ARCHIVE:God repenting and nacham

[Surly-DwarF]

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 Greg Boyd's%20Openness%20of%20God%20Texts.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]

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]

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]

and seein as u cant see it... just imagine it

 

[Surly-DwarF]

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]

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 . 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.

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]

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]

blop!

 

[geralduk]

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]

bump

 

[Yxboom]

huh?

 

[1013]

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]

what is a bump?

 

[geoff]

its that thing growing on your sholder...

 

[1013]

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]

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]

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.


Dr. Deutsch

 

[GrayPilgrim]

Thanks Dr. Deutsch

Thanks Dr. Deutsch

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!

 

[GrayPilgrim]

Review

Review

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]

after having read a chunk of this, it seems that HALOT supports what geoff and Mr Pilgrim have said....