ARCHIVE:God repenting and nacham

[geoff]

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]

*chirp, chirp, chip* (cricket sounds)

 

[geoff]

ah yes...

perhaps you should see a doctor?

 

[GrayPilgrim]

Yiqtols and Modals

Yiqtols and Modals

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]

right on!

 

[Knightowl]

OV Resposes to Numbers 23:19

OV Resposes to Numbers 23:19

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

now, that was a *buuuurp*

 

[1013]

bump

 

[geoff]

...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]

Then let him speak for himself.

 

[geoff]

He shouldnt have to, as it is obvious from what he has already said...

that means, he has already spoken...

 

[saniol]

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]

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]

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.

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

Of course.