Originally posted by telerionSorry I took so long responding. And I'd like to add that I
...
The New American Standard, "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."
The Amplified Bible says,"And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart."
The 21st Century KJV - "And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He w ...[text shortened]... eart."
...
So in light of these less ambiguous translations, does you analysis change at all?
am enjoying the debate. It's good to study scripture if you
want to understand it better and these are some difficult
things to understand.
Lets start then.
And some xtians wonder why some others dislike
christianty so much!
Not really. I am never surprised when others dislike
Christianity. There are many harsh things in the Bible that
I don't like. However, I don't reject them because they
upset or disturb me. When I find something that disturbs me
in the Bible, I don't disregard it or make excuses, I am
open to considering that maybe I am wrong about some things.
No matter what translation I turn to one thing is clear.
His being "sorry" or "regretting" or "repenting" is all
focused on one thing: his making humans. They are all very
clear on this. The first part of the verse claims that God
"repents" or is "sorry" or "regrets" that he made man. The
second portion then adds that the actions of the men made
him sad. Very clearly the decision to make man is the object
of God's regret here
Yes, it is clear that God is sorry about making man. Why?
That is clear from verse 5. Man had become extremely
wicked, and this grieved God. But your point was that God
changed his mind.
Funny cause God sure does seem to change is mind quite a
bit in the Bible.
Are you now changing your position from God changing his
mind to God regrets or feels sorry for making man? I'll
assume not and continue.
You should alway consider the context when trying to
understand any text. In this case, man had multiplied in
numbers and had become exceedingly wicked. God see this and
is grieved by it, sorry that he made man.
5 And GODDoes God then change his
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually. (KJV)
mind? Did he decided that creating Adam and Eve was a bad
idea from the start. No. If that was the case, then why
spare Noah? If God changed his mind, He would have wiped
out all of man, and spared none. But the man God
destroyed is the same man he spoke of in verse 5 - the
people who had turned away from God and had become wicked.
These are the ones who were destroyed. Obviously, only these
are the ones that grieved him. But man continue one through
Noah and his family.
The point of the passage, is that God is sorrowed by the
wickedness of man, that sin grieves and angers him. And God
responds to man accordingly.
Would you like to continue on with the topic to another
verse? Does God change his mind? It's been a good exercise
for me so I'd enjoy continuing.
Originally posted by telerionHey telerion,
Hey bbar. I have a bit of a tangent question. What does it mean practically to be bounded by logic? Let me explain.
Let's take the xtian god. In the Bible, one encounters the story of Balaam. If you have never read this story or don't remember it, let me recount it.
Balaam accepts money to go curse a town. God tells Balaam not to curse the ...[text shortened]... acles we read
in the Bible are true, does this contradict that God is bounded by logic?
You should probably recognize the following distinction between different forms of possibility:
Logical possibility: Some state of affairs is logically possible if and only if its obtaining does not entail a contradiction.
Nomological possibility: Some state of affairs is nomologically possible if and only if its obtaining does not violate a law of nature.
Now, your talking donkey tale is nomologically impossible (unless we are hopelessly off in our beliefs about laws of nature). Your talking donkey tale is not logically impossible, as you yourself came up with a hypothetical scenario that would explain the donkey's talking, and this hypothetical example does not entail a contradiction.
In short, a theist may argue that miracles may be nomologically impossible in that God must suspend or violate laws of nature in their performance. Or, a theist may argue that miracles are nomologically possible, and that exertions of God's will are consistent with higher-order laws of nature. Or, a theist may argue that the notion of nomological possibility is somehow confused or incoherent.
None of the miracles I've heard attributed to the God of the Bible seem logically impossible. I haven't heard of a biblical miracle that entails a contradiction. Here's a test: When some miracle is being discussed, try and determine whether there is some proposition that would have to be both true and false if the miracle occurred.
For instance, suppose someone tells you that God did made it the case that simultaneously 1) Smith is taller than Jones, 2) Jones is taller than Brown, and 3) Brown is taller than Smith. Since tallness is a non-reflective transitive property, 1 and 2 entail that 3 is false. If the miracle occurred, however, 3 is true. Thus, if the miracle occurred, 3 is both true and false. Voila, a contradiction. From this you may safely conclude that the alleged miracle is bogus.
So, if God is omnipotent, then he can do anything that is logically possible. Huntingbear takes this as equivalent to claiming that God can do anything, because it is just nonsense to suppose that some potential actions are logically impossible. Is this is boundary on God's power? I don't think so. I think this is an expression of the boundaries of coherent thought. God is subject to the laws of logic in that it can't be coherently thought otherwise.
Originally posted by bbarrbbarr, you're the man!
Hey telerion,
You should probably recognize the following distinction between different forms of possibility:
Logical possibility: Some state of affairs is logically possible if and only if its obtaining does not entail a contradiction.
Nomological possibility: Some state of affairs is nomologically possible if and only if its obtaining does not ...[text shortened]... t. God is subject to the laws of logic in that it can't be coherently thought otherwise.
Originally posted by bbarrThanks bbar for responding. I kind of thought of something like what you said after I'd posted, although without knowing the word "Nomological."
Hey telerion,
You should probably recognize the following distinction between different forms of possibility:
Logical possibility: Some state of affairs is logically possible if and only if its obtaining does not entail a contradictio ...[text shortened]... of logic in that it can't be coherently thought otherwise.
It was really just an idea I wanted to bounce around.
Thank you as well huntingbear for your last constructive post.
Originally posted by bbarrAs opposed to gnomological possibility -- the logical possibility that you may be a gnome...
Hey telerion,
You should probably recognize the following distinction between different forms of possibility:
Logical possibility: Some state of affairs is logically possible if and only if its obtaining does not entail a contradiction.
Nomological possibility: Some state of affairs is nomologically possible if and only if its obtaining does not ...[text shortened]... t. God is subject to the laws of logic in that it can't be coherently thought otherwise.
Originally posted by Coletti
Yes, it is clear that God is sorry about making man. Why? . . . But your point was that God changed his mind.
Exactly. God has changed his mind. When God created the world with perfect knowledge of events to come, he declared creation good. He was pleased with it and took a day of rest. Now in this passage, God has declared that he regrets ever making man.
Let's examine this idea a bit. Regret means to feel intense sorrow or mourning and when the verb is applied to an action it implies that, in light of new knowledge, the subject would not have made the same decision.
Example: A student chooses to skip a review session in a biology class. She figures that it won't be that hard and wants to spend that time playing football. Now the test comes and it is really hard. She fails the test. She says, "I regret not going to the study session. I'm bummed that the test was so hard."
Now when she says "regret" is she saying that she is sorry that the test wasn't easier? No. Clearly she means that if she had current information (the test is hard, not easy), she would have gone to the study session, instead of playing football.
"And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart." 21st Cent. KJV.
In the case of God, the action is not skipping a study session, but rather, creating man. Note that the Bible does not say "every man except Noah and his family." It says "made man on the earth." God here regrets that he placed man in his creation.
Now it might seem strange to you that God would change his mind in light of new evidence. I will address this more at the end of the post, but for now I want to touch on it just a bit. How could an omniscient god be said to gain new information? It doesn't make sense. An omniscient being by definition cannot gain new knowledge. Here is where I think we split. I look at all this and decide that God must not really be omniscient and thus can change his mind when new information arises. When I encounter verses that attest to the great wisdom or knowledge of God, I do not interpret them to mean omniscience. This seems sensible in light of this passage (and others).
I think however that you do something completely different. You assume that God cannot change his mind. If God cannot change his mind then "regret" can't really mean regret in sense that it usually does. So you reinterpret the passage to mean only that God is unhappy with man's wickedness, ignoring that verse 6 clearly states that God regrets his own action to create man, not man's decision to be wicked. By so doing you beg the question. We see this clearly in your post.
Originally posted by Coletti
The point of the passage, is that God is sorrowed by the
wickedness of man, that sin grieves and angers him. And God
responds to man accordingly.
As I said above, this interpretation completely ignores what verse 6 says!
Let's get back though to your first objection as I think that there is more to go over.
Originally posted by Coletti
Yes, it is clear that God is sorry about making man. Why? . . . But your point was that God changed his mind.
Yes, God changed his mind because he changed his judgment of his decision to create man. In the beginning of Genesis, he declares it good. Now he regrets his decision.
Originally posted by Coletti
Are you now changing your position from God changing his
mind to God regrets or feels sorry for making man? I'll
assume not and continue.
Don't assume this. I'll spare you and everyone reading a lame cliché here. This is exactly my point. I think you want me to argue that God has changed his action. I am simply saying that God has changed in his judgment of his decision to make man.
Originally posted by Coletti
You should alway consider the context when trying to
understand any text. In this case, man had multiplied in
numbers and had become exceedingly wicked. God see this and
is grieved by it, sorry that he made man.
Of course one should consider context. One should not however beg a question at hand and then use context as a pretense to mask it. As I said before, you assume that God does not change his mind, and then reinterpret the passage, exaggerating the context and ignoring an entire verse, in order to assert that the passage actually defends your assumption. You can argue that your assumption implies your interpretation. But you cannot simultaneously both defend your interpretation by your assumption and your assumption by your interpretation. That is circular reasoning and question begging.
One more interesting point of contention.
Originally posted by Coletti
Does God then change his
mind? Did he decided that creating Adam and Eve was a bad
idea from the start. No. If that was the case, then why
spare Noah? If God changed his mind, He would have wiped
out all of man, and spared none.
I don't think that changing your judgment of a decision necessarily means that you have to change your action.
Another example (this one from current events, Yah!):
Many democrats (and some republicans) now regret their decision to give George W. the power to declare war on Iraq at his discretion. They regret it in light of new evidence (no direct connection between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda or Sadaam and 9-11, no WMD in roaming vehicles or subterranean labs).
Does this mean that they necessarily must support withdrawing all their troops from Iraq? Certainly not. While they have changed their judgment of their decision to give Bush the power to declare war on Iraq at his discretion (a change of mind on their parts), they have before them an enormous number of choices. They can pull them out right away. They can leave them there until they feel Iraq is stabilized. They can leave them there indefinitely and declare Iraq a conquered territory of the US. These are all choices, but none of them negates that these same people have changed their minds. In this same way, God’s not cruelly slaughtering every last man, does not imply that he has not changed his judgment of his decision to make them in the first place.
Getting back to the problem of omniscience, in the case of human beings regretting makes sense because they cannot see into the future with certainty. In light of new information, a human can change his/her judgment of a decision in the past. However if we decide that God really is omniscient, then we encounter a contradiction. If we assume beforehand that God is omniscient, then knows with certainty that man will eventually fall into the state described in Gen 6:5. He still decides making man is good. However in Gen 6:6, in light of the same evidence that he had at creation, he regrets his decision to make man. A total 180.
To me this means that either God can change his mind or God has a severe mental disorder and does not know what he really wants. In neither case, can he be omniscient
Originally posted by Coletti
Sorry I took so long responding. And I'd like to add that I
am enjoying the debate.
Don't sweat it. I just can't imagine you'd have better things to do then go round and round with an ex-missionary like me 🙂 . I took some time in responding because I wanted to spend the weekend with my wife and daughter. I hope this finds you well.
Originally posted by telerionI suppose part of our disagreement stems from having a different view of the validity of scripture. You say I am begging the question because I believe God is omniscient. Well I believe God is omniscient because scripture indicates that. I believe that God does not change his mind because other scriptures say just that in clear terms. You on the other hand question the validity of scripture, so all that scripture says is in doubt, and can not be used to support a claim. I cannot then say that God is omniscient because the Bible says so because that is begging the question, and so it is. I believe in the scriptures as God breathed.
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Yes, it is clear that God is sorry about making man. Why? . . . But your point was that God changed his mind.
Exactly. God has changed his mind. When God created the world with perfect knowledge of events to come, he declared creation good. He was pleased with it and took a day of rest. Now in this passa ...[text shortened]... because I wanted to spend the weekend with my wife and daughter. I hope this finds you well.
[/b]
Now, for the sake of argument, lets say that the scriptures are God breathed. That what the scriptures say about God is true, that He is omnipotent and omniscient. The scripture say the his will can not be thwarted. If we agree on that, then if God changes his mind, that would necessarily mean his actions would reflect that change. For God's will is done according to scripture. But if regret means God is not happy about something, then the verse means God is upset. God is communicating his displeasure in a way that we can understand, and that is reflected in his actions. If God changed his mind (which is not logical if He is omnicient), then eveything would be changed, God would not have left any man alive.
Originally posted by ColettiI think we have another option, and it is the one I've been using all along. That is to put aside whether the scripture is "God-breathed" or not. Let's just look at the Bible as a book with a character named God and see what the Bible says about this character. If we assume that it is God inspired then it kinda makes the whole exercise meaningless. By the same token, if one immediately dismisses every verse of the Bible as a lie, then certainly we have the same problem. Fortunately, I hold neither of this latter positions.
I suppose part of our disagreement stems from having a different view of the validity of scripture. You say I am begging the question because I believe God is omniscient. Well I believe God is omniscient because scripture indicates that. I believe that God does not change his mind because other scriptures say just that in clear terms. You on the other ha ...[text shortened]... if He is omnicient), then eveything would be changed, God would not have left any man alive.
Now the Bible clearly states that God regrets his making mankind. I think you are still trying to dismiss an entire verse of the Bible to conform to your presupposition that God is omniscient. I would ask you, from where in the Bible do you know for certain that God is omniscient? I can guarantee that no major translation (not the Message or the Amplied Bible or any bastardizations like that) of the Bible uses that exact word. From my experience as an xtian, I believe the view that God is omniscient comes from traditional doctrine, which is based on the combinatin of loose interpretation of scripture and a theologian's creative imagination.
So my question is why do you attempt to defend a church doctrine by omitting scripture, rather than amending your doctrine to conform to the scriptures?