The Timelessness of God

Right Divider

Body part
If someone tells you something that is untrue, but doesn't know that it it's not true, does that make them a liar?
Ah... the unknowing God.

He's pointing out that a lot of what you're saying is also taught in Calvinism. That God is outside of time is an idea that came from the pagan Greeks, not from the Bible.
Did you get that from the Bible?

No, we are stating that God does not know the future, but that God is smart, and can make predictions about his creation.
That is, quite frankly, ridiculous. God is far more than "smart".

Was it absolutely wrong for Corrie ten Boom to lie to the Nazis when helping the Jews escape?
PEOPLE lying because of OTHER peoples ACTIONS is NOT comparable to the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY in any way!

Your problem is that you're assuming that God knows the future. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God knows the future.
Prophecy about future events in complete detail is NOT making predictions. It is God declaring the end from the beginning.

RD, Which is more important to God, righteousness or omniscience?
BOTH!
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Your problem is that you're assuming that God knows the future. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God knows the future.

What do you think that the word "foreknowledge" in this passage means?

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied" (1 Pet.1;102).​

Peter calls the strangers "elect," and their election was according to the LORD's foreknowldge.

How can you say that the LORD cannot know the future?

Thanks!
 

Derf

Well-known member
The LORD used a "lying spirit" to deceive the king. However, I see no evidence that the "lying spirit" was an angel and that spirit could have been a demon. After all, the Scriptures do speak of an "evil spirit."

What evidence can you give that demonstrates that the "lying spirit" was an angel?

Thanks!

Does it really make much difference whether it was a demon or an angel, if God is 1. requesting the service, 2. requesting ideas for how to accomplish the service, and 3. condoning the service?

Is God who cannot lie breaking from His own nature here? Or is it ok because he gets someone else to do it?

We know from Job that God seems to entertain the requests of even Satan, but it seems a little perverse for God to request and support a lying spirit in his lying.

So, Jerry, do you have an angle on this passage [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] brought up from your timelessness perspective?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Is God who cannot lie breaking from His own nature here? Or is it ok because he gets someone else to do it?

Are you saying that Ahab was not deserving of what happened to him? That would be the only way that I would ever question the actions of the LORD. Why are you so eager to judge the LORD in such a way?

Does it really make much difference whether it was a demon or an angel, if God is 1. requesting the service, 2. requesting ideas for how to accomplish the service, and 3. condoning the service?

First of all, the "lying spirit" volunteered to do the deed. Again, are you asserting that Ahab was not deserving of what happened to him? In regard to why it mattered or not if the "lying spirit" was an angel I was answering what Clete said here:

"What do you suppose God's response would be if one of the angels volunteered to go down and lie to the king and trick him into doing what God wanted? Is that something God would allow or do you think that such a suggestion would be a rebellion on the angel's part that might get him kicked out of heaven with the demons?"--Clete​

What I want to know is why any Christian would dare question the integrity of the LORD. Can we not give Him, our Creator, the benefit of the doubt? Is winning arguments that important?
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
So, in all of this, are you trying to say that God lies?
I'm saying what the text says. Nothing more nothing less.

No, I do not have every page of the Bible committed to memory. Apparently, you do.
Not to memory, no. But I'm familiar enough with it to know that your pastor (practically every pastor) doesn't teach what it does. Pastors teach what they've been taught to teach and if the bible says something different, they either don't know anything about it or they ignore it or "interpret" it to mean whatever they need it to mean to conform to what they've been taught.

The vast majority of people who go to church are in worse condition when it comes to biblical knowledge because they simply believe whatever their pastor tells them to believe.

Your reaction to I Kings is proof to the contrary. It hasn't even caused you to think that your doctrine MIGHT be in error, never mind motivated you to do anything about it.

Are you trying to lump me in with Calvinists?
Not per se, no. But you don't have to be a Calvinist to make the same error that they do in this regard. Arminians, the supposed "opposite" of Calvinism is an excellent example. They too believe that God exists outside of time and they believe it for basically the same reasons that the Calvinists do, none of which are biblical. Their reasoning on this is entirely doctrinal/philosophical.

You think that God makes false claims about the future. Where does that put you in regards to God's nature?
Look, I'm trying my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and to treat you like you're at least half way intellectually honest but you make a statement anything similar to this again, I'll simply put you on ignore and you can go live your life in ignorance and debate with the rest of the idiots on this website.

God does NOT make false claims about the future. But, unlike what your pastor has taught you, prophesy is NOT pre-written history. This is not my opinion and it is not derived from some other aspect of my doctrine. It is simply the unvarnished reading of the text of scripture. God makes a prophecy and then things work out different than how it was prophecied. The bible not only records several instances of this but it explicitly explains why.

The Bible condemns lying as an act of unrighteousness. It calls that baring false witness.
Actually "bearing false witness" means what it says. We call it "perjury" today. Lying, whether as a witness in court or not, has to do with intentionally deceiving someone by saying something that you KNOW is false when you say it. I could tell my neighbor that it's going to rain tomorrow. If it doesn't rain as predicted, I didn't lie, I was simply wrong.

If God says that something will happen and it does not, what else would you call it unless there is some other caveat that makes the claim conditional? I know that you claim that I'm somehow cheating when I say that.
I never said anything about cheating. The point is that ALL prophecy is conditional! The only exceptions are those having exclusively to do with God Himself and His own actions. But when it comes to prophecies concerning mankind, prophesies function most often as warnings and it is not necessary for God to specifically stipulate that warning either.

Let's look at a specific, really clear, example.

Jonah 3:3 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Note that there is no caveat recorded. No "unless you repent", no "please repent so that God won't..." or anything like that. The text flatly states that Jonah preached the message that God told him to preach and that message was, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be everthrown!" I think in the original language the whole message is something like five words.

Then six verses later we read this...

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

The intervening 5 verses detail the works that God saw but the point here is two-fold.

1. God said that one thing would happen in forty days.
2. God did not do it.

According to your understanding of what a lie is, God must be a liar!

OR

If we throw away the stupidity that makes up the lion's share of Christian doctrine in this area, which is essentially Augustinian doctrine, by the way, we can see that God simply responded to the people's repentance and He also repented of the disaster which He thought to bring upon them. This is in EXACT keeping with what is explicitly taught in Jeremiah 18...

Jeremiah 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Jeremiah 18 is perhaps the single most important chapter in the entire bible. If you wanted to commit anything to memory, you'd not go wrong by starting with this chapter. Being familiar with this chapter is critical to understanding what God is doing and why He is doing it, both in the Old and New Testaments.

You might also notice that I changed the word "relent" which appears in the New King James version to "repent" which is the actual word used in the original text and which appears in the "Old" King James.

Notice also that there is no commentary needed here. It's just a matter of reading the text and taking to mean what it plainly states!

So, here's where the rubber meets the road. If you want to continue to make the claim that you base your doctrine on the bible and sound reason and nothing else you should be able to answer both the following questions with an unqualified, "No!"...

Does God lie? - NO!

Do God's prophecies always come to pass as stated? - NO!

It's so simple as to be nearly childish. It couldn't be any clearer if God Himself came down from heaven and told you to your face. The only reason you believe otherwise is because you believe what you've been taught to believe rather than what the text of scripture actually says. And you've done so quite innocently by the way. I do not intend to imply any dishonesty on your part here. You are, in fact, in rather good company. I mean, virtually the whole Christian world believes the way you do. The problem is that they all believe what they believe for the same reason you believe what you do. It's generations of the blind leading the blind. A pastor teaches an error, a member of his congregation grows up believing the error and becomes a pastor himself and before too long you've got whole seminaries full of faculty members that have been taught the same error and are passing it along to a whole new generation of young minds full of mush. The longer this goes, the rarer it is to find one brave enough to question the conventional wisdom and set out on his own with what his own mind has been convinced is the truth. It takes a special person to be brave enough to trust your own mind over the collective minds of all those around you. Martin Luther was one such person. And while he certainly didn't get all his doctrine right, he made one statement that will ring through the halls of history for all eternity; one statement that should be the motto of every human being that takes up the challenge of learning a systematic theology....

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."​

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The LORD used a "lying spirit" to deceive the king. However, I see no evidence that the "lying spirit" was an angel and that spirit could have been a demon. After all, the Scriptures do speak of an "evil spirit."

What evidence can you give that demonstrates that the "lying spirit" was an angel?

Thanks!

No evidence other than the plain statement of the text!

What planet are you on?

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’

The last sentence is what kills this entire, frankly stupid, objection because regardless of what sort of spirit it was, God commanded the spirit to go and lie as he had suggested. God didn't kick him out of heaven for being a rebellious spirit. On the contrary, God have him a commission! God was looking for a solution and this spirit's lie was it!


I mean, seriously! You guys twist yourselves into pretzels that spell the word "stupid" in cursive script, all to avoid what the bible couldn't state any more plainly if it tried!

View attachment 25192

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Right Divider

Body part
Look, I'm trying my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and to treat you like you're at least half way intellectually honest but you make a statement anything similar to this again, I'll simply put you on ignore and you can go live your life in ignorance and debate with the rest of the idiots on this website.
Don't call me an idiot.

I have really enjoyed many of your posts on this site, but now I'm getting the see your dark side. It's pretty nasty.

God does NOT make false claims about the future. But, unlike what your pastor has taught you, prophesy is NOT pre-written history.
And you falsely characterize my position. I do NOT believe that prophecy is "pre-written history"! Prophecy is FOREKNOWLEDGE.

This is not my opinion and it is not derived from some other aspect of my doctrine. It is simply the unvarnished reading of the text of scripture. God makes a prophecy and then things work out different than how it was prophecied. The bible not only records several instances of this but it explicitly explains why.
Believe that if you want.

Actually "bearing false witness" means what it says. We call it "perjury" today. Lying, whether as a witness in court or not, has to do with intentionally deceiving someone by saying something that you KNOW is false when you say it. I could tell my neighbor that it's going to rain tomorrow. If it doesn't rain as predicted, I didn't lie, I was simply wrong.
So, according to you, God says things that He knows MAY not be true?

Once again, there is WORLD of difference between a human weather forecast and a proclamation of the Almighty and His knowledge of all things.

I never said anything about cheating. The point is that ALL prophecy is conditional! The only exceptions are those having exclusively to do with God Himself and His own actions. But when it comes to prophecies concerning mankind, prophesies function most often as warnings and it is not necessary for God to specifically stipulate that warning either.

Let's look at a specific, really clear, example.
Jonah 3:3 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Note that there is no caveat recorded. No "unless you repent", no "please repent so that God won't..." or anything like that. The text flatly states that Jonah preached the message that God told him to preach and that message was, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be everthrown!" I think in the original language the whole message is something like five words.
Jonah 3:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:5) ¶ So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

Perhaps MORE was said that was not recorded for us. Do you think that they believed that God would destroy them unconditionally, but decided to fast and put on sackcloth anyway?

Then six verses later we read this...
Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

The intervening 5 verses detail the works that God saw but the point here is two-fold.

1. God said that one thing would happen in forty days.
2. God did not do it.

According to your understanding of what a lie is, God must be a liar!
Nope, I believe that there was a CONDITION and that they met that condition.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’

The last sentence is what kills this entire, frankly stupid, objection because regardless of what sort of spirit it was, God commanded the spirit to go and lie as he had suggested. God didn't kick him out of heaven for being a rebellious spirit. On the contrary, God have him a commission! God was looking for a solution and this spirit's lie was it!

Nothing which is said there proves that an angel is the lying spirit. Do you hold to the tradition that the LORD will not allow evil in His presence? Is that why you assume that the last sentence proves that the "lying spirit" was an angel?

Besides that, why did you quote those verses? What is the point which you are trying to make? I see nothing written in these verses which support any of your ideas.

Earlier I said:

In fact, we cannot have a definite knowledge of very specific things which will happen in the future, such as knowing who will believe the gospel and who will not.

This is your answer:

This is an unsubstantiated claim. You have made no attempt to establish this claim. Even if it is true (which it may well be), the fact that we cannot says nothing about what God can or cannot do.

If my idea is in error then tell me when some man or woman knew who in the future would believe and be saved. As far as we know, a person might not even be alive tomorrow so no one on the earth can know whether or not that person will believe in the future.

Further, what you'll never be able to establish is that God's knowledge or lack thereof has anything to do with existing outside of time.

Then please tell me how this happened unless the LORD exists outside of time?:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

Notice that the LORD ordained or appoined them to eternal life before they believed. Therefore, the LORD had to foreknow who would believe.

Let us look at this verse:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"
(Eph.1:4).​

How could the LORD have chosen some to be saved before the foundation of the world unless He had a foreknowledge of exactly who would believe?

Thanks!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Don't call me an idiot.

I have really enjoyed many of your posts on this site, but now I'm getting the see your dark side. It's pretty nasty.
I'll call you what you deserve to be called. The jury is still out. (i.e. I didn't call you an idiot. Read it again.)

And you falsely characterize my position. I do NOT believe that prophecy is "pre-written history"! Prophecy is FOREKNOWLEDGE.
What's the difference?

If I've so fatally mischaracterized your position, please, by all means, tell me just what is the difference between your term and mine.

Believe that if you want.
That's just the point DR, I don't believe "what I want", I believe what the bible says - period.

Want to prove you're not an idiot?

Engage the debate and show me where what I've said the bible says, isn't what it says or else concede that it does, in fact, say what I've quoted it to say.

I really don't see what the big deal is. You claimed to believe what the bible teaches and so I quote the bible and you reject it and start acting like I'm some sort of a jerk. All I've done is give you the benefit of the doubt, in spite of your obvious sarcasm and condescending tone, and quote passages of scripture that directly contradict your doctrine.

So, according to you, God says things that He knows MAY not be true?
Where exactly is the confusion at here?
I quoted you the passage verbatim! This is not ME saying these things. I didn't quote anything that I wrote! I quoted the book of Jonah! You can look it up and read it in your very own bible! I guarantee it's there!

Once again, there is WORLD of difference between a human weather forecast and a proclamation of the Almighty and His knowledge of all things.
The world of difference is in the power, intelligence and wisdom of the one making the prediction as well as the amount of available information.

God is infinitely wise and has every scrap of pertinent information available to Him and can instantly know, understand, interpret and respond to all of that information. In addition, He has both the power and the authority to work through, with, around, and in spite of any person, place or other thing or circumstance He finds between Him and His desired goal.

And yet, in spite of all of that, He still does NOT get everything He wants. Amazing but biblical!

Jonah 3:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:5) ¶ So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

Perhaps MORE was said that was not recorded for us. Do you think that they believed that God would destroy them unconditionally, but decided to fast and put on sackcloth anyway?


Nope, I believe that there was a CONDITION and that they met that condition.
You can literally believe what you want. Do not ever claim in my presence again that what you believe is what the bible says because you don't. You just proved that you are willing to add whatever is needed to the text of scripture in order to make it say things that agree with whatever your pet doctrine teaches.

The fatal flaw in your scheme to force Jonah to agree with your doctrine is verse ten. It specifically says that God repented. What's there to repent from if your doctrinal "interpretation" of Jonah three (and I presume every other time such things happen throughout scripture) is correct? You don't believe God is capable of repenting, do you? Look it up for yourself. The word used is the normal word for "repent". It means, in this context, to change your mind. The only reason you'll ever see that word translated into English as anything other than "repent" is because every modern translation of the bible was done by Calvinists and they just couldn't make themselves put the little bump on the side of the "l" in 'relent' to make a 'p'. Why? Because of their DOCTRINE!

Don't make their same mistake. There's no need too. What exactly are you being loyal to, anyway? Whether your doctrine is right or not, doesn't change who God actually is. God is who He is and He knows what He knows. If the bible presents a God who repents and who doesn't always get what He wants, why cling to a doctrine that teaches otherwise?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Nothing which is said there proves that an angel is the lying spirit. Do you hold to the tradition that the LORD will not allow evil in His presence? Is that why you assume that the last sentence proves that the "lying spirit" was an angel?

Besides that, why did you quote those verses? What is the point which you are trying to make? I see nothing written in these verses which support any of your ideas.

Earlier I said:

In fact, we cannot have a definite knowledge of very specific things which will happen in the future, such as knowing who will believe the gospel and who will not.

This is your answer:



If my idea is in error then tell me when some man or woman knew who in the future would believe and be saved. As far as we know, a person might not even be alive tomorrow so no one on the earth can know whether or not that person will believe in the future.



Then please tell me how this happened unless the LORD exists outside of time?:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

Notice that the LORD ordained or appoined them to eternal life before they believed. Therefore, the LORD had to foreknow who would believe.

Let us look at this verse:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"
(Eph.1:4).​

How could the LORD have chosen some to be saved before the foundation of the world unless He had a foreknowledge of exactly who would believe?

Thanks!

All of this has been responded too.

You're a waste of time and always have been.

Good-bye.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
All of this has been responded too.

Of course you know that is not true!

On post #366, page 25 of this thread you said:

I am not one of the people who have all day long to sit here and respond to TOL posts. If I haven't responded to you, it it's almost certainly because I work for a living and had to put it off. There's no need to repost the same post four times. I won't respond any faster. If I decide to put you back on my ignore list, I'll let you know. Otherwise, be patient and I'll get to your posts when time allows.

Anyone can go back to your post which I mentioned and see that you have never responded to what I said. And I don't expect that you will ever respond to what I said. After all, what could you possibly say that could defend your indefensible ideas?

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim.3:7).​
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
It, in fact, has been responded too. You just didn't like the response. Or didn't read it.

Where after post #366 can I find your response? I looked and looked a little longer but I did not find your response.

It must have just disappeared off the face of the earth!!!
 
Last edited:

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
[MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION],

This thread is riveting! It is an awesome collection of various perspectives! Jam up topic. This one is a thread that has the need to carry on for years to come without pause.

giphy.gif
 

Derf

Well-known member
Are you saying that Ahab was not deserving of what happened to him?
So it's ok to lie to someone if they deserve it? That's an interesting twist to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Do not repay evil for evil".

That would be the only way that I would ever question the actions of the LORD. Why are you so eager to judge the LORD in such a way?
Eager to judge? You judged it already when you said it was an evil spirit that did the deed. If you so quickly ascribe the action to an evil spirit, you must think the action is evil. I just pointed out that God seemed to request some kind of action, and then condoned the action that was offered.

And it seems to be contradictory to God's nature to do so. Maybe I'm wrong!! Or maybe we're not understanding the passage correctly! Or maybe God really wants evil beings to do evil things to accomplish His purposes. It's not one of the easiest of passages to make full sense of, imo.


First of all, the "lying spirit" volunteered to do the deed. Again, are you asserting that Ahab was not deserving of what happened to him? In regard to why it mattered or not if the "lying spirit" was an angel I was answering what Clete said here:

"What do you suppose God's response would be if one of the angels volunteered to go down and lie to the king and trick him into doing what God wanted? Is that something God would allow or do you think that such a suggestion would be a rebellion on the angel's part that might get him kicked out of heaven with the demons?"--Clete​
I know--Clete asked the question, and you answered it. I don't really have a problem with your answer--you're probably correct. But it's an interesting topic, don't you think?

What I want to know is why any Christian would dare question the integrity of the LORD. Can we not give Him, our Creator, the benefit of the doubt? Is winning arguments that important?
Did I win that argument? If I did, then why don't you just say so--doesn't take nearly as long to write "ok, you win" as it does to write what you wrote. :)

But regarding questioning God's integrity, didn't Moses do that in Exo 32:12? And didn't Joshua do that in Jos 7:7? God's prophets regularly question God's integrity--any time they question what He has done, they say to God, "That's not the right thing to do." But God has a way of showing them that He's doing the right thing.

This question of God's integrity is not just a simple thing, to be dismissed with a pompous exclamation of "How dare you!" We are supposed to "be holy" because He is holy, and we're supposed to imitate Christ, who didn't do anything except what the Father told Him to do. So if the Father says, "go deceive the king, so that he will go to battle and be killed", should we do it?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
But regarding questioning God's integrity, didn't Moses do that in Exo 32:12? And didn't Joshua do that in Jos 7:7? God's prophets regularly question God's integrity--any time they question what He has done, they say to God, "That's not the right thing to do." But God has a way of showing them that He's doing the right thing.

The questioning of the integrity of the LORD at Exodus 32:12 can only be understood in the sense that what the LORD told Moses cannot be understood in a "literal" way. At verse 14 we read that the "LORD repented of the evil which He thought to unto His people." Since the LORD does not "repent" (1 Sam.15:29) we can understand that the words here are not to be taken in a literal sense. Also,since no evil dwells in the LORD (Ps.5:4) we can know that verse 14 is not to be taken in a literal manner. The language used in these verses can best be described in the following way:

"Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities."

I believe that what is said at 1 Kings 22:22-23 is a perfect example of this figure of speech.

Do you agree, Derf?

Thanks!
 

Derf

Well-known member
The questioning of the integrity of the LORD at Exodus 32:12 can only be understood in the sense that what the LORD told Moses cannot be understood in a "literal" way. At verse 14 we read that the "LORD repented of the evil which He thought to unto His people." Since the LORD does not "repent" (1 Sam.15:29) we can understand that the words here are not to be taken in a literal sense. Also,since no evil dwells in the LORD (Ps.5:4) we can know that verse 14 is not to be taken in a literal manner. The language used in these verses can best be described in the following way:

"Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities."

I believe that what is said at 1 Kings 22:22-23 is a perfect example of this figure of speech.

Do you agree, Derf?

Thanks!
Anthropomorphisms are used to convey an idea or concept that might be foreign to the hearer by using something that isn't foreign to the hearer. So, what is the concept the author is trying to convey
  1. In Ex 32:12 (keep in mind that Jesus seemed to believe that Moses was the author of Exodus, and the speaker of the text)
  2. in 1Ki 22:22-23?

While I agree there are anthropomorphisms in the bible, like speaking of God's mighty right arm, perhaps (hard to say, since I don't know what God looks like except through other people's eyes that describe Him generally as having human shape), what is the target concept of saying that God repents? If God never changes His mind, then what does He do that is so foreign to us that it is called "repenting"? And wouldn't God be able to find a better word for this concept than something that means the exact opposite of what He really does? You seem to have very little respect for God's ability to communicate!

Now, from the Ex 32:12 text, with Moses both speaking and recording the event, it's not God telling us something about Himself, but it is Moses telling us something about what He thinks about God. In other words, Moses seems to believe that God would listen to His prayer and repent of what He planned to do. And you know what? Moses records that that is exactly what God did. God never said anything one way or another of what that act was called, it's all Moses.

The problem with your anthropomorphism in Ex 32 is that you are saying that the text means exactly the opposite of what it says, since you are saying that God never repents. THAT CAN'T BE A GOOD THING TO READ THE BIBLE IN EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE WAY FROM WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS!

In 2Sam 15:29, we have 2 instances where God repents and one where it is said that He never repents. These are competing concepts, and the best sense that can be made out it is not to say that they are diametrically opposed to each other, but to figure out how the Lord can repent in one instance and Samuel can say that He doesn't repent in the other.

Here's my attempt: The Lord repented of what He HAD done in making Saul king, meaning He didn't like the results, but He wasn't going to repent of rejecting Saul and selecting David in answer to Saul's pleas. It was an indication of who would be the next king (David, chosen in ch 13, rather than Jonathan or another of Saul's children). It was a statement that was not all-encompassing, but fit to the situation.

God made Saul king, and that seemed to last until Saul died, despite God rejecting him as king in chapter 13. So I believe when God anointed Saul, He was making him and his children to be kings, as long as they obeyed--see 1 Sam 13:13-14.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Now, from the Ex 32:12 text, with Moses both speaking and recording the event, it's not God telling us something about Himself, but it is Moses telling us something about what He thinks about God. In other words, Moses seems to believe that God would listen to His prayer and repent of what He planned to do. And you know what? Moses records that that is exactly what God did. God never said anything one way or another of what that act was called, it's all Moses.

From what you say you must really believe that the LORD actually considered doing this:

" Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they" (Deut.9:14).​

Of course the LORD never considered that for this reason:

"And the LORD said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people, that they may go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them" (Deut.10:11).​

Joseph believed that the promise of God in regard to the land were given to those who the LORD spoke of destroying:

"And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob"
(Gen.50:24).​

So if the LORD actually considered destroying these people except for Moses then what He swore would not come to pass. But that idea is vetoed by what we read here about the LORD:

"God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it"
(Num.23:19).​

Besides that, if the LORD destroyed all those from the tribe of Judah then how could this have ever come to pass?:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen.49:10).​

From all of this we can understand that the LORD did not repent (change His mind) in regard to destroying all those of the nation of Israel who came out of Egypt except for Moses because He never intended to destroy them in the first place.

Again, the language used in these verses in regard to what the LORD said can best be described in the following way:

"Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities."
 
Top