Beryl, I like your thoughts here about "absolute, unthinkable love" but for me at least they do not explain Tom's question (and many others question I'm sure) about why God would change His mind. Can you explain a little more just what you are saying, at least for me? I have always agreed with what CoAspen wrote on this point, but I have kept the subject open in the back of my head because I guess I have not taken the time to really think it through to my own satisfaction.

I see these "changes" as being God's regret that He had to do what He did because of the circumstances which we humans got ourselves into. Circumstances like what was going on prior to the flood were there was evil continuously in most every persons mind. Everyone was for SELF and there evidently was NO real concern for anyone else, just lust. God was sorry that He had to destroy human life and wished that sin had not happened (and that He had not created humans) because it was going to cause the death of His only Son. God does NOT like to hurt or destroy any of His creatures and it would have been better if they had never been created rather than Him having to destroy them.

Sodom NEEDED to be destroyed because what was happening there would have destroyed the entire earth before sin could even shows its true colors, its true ugliness, but it was not His desire to destroy them. He was just "forced" to do what He regretably had to do. God must not allow sin to spread to fast or all this pain and death will need to happen again at another time because someone would say that sin never really had a chance to prove itself.

If God knows all, even what He will do, then He 'knew' He would 'change' His mind. So, if He already knows the future, is it really 'changing' His mind?

Humans understand that if a person says "I am going from A to B, in a straight line", but then goes off to the right or left somewhere along the line but still returns to the original course and reaches B, then that person merely changed their mind at some point about following the straight line for some reason. That is human understanding. For me its seem logical human writers would explain God in the same manner, others would be able to understand the process and identify with Him.

I still think Bible writers would want to explain God in a manner that would best get the message across to the reader. It was always about the message and how to best present it. I see that as Gods intent for those writers.

We have to be careful about always trying to make the ancient words have the same meaning as we would understand them today. The Bible is a message to us, it is consistent, but human understanding is not. Focusing on the words used, detracts from the message of God. When the Bible is taken as whole, the message becomes more apparent and consistent.

I agree with your post CoAspen. Couldn't have said it better!!

pk

OK! Have you ever played Draughts -- or any other board game where you are playing with another person, trying to get your "men" from one side of the board to the opposite side, with the "opposition" making moves with their "men" to block your progress while also trying to get their "men" to take over your side?

I believe that the only way to account for God "changing His mind" is to look at it from the viewpoint of the battle between Christ and Satan -- with we humans and this earth as the "prize".

God wanted this earth to be perfect, and Adam to be the ruler of this planet. God and the angels had done all that they could in preparing Adam and Eve for the temptation from Satan. They were told to remain together. Eve wandered -- and Adam did not go looking for her! Eve was subject to the biggest temptation that the devil could devise -- and made the wrong choice.

Adam did not wait to see what God would do about the situation (he knew that God would come to the Garden that evening -- he could have waited), but he made the deliberate choice of eating the fruit -- most probably at Satan's prompting.

So, God's plan for a perfect earth had been spoiled, and so God had to "change His mind" regarding the home for Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve had two sons -- one obeyed God, and the other one didn't. So God had to "change His mind" about Cain. As the firstborn, it would have been through his line that the Saviour would have been born, but now that privilege passed on to the line of Seth.

Coming down to our present age, we read in the Spirit of Prophecy that Jesus would have come "long before this" but as a church we were not reaching out to the world with the message of the soon-coming Saviour, and so His coming is delayed. Have we improved? Yes! But we are also told that before the end the angels will be involved. In other words, God is not going to wait forever for us to complete the work.

God has a perfect plan -- and "the adversary" also has plans to block those plans -- but God is flexible. He, in turn, will "change His mind" so that the work of salvation goes forward, despite all the set-backs that the old devil can throw our way.

Thankfully, the time is getting closer when Jesus will come. The troubles of this world will be allowed to reach their fulness, and people will be forced into situations where they will have to decide on which side they want to be -- no more "sitting on the fence"! And no longer will God be in the position that He will have to "change His mind" because of moves by the devil.

I don't know whether this answers your questions. If not, I will try again!

God bless,

Beryl

The traditional explanation for these efforts to describe God and his actions is that it is anthropomorphism. Indeed God is not human, beyond our finite comprehension and not restricted to any human box we may try to put him in. But to explain himself and show himself to us most clearly he became human. As a human he showed a quite similar range of emotional responses as anthropomorphically ascribed to God in the OT. And the Jesus of the NT is not an anthropomorphic facsimile of a man, a mere divine illusion of a man. He was a real man feeling real human emotions and real human pain and real human joy. If Jesus, the God-man of the NT had those attributes, is it possible that the descriptions of the same God of the OT was not merely an anthropomorphic illusion, but just as real as the manner He decided to reveal Himself in the NT?

I wonder if perhaps there is a risk in relying too much on the traditional understanding that these OT stories were merely anthropomorphic efforts of ancient men to explain the profound mystery of God... What I mean is that if we assume these expressions of human-like regret, or changing ones mind as not really quite as described, should we also question the reality of the descriptions of God's love or caring attributes. Perhaps if God really doesn't feel regret as we might feel it or understand it, maybe the attribute of love is not so real either or not what we humanly perceive it to be. In short, it tends to depersonalize God, IMHO.

I really am not troubled by understanding God to really change his mind, express real genuine regret, to become angry anymore than I should be troubled to think He loves me passionately and cares deeply for me and that He would weep real tears to lose one person to the forces of evil.

Don't disagree with you, even if you do use those big dollar words, thats why I see the Bible as a whole, not fractured, separate stories. I see the same theme all the way through. Whether or not God changes His mind as we humans do is not that important to me. The same as the argument of 24/7 creation or not.

If everything we believe is just a little different than the truth we learn from God in the Heaven/New Earth scenario would not change the basic premise of "For God so loved the world...."

I have heard so different arguments over the years about this and that, well...my conclusion is I don't know squat about the real truth of anything, other than, there is a God and He will make everything perfect again. Maybe to simplistic for some, but hey, it works for me!

And now for a twist in a new direction using another big dollar word... ... Theomorphism

This is foundational to the creation story - that we were created or formed in the image or likeness of God. Of course, there has been much speculation and many theories on what this really means, but usually they are fairly minimalistic or confined to some singular attribute or similarity. If we are created in the image of God one should expect significant and not merely superficial similarities. But the traditional theory tends toward the conclusions that Biblical descriptions of God's attributes are in the seemingly opposite philosophical direction, namely anthropomorphic. Said differently, rather than embracing as evidence of this theomorphism those human qualities and characteristics that are used in Scripture to describe God, we shy away from the idea and try to deny that God has similarities to us.

I have often said that it seems that God loves a paradox. And this presents an interesting paradox. God recreates himself in the image of man to save lost man created in the image of God.

God knows all. But one thing, I saw this quote that said something like God can do anything and the only thing he could not do is undo the past. Is that true?

Interesting thought! To see where it could take our thinking go over to the Time and God topic where I have continued this time related idea of God not being able to change the past.

As for God knowing everything, that really is the question at hand. Although time related in a sense, is God's knowing the future a matter of seeing the real future or being able to completely and perfectly analyze the results of present actions and events over time into the future?

What would be necessary in order for a God with such complete and perfect foreknowledge to be surprised, or even experience, regret or to change his mind?

Think about free will.

I think God *waits* to see what, when, if, how we will do something. I think there's a myriad of ways He gives us to do something, and it's up to us to choose the way we want to go. In that respect, I think we can say God could be surprised....not at the outcome, but at *how* we chose to do something. (Does that make sense??)