Rob,

I had been thinking about things and trying to decide how I wanted to respond here, and I was not looking forward to it because I felt that to do it in a way that I was happy with would require way more time spent on this particular issue than I really wanted to shell out at present. Fortunately, during the course of some virtual wanderings, I came across the following article in which John Piper deals with Boyd's interpretations of several passages. I thought he made some good points and answered much the same as I would have, only he probably did a better job of it. Ex. 32 isn't covered, but would fall under the same heading as some of these others, so...anyway, I don't know if you've already read it or not, but you can go there and read it if you like, considering it my response. It's

http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/Foreknowledge/Answering%20Greg%20Boyd's%20Openness%20of%20God%20 Texts.htm

At any rate, I still find no merit in the OV interpretation of these verses. And one more thing, for Arminian if he's reading this. I'm glad that you're now very concerned about the "means" as opposed to the ends of exegesis, concerning these passages. Does this concern now extend to the rest of Scripture e.g. Romans 9?

Mike

1013
June 3rd, 2002, 04:32 PM
Mike, that page wouldn't load for me. If it mades so much sense, explain it here.

Did Moses or did he not believe that God was going to wipe out the israelites.

Well first of all he tells God to turn from these plans and he also tells him to "Nachum." Gray Pilgrim and geoff insist that here it just means be sorry. So what we have is moses telling God to be sorry for what he said to do but to go ahead and do it?

Then Moses gives God reasons not to do it. It sure looks like Moses believes that God intended to do this thing. So did God lie?

And finally, the narrator tells us that God repented of what he said he would do. Oh you could refer to Grey Pil's claim that the word here just means "feel bad for" but looks like God didn't do what he said he would do. It looks like the rest of the Bible shows that God did not do what he said he would do. Nowhere do we see God wiping out the rest of the israelites and starting over with moses, so did God just feel bad about what he said he would do or did actually not do it because he A-lied or B-changed his mind.

Did Moses believe God would destroy the israelites or not? If not, how do you explain Moses' behavior? Was he trying to change God's mind or wasn't he?

geoff
June 3rd, 2002, 05:33 PM
http://pa.gummer.co.nz/http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/headandwall.gif

now.. thats messed up...

for some reason the forum adds the theologyonline bit... even if u turn off the URL parser...

sigh

pa.gummer.co.nz/images/smilies/headandwall.gif

geoff
June 3rd, 2002, 05:40 PM
and seein as u cant see it... just imagine it :)

Surly-DwarF
June 4th, 2002, 12:54 PM
Rob,

Try this:

1. Go to http://www.desiringgod.org
2. Click on "Online Library"
3. Click on "improved Topical Index!"
4. Click on "Foreknowledge of God"
5. There you will see different articles. Click on "Answering Greg Boyd's Opennes of God Texts".
6. Read it if you wish. There are other things there you may want to check out as well.


1013 Mike, that page wouldn't load for me. If it mades so much sense, explain it here.

It did make sense, but there's too much to cut and paste onto the thread.


Did Moses or did he not believe that God was going to wipe out the israelites.

I think he thought God was making a threat, not a statement of absolute intent. On God's part, aside from Piper's comments, it was what I would call propositional, or provocative -- a test of Moses if you will. Look what happened. God lets us know just how angry He is at what they've done. He is angry enough to have destroyed them. And Moses states the reasons he thinks it wouldn't be good for God to do the thing, restating the Abrahamic covenant, which is a reminder to the reader. It's not that God actually intended to do what He said. It was a threat, a proposal, kinda like, "Ok, Moses, what will you say to this?" People do this all the time. It's a manner of speech.


Well first of all he tells God to turn from these plans and he also tells him to "Nachum." Gray Pilgrim and geoff insist that here it just means be sorry. So what we have is moses telling God to be sorry for what he said to do but to go ahead and do it?

No, of course not. But I refer you to Piper.


Then Moses gives God reasons not to do it. It sure looks like Moses believes that God intended to do this thing. So did God lie?

Again, I don't think Moses knew if He was actually going to do it or was threatening, and I'm not sure it really matters. Moses reacted according to what he wished to happen.


And finally, the narrator tells us that God repented of what he said he would do.

It just means that He didn't carry out the threat. He wasn't bound to it.


Oh you could refer to Grey Pil's claim that the word here just means "feel bad for" but looks like God didn't do what he said he would do. It looks like the rest of the Bible shows that God did not do what he said he would do. Nowhere do we see God wiping out the rest of the israelites and starting over with moses, so did God just feel bad about what he said he would do or did actually not do it because he A-lied or B-changed his mind.

None of the above.


Did Moses believe God would destroy the israelites or not? If not, how do you explain Moses' behavior? Was he trying to change God's mind or wasn't he?

Doesn't matter. Now, I've said all I have to say for the time being.

Mike

1013
June 4th, 2002, 07:28 PM
I've skimmed the that article before, just a few days ago as a matter of fact. I've seen it long before that as well. I'll take a more careful look at it though at another time. After all, you took your sweet time reading this thread :D. I found only one problem verse for the open view in that article, my understanding of th open view that is, and I've gotten help from another ov'er on it. It might be relevent here but anything you don't relate to the topic won't be addressed as this is a discussion of a specific topic. And the discussion takes place here. What is said on Piper's page does not count as a response here. And of course this is not primarily about foreknowledge but rather is about God changing his mind, though I enthusiastically embrace the implications for God's foreknowledge.

I would like to say that you are the first person in this thread to tackle this issue head on regarding what has been said by me or Arminian concerning these verses. I implore you, look what has been said before concerning this issue and compare that to what you just wrote. This is a full refutation and not the all to inadequate rebuttles that have come before. And consider the judgement of those you praised in this thread and yet did not use their arguements nor defend their arguments.


I think he thought God was making a threat, not a statement of absolute intent.

This I find hard to swallow. A threat with no intent is no real threat at all. A threat without intent is called bluffing. Did God bluff? And a bluff of course is a deception to make one think that you will carry out a threat when you either cannot carry it out or will not carry out regardless of the consequence of making the threat.


a test of Moses if you will.

This is the first explanation I've heard of this passage, many many moons before I've heard of Openness. I'm surprised noone else brought it up. The problem is that no where do we see evidence that God was testing moses. We have clear cut evidence that God was testing Abraham with the sacrifice of Isaac. God says "Now I know..." Furthermore, God does not personally deliver falsehoods even if he uses falsehoods in a test at all. He may use a decieving spirit, as recorded in one of the prophets (Isaiah perhaps?) but that was not in a test.

Furthermore, we get a similar situation in numbers 14 and there is still no evidence of testing. In numbers 14, God says that he pardoned the people by Moses' word which very well indicates that Moses did indeed influence God.


And Moses states the reasons he thinks it wouldn't be good for God to do the thing, restating the Abrahamic covenant, which is a reminder to the reader.

It is a narrative. The author of a nNarrative may put things into the mouths of the characters for our benefit but is not primarily for our benefit and still says things about the characters. What moses says in this narrative is for God's ears in this narrative and as I take this also to be a record of what essentially went on in history, moses did not say this thinking "this'll look good when I write it down."

As for the abrahamic covenent, Moses was a descendent of abraham. God could've done as he threatened, starting over with Moses and still have been faithful to the covenant.


No, of course not. But I refer you to Piper.

excellent. Geoff's head has another date with that wall. :eek:

from me Did Moses believe God would destroy the israelites or not? If not, how do you explain Moses' behavior? Was he trying to change God's mind or wasn't he?


Doesn't matter.

So we are bound to believe in the total immutability of God and that he never changes his plans regardless of what one of the most significant hero's of the faith thought?

We are not permitted to believe that we can influence God and change his plans even if Moses did?

geoff
June 4th, 2002, 07:44 PM
I would like to say that you are the first person in this thread to tackle this issue head on...

The only person you are prepared to read... until such time as he says something trivial to upset you... then 'no one' will have dealt with the issues.. yet again...

sigh

1013
June 17th, 2002, 05:37 PM
blop!

geralduk
June 21st, 2002, 04:17 AM
The INTERCESSION of Moses.

If he had NOT God would have!

The intercession of Abraham.

For Lot.
God allready knew there was not 10 rightous.
But that there was ONE.
So the prayers of ABRAHAM got out Lot.

God told both "what he was about to do"
and it needed the intercession of them and those who pray AND intercede to deliver them.

1013
August 3rd, 2002, 02:07 PM
bump

Yxboom
August 4th, 2002, 02:00 AM
huh?

1013
August 4th, 2002, 06:32 PM
I see gerald has raised an issue worth addressing that was problematic for me. but several weeks ago, I got an answer at another forum that I'll share.

my purpose in bumping this though was so that knight wouldn't erase it as it got older and older before I had the chance to archive this thread.

Yxboom
August 13th, 2002, 04:21 PM
what is a bump?

geoff
August 13th, 2002, 05:33 PM
its that thing growing on your sholder...

1013
August 13th, 2002, 06:57 PM
when a thread gets old, it may get erased. I have yet to archive this one which I intend to do. to keep it new, you merely post it and "bump" it towards the top of the forum. there are other ways to do this such as blieb! or blop! or blarg! or moo!

GrayPilgrim
January 2nd, 2003, 09:55 AM
1013 in reply to Saniol asked in a previous eon:


But what does that story of sodom and gomorrah mean for God's omnipresence.


I have been preparing to teach Genesis for Sunday school so the phrase, "and God went down, and asked..." is generally used by God when he judges humans for sin. See Gen 3 [Adam and Eve], 4 [Cain murders Abel], 11 [Tower of Babel] and 19 [Sodom and Gomorrah]. It does not imply anything about God’s lack of knowledge, rather it is like a parent coming to a disobedient child, knowing full well what they have done yet they ask them giving them the opportunity to come clean, yet in the first two instances all we see is self righteous accusations and blame shifting. In the latter two they are so ensconced in their sin they don’t even recognize it as sin. So I would say none of these passages touch on God’s omniscience, rather they function as literary devices.

drdeutsch
January 2nd, 2003, 09:59 AM
GrayPilgrim,

I'm just jumping into the fray here, so this may be misdirected.
Good argument, but 1013 was asking about God's omnipresence, not His omniscience.
:p

Dr. Deutsch

GrayPilgrim
January 2nd, 2003, 10:27 AM
I'm just jumping into the fray here, so this may be misdirected.

Thanks for showing my mistake. I actually intended omnipresent as well as omniscient, as Gos asks "Where are you?" Which heightens the rebuke, so I goofed!:o

GrayPilgrim
January 2nd, 2003, 11:05 AM
As I am resurrecting a long dead thread [ooh a poet and I did not know it lets recap. Since we started this eons ago I have come into possession of HALOT, which Holladay condensed so here is the entry on NHM



6095 nhm

nhm: gentilic of nhm Rudolph Jer.(3 )187 (:: Yaure JBL Heb. 79 (1960):297ff: ~hm: “the dreamer”, I ~hm nif. pt.): Jr 2924.31f. †

6096 nhm

MHeb. pi. to comfort, nif. hitp. to find consolation, regret; Ug. mnhm = munahimu (Gordon Textbook §19:1634; Aistleitner 1770) and ynhm = yanhamu (PRU 3:261a, EA in VAB 2:1562; Campbell in BA 23; 16ff); Amor. na/uhm, nihmatum (Huffmon 237f); Ph. Pun. in proper names (Benz Names 359f) mnhm; ? EgArm. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 176); JArm. SamP. (Ben-H. 2:520a), CPArm. to comfort, Syr. pa. to resuscitate, raise to life (Brockelmann Lex. Syr. 423b); Arb. nh/hm to gasp (horse); to comfort, and to regret, a similar emotion of relieving one’s feelings, cf. ~xr; basic meaning Arb., Nöldeke Neue Beitr. 86; Ullendorff in Rowley Companion 14; Scharbert Schmerz 62ff; Barr Semantics 116f (:: Jenni 247); J. Jeremias Die Reue Gottes BiSt 65 (1975):16; THAT 2:52ff.

nif. (48 times):

—1. to regret: a) to become remorseful Ex 13:17; Ju 2:18 (mn because of), 1S 15:29; Jr 4:28, 15:6, 20:16; Ezk 24:14; Joel 2:14; Jon 3:9; Zech 8:14; Ps 106:45, 110:4; b) nhm to regret something Ex 32:12,14; Is 57:6; Jr 8:6, 18:8,10; Joel 2:13; Am 7:3, 6 Jon 3:10, 4:2; 1Chr 21:15; = la nhm 2S 24:16; Jr 26:3,13,19, 42:10; c) abs. to repent Jb 42:6 (:: Dale Patrick VT 26 (1976):369ff);

—2. to be sorry, come to regret something: a) (God) Ps 9013 (‘l because); with ky that Gn 6:6f 1S 15:11, 35; b) (people) with la, Ju 21:6, with L 21:15, abs. Jr 31:19;

—3. to console oneself a) to find consolation Gn 24:67; Ezk 31:16, with ‘l about 2S 13:39; Ezk 14:22, 32:31; b) mn nhm to gain one’s satisfaction, gratify oneself against Is 1:24 (parallel with nqm nif.); cj. nhm (inf. abs.) for nwh Est 9:16 (Bardtke 386; Würthwein HAT 18(2):194); c) to observe a time of mourning Gn 38:12; d) termination of mourning rituals (Scharbert Schmerz 80) to let oneself be consoled Jr 31:15; Ps 77:3; note that the subject is always God except Gn 24:12 Ex 13:17 Ju 21:6,15; 2S 13:39 Jr 8:6, 31:15,19 Ezk 14:22, 31:16, 32:31; Ps 77:3; Jb 42:6; Sept. uses 16 different translations in 47 instances (Ezk 14:22 omitted in Sept.). †


Okay here is the definition according to HALOT, the standard Lexicon for Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament. The Only place that it indicates repent is when Job repents in dust and ashes, which according to my Yemenite Hebrew professor years ago is a terrible translation [unfortunately he never gave us his!]

Moreover, as I see it dating back from before the difference that 1013 and I had on this issue was the usage of nhm and the syntactical usage of it so let me address the syntactical stuff in another post and then we can look at the different passages. And please remind which these were so that I can look at them and see them please.

ididntsaythat
January 3rd, 2003, 12:54 AM
after having read a chunk of this, it seems that HALOT supports what geoff and Mr Pilgrim have said....

GrayPilgrim
January 3rd, 2003, 11:25 AM
Now to the Syntactical arguments--[Actually I am about to take German so that I can read the Grammar I talked about way back when--

As one looks at the yiqtol [generally called imperfect] prefixed with a simple w (as opposed to the wayyiqtol or waw consecutive) we see that it is generally located in direct speech, quotations. So at this point we are dealing with a simple grammatical construction, regardless of what verb we are talking about. In the other 30 times the translators refer to it as a jussive all but 11 of those times. Those 11 are translated at as simple verbs continuing the speech, such as 14:4: "Give us a leader and we will return to Egypt." (italics added to indicated the wyiqtol). So the remaining 20 wyitols, including our pesky hithpael wyiqtol in 23:19 that is a bone of contention. Let us again look at HALOT and our grammar to see which of us is correct.



1. with l to plot revenge against Gn 27:42, to obtain vengeance Ezk 5:13b (doublet of 13a, see Zimmerli 98);

—2. to be grieved by, change one’s mind (ï nif. 2), with l[; Nu 23:19, Dt 32:36 Ps 135:14;

—3. to allow oneself to be comforted at the end of a time of mourning (ï nif. 3d, pi. 1), to console oneself Gn 3735 Ps 11952. †


The idea of change mind is absent in:

Deuteronomy 32:36 "For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants,"

Psalm 135:14 "For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants."

Therefore the author of this entry gave the gloss based upon this verse. Which is based on the reflexive nature of hithpael and as an attempt to make sense of this verse. As it is the only use of the Hithpael in the sense of change mind, I would have problems even if we were dealing with say a neutral verb [i.e. not theologically loaded verb] as akl (eat) used in an odd way in one verse. So as of right now we need to look for more support either way. As my Theology prof. said:



Never say, 'it is written'! Rather, 'it is written,' and 'it is written,' and 'it is written,' and 'it is written'!

Even if it means that he changes his mind [preferable] to he should/would change his mind, it is a negation of God doing that. It states that once the Lord has spoken it is a fixed purpose.


More Later

GrayPilgrim
January 3rd, 2003, 11:27 AM
What does 1013 mean?

ididntsaythat
January 3rd, 2003, 03:02 PM
I dont know... :(

1013
January 3rd, 2003, 11:21 PM
GP, I don't know what to think of your answer on sodom and gomorrah. I'm not sure I like it, but I'm not whole heartedly opposed to it.

I just bumped and archived a thread specifically on the issue and I posted an answer there that I do like from Greg Boyd. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it as it is also a tranlation approach.

Now as far as HALOT goes, was that a direct quote. because here's the weird thing- I have HALOT sitting right next to me as I type, one written by Holladay, and this that I've already posted is a direct quote.

niham
nifal - 1. regret: a) have regrets, a change of heart 1 Samuel 15:29; b) niham 'al allow oneself change o heart regarding, relent regarding Ex 32:12.

It's copywrited 1988. How about yours?

also the problem I've outlined still stands regardless of what you get from the lexicon. Moses is clearly asking God to do more than merely regret his threat. He's not just pleading with God to have an emotional state about what he said. He wants God to do other than what he said he would do. He wants a change of plan.

1013
January 3rd, 2003, 11:25 PM
As for 1013, I may repost a thread on it and see how the new blood handles it. It has to do with scripture and an areguement that I've posted a couple years ago.

regarding the grammer stuff, I've sort of abandoned the syntactical areguement going back to the contextual one (I think). I let you find that in this thread on your own if you like (I'm currently too lazy).

GrayPilgrim
January 4th, 2003, 12:07 AM
My HALOT was cut and pasted from BibleWorks, only difference is I cleaned it up a little bit as the print did not paste well.


The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, CD-ROM Edition
© 1994-2000 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. All rights reserved