Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

[Clete]

With some thought and qualification, I think you are on to something that most OTs would resonate with. Can we flesh out some examples or illustrations of possibilities God could not know?

The future free will actions of men.

e.g. could God know, from trillions of years ago, the possible position of every electron in the universe at this precise moment? He theoretically knows this right now, though I am not sure there is practical benefit for Him to dwell on or calculate this. Electrons would also change (wave? particle?) at an incredibly fast rate. A snapshot would be useless information.

Well actually I think that God could know this if He wanted to. Purely physical processes are subject to causality and as such are completely predictable and their future behavior knowable by a God who has all the available information and is easily capable of assimillating it.

Any bigger, better examples of not knowing possible things? If my parents and their parents, etc. did not come together, the exact me would not exist. Does the birth of my ancestors introduce new parameters as to what is and is not genetically possible? Did God foresee as possible the genetic manipulation we would do, or the type of inventions man would create that introduced new possibilities that were not inherent from infinite eternity past?

Much of this could not have been known as it has a lot to do with freely chosen actions of people. Much if not all of it could have been predicted or at least planned for but not known absolutely.

Clete the clarifier? (or are you referring to the idea that He knows what He wants to know...He does not have to know what gays are doing to each other cf. your Genesis example?)

Both. There are things that God chooses not to know and things which He cannot know because of the way in which He chose to make us.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Then God might not judge the world, as described in Revelation?

That's exactly right!
If the world repents, so will God and He will not judge them as predicted.

And just because a general "if then" statement is made, this does not mean there must be a possibility in every instance. "A implies B" does not mean "A" is always possible.

The passage can't be any clearer. It says "if a nation" it doesn't specify one particular nation. It is clearly teaching a principle. That principle being God doesn't punish the repentent nor bless the evil dispite His having promised do so prior to the repentence or evil action.

And isn't "I will surely" lying, if it is not sure?

No.

How did he not do, it, though? They are not there now, and we need not require that they were driven out in the presence of the Israelites, so how is my conclusion incorrect?

This is an idiotic argument. I simply won't address it any further other than to say, read the Bible. It's perfectly obvious that these enemies of Israel were never defeated. They were and remained a thorn in their side. One of these nations were siezed by Israel so long that Israel's soldiers went bald and they never did take spoils in payment for the fighting.

I think the shoe is on the other foot here, though, for if God can say "I will surely do X," and then not do it, then "no prophecy ever given by anyone would ever fail at all."

Only if you are trying not to understand the principle taught in Jer. 18.

I'm out of time. I'll respond to the rest later.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

The future free will actions of men.


Well actually I think that God could know this if He wanted to. Purely physical processes are subject to causality and as such are completely predictable and their future behavior knowable by a God who has all the available information and is easily capable of assimillating it.


Much of this could not have been known as it has a lot to do with freely chosen actions of people. Much if not all of it could have been predicted or at least planned for but not known absolutely.


Both. There are things that God chooses not to know and things which He cannot know because of the way in which He chose to make us.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Does not God know many of our future free will actions as possible? He could know I might eat Corn Flakes or Cheerios or neither tomorrow. He once knew I might marry a girl I was engaged to (broke up) as a possibility. It looked certain, but fell through. Then He knew someone else I had my eye on might possibly become my wife (which in fact happened). He also once knew it was possible that one could die or we could break it off. He knew these possibilities until one path became actual/certain.

I am not sure God could know where every electron would be. If my parents did not meet and have sex and give birth to me, and if I did not die, there are so many contingencies as to where I would go or not go, that it would seem absurd to know the position of zillions of random electrons precisely (quantum/chaos theory). He would know that if I jump off the Grand Canyon I would likely die due to cause-effect.

It is apparent throughout history that 100% of mankind will never repent. It was also certain that the Messiah would die regardless of what Judas or the soldiers did or did not do. The Revelation judgments are certain since at the time of writing, most of the world was wicked and rejected Christ. Nothing has changed, so evil will be judged. Satan will not turn good, so the lake of fire pictures are accurate for him and his followers. It is hypothetical to impossible that Revelation will not generally unfold as predicted.

 

[STONE]

That's exactly right!
If the world repents, so will God and He will not judge them as predicted.

The passage can't be any clearer. It says "if a nation" it doesn't specify one particular nation. It is clearly teaching a principle. That principle being God doesn't punish the repentent nor bless the evil dispite His having promised do so prior to the repentence or evil action.

Resting in Him,
Clete

This principle seems simple for anyone to understand. God simply acts according to His eternal judgements which he has revealed to mankind. God doesn't need to change his mind, He simply applies His eternal judgements and righteousness appropriately to the circumstances.

 

[godrulz]

This principle seems simple for anyone to understand. God simply acts according to His eternal judgements which he has revealed to mankind. God doesn't need to change his mind, He simply applies His eternal judgements and righteousness appropriately to the circumstances.

Are you talking about decrees or exhaustive foreknowledge?

What about the case where He was going to judge the city, but the man of God prayed that it would be saved if righteous ones could be found. God lowered the threshold of judgment as the prayers persisted. Then He drew the line. This would not have happened if He had not changed His mind in response to petition. The general principle is still true: evil will be judged; good will be rewarded eventually.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

This principle seems simple for anyone to understand. God simply acts according to His eternal judgements which he has revealed to mankind. God doesn't need to change his mind, He simply applies His eternal judgements and righteousness appropriately to the circumstances.

but the reason it changes is this:

while they are unrepentant, his mindset towards them is preporatory for wrath. when they repent, it is changed to blessings and grace. the only way it could not change is for him to have absolutely no mind set on a person until the day of judgement. this would be hard to argue biblically i'd think.

 

[godrulz]

but the reason it changes is this:

while they are unrepentant, his mindset towards them is preporatory for wrath. when they repent, it is changed to blessings and grace. the only way it could not change is for him to have absolutely no mind set on a person until the day of judgement. this would be hard to argue biblically i'd think.

God is responsive and dynamic, the Most Moved Mover. He is not the static, unmoved mover of Greek philosophy.

 

[STONE]

Are you talking about decrees or exhaustive foreknowledge?

What about the case where He was going to judge the city, but the man of God prayed that it would be saved if righteous ones could be found. God lowered the threshold of judgment as the prayers persisted. Then He drew the line. This would not have happened if He had not changed His mind in response to petition. The general principle is still true: evil will be judged; good will be rewarded eventually.

Good question, I am talking about eternal decrees which are His righteousness...His (moral/purpose) judgements.
God has ordained that the petitions of the righteous would avail much with Him. This is His ordained judgement and hence is expected. The Children of God can always intercede with God. God simply operates appropriately according to His eternal righteous judgements considering the circumstances.

Another example is when God spoke to Abimelech in a dream regarding Abraham and Sarah:"Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live:"

 

[STONE]

but the reason it changes is this:

while they are unrepentant, his mindset towards them is preporatory for wrath. when they repent, it is changed to blessings and grace. the only way it could not change is for him to have absolutely no mind set on a person until the day of judgement. this would be hard to argue biblically i'd think.

God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked would turn from his wicked ways and live. What changes is not the mind of God but the circumstances, to which God deals wrath or mercy appropriately according to His eternal judgements.

 

[insolafide]

Where you suggesting that I endorse theological fatalism? If so either you are confused or I don't understand what you are getting at. If you were simply saying that I am accusing the Arminian of teaching theological fatalism then I can see that although I would never have put it that way. There are too many semantic differences between what Arminians believe and what theological fatalism is. However, I would agree that the end result is the same; that the logical consequences of both are exactly identical, that result being the complete evaporation of the idea of free will.

RIGHT. you, yourself are endorsing theological fatalism as a principle. The Principle is that God's exhaustive foreknowledge would entail fatalism. I am saying that theological fatalism, just like regular fatalism, is false.

Well I see that you have indeed been reading Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. This argument was copied almost verbatim from the Molinist's essay (which I have no problem with at all, by the way. I'm not accusing you of plagiarism, I'm simply commenting on the fact that I've read the same book you have ).

I have read it in the past, a few years ago. The reason I didn't cite Dr. Craig, is because the same arguments are used by different people. Its kind of general purpose thing. The point is that the Open Theist is endorsing the exact principle that Dr. Craig demonstrates is faulty reasoning.

The problem with the argument is that it attempts to redefine logic. If the argument you've presented was valid then deductive logic itself wouldn't work. Every conclusion deduction ever presented that didn't have exclusively logically necessary premises would suddenly become invalid.

Actually, no. The point of the argument is that when working with modal logic, you have to be careful to distinguish between the modality of the argument (the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises) and the modality of the contents of the conclusion itself. Thus, if I form a deductive Argument that shows that P1 + P2 --> C, and the argument succeeds, we know that C is the necessary conclusion of the argument. BUT (!!!!) that does not mean that C, the actual contents of C is in fact NECESSARY.

do you see the distinction? Heres an example...

(p1) Either the Universe Exists or Nothing material exists.
(p2) It is not the case that nothing material exists.
(c) Therefore, the Universe Exists.

Now, we can see that in the above the conclusion (c) follows necessarily from p1 and p2. But is (c) necessary itself? no it isnt. To say it another way, is it possible that (c) COULD HAVE BEEN false? Yes! of course it is, because God could have just not created the Universe.

So, basically what were talking about is a basic modal fallacy on your part.

The syllogism you've presented is a deductive argument and thus if the premises are sound then the conclusion IS necessary. That's the beautiful thing about deductive arguments.

see above. Let me just state this again clearly - the inference is necessary, but the conclusion itself is not. We might think of it like this, looking at the conclusion after considering the argument, we could say that the conclusion has the property is true. But we could not say that the conclusion has the property is necessarily true. Do you understand that distinction?

You cannot escape the conclusion by attacking the conclusion itself (which is what you done here), you MUST find a flaw in the premises. The conclusion of a deductive argument always follows NECESSARILY from true premises. Or put the other way around, if all the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion MUST be true as well (assuming the logical structure is valid).
Thus for the conclusion of a logically valid argument to necessarily follow from the premises, the premises themselves do not have to be logically necessary, only true.

In order to say that the conclusion is necessarily true, and not simply true, all the premises must also be necessary. And... they all must be of the same modality, so you couldnt combine broad logical necessity with say, temporal necessity and get broad logical necessity. Its just not clear what mixing modalities does..

Thus if it is indeed true that…

Necessarily, If God foreknows X, X will happen.

And it is also true that…

God knows the future.

Then the logically necessary conclusion is that…

X will happen.

This is a perfectly valid logical syllogism in the form of 'modus ponens' thus if this conclusion is not valid then either it is not a necessary truth that if God knows X, X will happen, or God does not know the future. You cannot escape the conclusion unless you prove one or the other premise false.

Resting in Him,
Clete

thats exactly right. But the necessary conclusion is not this:

X will necessarily happen.

Which would be fatalism (or determinism... or whatever).

I hope that helped clear things up.

peace,
jd

 

[God_Is_Truth]

God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked would turn from his wicked ways and live. What changes is not the mind of God but the circumstances, to which God deals wrath or mercy appropriately according to His eternal judgements.

but if he has one mindset towards those who are wicked, and another mindset for those who have repented, then it logically follows that when one turns from wicked to repentence, so does God change his mindset for that individual.

perhaps you deny that God, at present, has a particular mindset for each group of people?

 

[godrulz]

but if he has one mindset towards those who are wicked, and another mindset for those who have repented, then it logically follows that when one turns from wicked to repentence, so does God change his mindset for that individual.

perhaps you deny that God, at present, has a particular mindset for each group of people?

Scripture portrays the disposition of the Godhead changing. He was not always grieved that He made man. He later promised to not destroy the world again by a flood, etc.

 

[STONE]

but if he has one mindset towards those who are wicked, and another mindset for those who have repented, then it logically follows that when one turns from wicked to repentence, so does God change his mindset for that individual.

There is a change of mindset tward the wicked when they depart from wickedness. This is based upon circumstances changing to which His eternal judgements are applied. It is not a fickleness where God is not going to do what he says as a man, but that God IS going to act according His eternal judgments, His ways, applied to the circumstances He confronts.
God is a Rock in his set righteous ways and judgements which He has reveled to mankind. These judgements are unmoving... unchanging, not the changing circumstances of life to which He applies His judgements.

 

[Clete]

RIGHT. you, yourself are endorsing theological fatalism as a principle. The Principle is that God's exhaustive foreknowledge would entail fatalism. I am saying that theological fatalism, just like regular fatalism, is false.

How am I endorsing theological fatalism? I don't think anything is fated to happen at all except that which God Himself intends to make happen. I'm the one here who is saying that God DOES NOT have exhaustive foreknowledge. I am using the fact that exhaustive foreknowledge would logically lead to theological fatalism as an arugment AGAINST exhaustive foreknoweldge so I don't see how you could be saying that I endorse it. I don't endorse it, I outright deny it.

I have read it in the past, a few years ago. The reason I didn't cite Dr. Craig, is because the same arguments are used by different people. Its kind of general purpose thing.

I agree, I don't think any citation was really warranted. It's not as if he came up with the arugment.

The point is that the Open Theist is endorsing the exact principle that Dr. Craig demonstrates is faulty reasoning.

I understand the point Craig makes but I think I've addressed his argument quite well.

Actually, no. The point of the argument is that when working with modal logic, you have to be careful to distinguish between the modality of the argument (the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises) and the modality of the contents of the conclusion itself. Thus, if I form a deductive Argument that shows that P1 + P2 --> C, and the argument succeeds, we know that C is the necessary conclusion of the argument. BUT (!!!!) that does not mean that C, the actual contents of C is in fact NECESSARY.

do you see the distinction? Heres an example...

(p1) Either the Universe Exists or Nothing material exists.
(p2) It is not the case that nothing material exists.
(c) Therefore, the Universe Exists.

Now, we can see that in the above the conclusion (c) follows necessarily from p1 and p2. But is (c) necessary itself? no it isnt. To say it another way, is it possible that (c) COULD HAVE BEEN false? Yes! of course it is, because God could have just not created the Universe.

So, basically what were talking about is a basic modal fallacy on your part.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at and will concede that for the moment but how is the original syllogism flawed?

If it is necessarily true that what God knows will happen will in fact happen and God knows a future event then that event will happen. It cannot not happen. God's knowledge of an event is a sufficient condition of that events certainty to happen.
How does that not convey the same information as the original syllogism? Or asked another way, why is it needed for the conclusion to be logically necessary in order for the logic to detroy the coexistence of foreknowledge and free will?

Let me just state this again clearly - the inference is necessary, but the conclusion itself is not. We might think of it like this, looking at the conclusion after considering the argument, we could say that the conclusion has the property is true. But we could not say that the conclusion has the property is necessarily true. Do you understand that distinction?

Yes, I do. But it seems that if the conclusion is true then it's 'logical necessity' or lack thereof is irrelivent to the argument because if it is true then I cannot see how free will can coexist with God's exhaustive foreknowledge.

In order to say that the conclusion is necessarily true, and not simply true, all the premises must also be necessary. And... they all must be of the same modality, so you couldnt combine broad logical necessity with say, temporal necessity and get broad logical necessity. Its just not clear what mixing modalities does..


I had said...

Thus if it is indeed true that…

Necessarily, If God foreknows X, X will happen.

And it is also true that…

God knows the future.

Then the logically necessary conclusion is that…

X will happen.

This is a perfectly valid logical syllogism in the form of 'modus ponens' thus if this conclusion is not valid then either it is not a necessary truth that if God knows X, X will happen, or God does not know the future. You cannot escape the conclusion unless you prove one or the other premise false.

You responded...

thats exactly right. But the necessary conclusion is not this:

X will necessarily happen.

Which would be fatalism (or determinism... or whatever).

I hope that helped clear things up.

peace,
jd

Very well, as I said, I think I'm ready to concede that "X will necessarilly happen." is a violation of the rules of logic but how does that help your case?
If it is true that "X will happen" then what difference does it make whether that truth is a necessary truth or not? If it is true then I don't have the ability to do otherwise and so I am not free. I don't see how this logical technicality disolves my argument in the slightest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I asked the same question 3 times I think in this post. :doh:
You only have to answer it once.

 

[Clete]

Does not God know many of our future free will actions as possible? He could know I might eat Corn Flakes or Cheerios or neither tomorrow. He once knew I might marry a girl I was engaged to (broke up) as a possibility. It looked certain, but fell through. Then He knew someone else I had my eye on might possibly become my wife (which in fact happened). He also once knew it was possible that one could die or we could break it off. He knew these possibilities until one path became actual/certain.

I'm not saying more than I said. I didn't say He couldn't know ANY of the possibilities but there are things that we do that God cannot have known at all from "the beginning of time".

I am not sure God could know where every electron would be. If my parents did not meet and have sex and give birth to me, and if I did not die, there are so many contingencies as to where I would go or not go, that it would seem absurd to know the position of zillions of random electrons precisely (quantum/chaos theory). He would know that if I jump off the Grand Canyon I would likely die due to cause-effect.

Outstanding point! I hadn't thought of that. You are quite right. God could only foreknow the position of matter which had not been effected in any way by the actions of men. The rest He could predict with an accuracy that would probably surprise us all but that's not the same as knowing.

It is apparent throughout history that 100% of mankind will never repent. It was also certain that the Messiah would die regardless of what Judas or the soldiers did or did not do. The Revelation judgments are certain since at the time of writing, most of the world was wicked and rejected Christ. Nothing has changed, so evil will be judged. Satan will not turn good, so the lake of fire pictures are accurate for him and his followers. It is hypothetical to impossible that Revelation will not generally unfold as predicted.

I agree that it is outragiously unlikely (practically impossible) that the world will repent but you would agree, I trust, that in the event that everyone did repent then Revelation would be one giant book of mostly unfulfilled prophecies. I am I wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Then I must ask some questions...

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Because He is merciful and patient enough to give them an additional opportunity to repent.

Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?

Because He is merciful and patient enough to give them an additional opportunity to repent.

How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?

This is a stupid question.

How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?

Because of what He said in Jeremiah chapter 18.

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

This is another stupid question. (I will not entertain questions that blaspheme the living God bub.)

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Read the text and stop acting as if God is stupid. The text says what it says and you are insulting God. If you continue our conversation will be over.

Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

God is not required to show mercy. Eli and Amaziah as well as Pharoah got what they deserved. The message here is repent while you have the chance because God could decide to make an example of you if don't repent now.

Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.

This is stupidity, I don't have to respond to stupidity and I won't.

Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

You're a blasphemous idiot.

Numbers 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

The answer is clearly "no," though the Open View would say yes...

As does the Bible itself you blithering idiot. You do have to at least try to stay on the same page that the author (God) is on when reading the Bible. No one has suggested that God is untrustworthy, no one. It takes a monumental amount of intentional stupidity and ignorance to suggest that I, or any open theist has suggested anything of the sort.

Blessings,
Lee

Blessings my backside, Lee. Talk to me again when you grow up and aquire a modicum of intellectual honesty.

:wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[God_Is_Truth]

There is a change of mindset tward the wicked when they depart from wickedness. This is based upon circumstances changing to which His eternal judgements are applied. It is not a fickleness where God is not going to do what he says as a man, but that God IS going to act according His eternal judgments, His ways, applied to the circumstances He confronts.
God is a Rock in his set righteous ways and judgements which He has reveled to mankind. These judgements are unmoving... unchanging, not the changing circumstances of life to which He applies His judgements.

exactly! :thumb:

no one is arguing that God is fickle just because he changes his mind. we mean that previous to repentence God's mind towards an individual was that of wrath and after repentence that mind changed to one of love and kindness to the same individual. the circumstances bring about a change in mind of God because of God's unchanging judgements and righteous character.

 

[godrulz]

God can and does change His mind like other free moral agents do in response to changing contingencies. He does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way like man does. This is all that the strong immutability proof texts like Malachi affirm.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: Some prophecies are warnings. Others are simply declarative/predictive with no option to change.

Yes, I agree...

Lee: Then God might not judge the world, as described in Revelation?

Clete: That's exactly right! If the world repents, so will God and He will not judge them as predicted.

Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Maybe this will not happen, either? These are not just general predictions of judgments, many specific details are given, implying that this judgment is sure, not a mere possibility, it is even described in past tense:

Revelation 8:5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake.

Lee: "A implies B" does not mean "A" is always possible.

Clete: The passage can't be any clearer. It says "if a nation" it doesn't specify one particular nation.

Yes, so then "If you take a plane, you will get there faster if you take a train" must then imply you can always take a plane?

Lee: And isn't "I will surely" lying, if it is not sure?

Clete: No.

Then how is "I will surely" not false, then?

Lee: How did he not do, it, though? They are not there now, and we need not require that they were driven out in the presence of the Israelites, so how is my conclusion incorrect?

Clete: This is an idiotic argument. I simply won't address it any further other than to say, read the Bible.

As far as reading the Bible, this verse actually comes to mind:

Job 26:2-4 How you have helped the powerless! How you have saved the arm that is feeble! What advice you have offered to one without wisdom! And what great insight you have displayed! Who has helped you utter these words? And whose spirit spoke from your mouth?

And you have not answered my question.

Lee: I think the shoe is on the other foot here, though, for if God can say "I will surely do X," and then not do it, then "no prophecy ever given by anyone would ever fail at all."

Clete: Only if you are trying not to understand the principle taught in Jer. 18.

But how can any prophecy of judgment fail at all, if "surely" is not sure? And if "surely" is not sure here, it probably is not sure anywhere.

Lee: Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?

Clete: Because He is merciful and patient enough to give them an additional opportunity to repent.

So then his overall plan was not to destroy them, and he could not be said to change his overall plan, which was at least to try and bring repentance. Thus he did not change his mind.

Lee: Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

Clete: You're a blasphemous idiot.

This is an implication from the Open View, though, and this is a "reduction to an absurdity" argument, the end of which must be an absurdity, and this is indeed such a statement. Yet it is your view, Clete, that has this implication in it, and thus when we arrive at such an implication, we must review the premises, if the logic is correct.

Numbers 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Lee: The answer is clearly "no," though the Open View would say yes...

Clete: As does the Bible itself you blithering idiot.

How can the answer be "yes," in this verse here? It clearly is "no." And this is another "reductio ad absurdum."

Clete: No one has suggested that God is untrustworthy, no one. It takes a monumental amount of intentional stupidity and ignorance to suggest...

Well, if God is not sure of the result of a given choice, then we need not always take his advice, for the future might turn out better with a different choice, even from God's perspective.

Thus we need not always obey him, only the Bible says we must. Another "reductio ad absurdum."

Godrulz: He does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way like man does.

Then we need to check and see if "nacham" can have the meaning of "capricious or fickle." It cannot, and thus we have to choose between "grieved," or "change his mind," or "relent" in this verse:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

And "change his mind" is the only meaning that fits, here.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Hi everyone,



Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

And "change his mind" is the only meaning that fits, here.

Blessings,
Lee

Read the context. It is a contrast between God's faithfulness and man's fickleness. There is more to exegesis than a word study. Other verses do say that God changes His mind. You must incorrectly interpret them figuratively to match your preconceived theology on strong vs weak immutability. Most classical/traditional theologians now qualify immutability.