Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Balaam..three attempts to curse what God has Blessed..for money..hired by Balaak. Rev 2;14 you have there those who hold to
the doctrine of Balaam..who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel......
to 'eat' things sacrificed to idols and committ fornication.............
Quote from: sheila on February 19, 2016, 08:30:35 PM
Balaam..three attempts to curse what God has Blessed..for money..hired by Balaak. Rev 2;14 you have there those who hold to
the doctrine of Balaam..who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel......
to 'eat' things sacrificed to idols and committ fornication.............
I am asking in sincerity, then does that mean that it is not true or true that "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?"
3 measures..administration law/grace/gospel and all.......'hired' men Judas priests that condemn the righteous for money.
all men receive the free gift of righteousness before God because of His grace. You can't serve God and Mammon.
the stumbling block..that leads to spiritual fornication is both the bitter and sweet coming out of the mouth[the Branch turns
the bitter waters sweet..that the young are not cast]. Bless God..and curse man who is made in His image......
eating things sacrificed to idol[demonic doctrines of burning in fire/hellfire eternally..ET doctrines that curse men]
He said 'let us make man in our image' and He will finish it! why do you call me good? there is none good but God. What is
impossible with men..are possible with God.
for this reason I do not not throw the baby out with the bathwater..or the little children out into the dump with the scraps
left from the remodeling.of the house........ this world bears wittness of 'mother's/churches lacking natural affection......
trashcan babies..thrown away as refuse. And I was especially fond of the sons of men.
O'Immanuel[God with us] if God be for us[let us make man in our image] who can be against us. Baal that's who....a false idol
[god]
Ya lost me, but thanks :HeartThrob:
:thumbsup: the little children were partakers of flesh and blood....and likewise He partook.
Ok
See Micah..Isaaih 59;16 and He saw that there was no man and wondered that there was no intercessor.......therefore His arm
brought salvation[works of the Father in me] unto him,and his righteousness it sustained him.
Jesus is at the Father's right hand..He is the right arm of God..that worked salvation on the cross for all men. :girlheart:
Quote from: sheila on February 19, 2016, 09:32:48 PM
See Micah..Isaaih 59;16 and He saw that there was no man and wondered that there was no intercessor.......therefore His arm
brought salvation[works of the Father in me] unto him,and his righteousness it sustained him.
Jesus is at the Father's right hand..He is the right arm of God..that worked salvation on the cross for all men. :girlheart:
Shelia, maybe, no I am slow at getting to some things, but mainly I am asking does God lie, or repent?
1Sa 15:29 and also, the Pre-eminence of Israel does not lie nor repent, for He [is] not a man to be penitent..
As opposed to Balaam saying Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
when I read about the time before the flood..and the thoughts of men were evil all the time...and God repented that He made man...
it makes me wonder....His sorrow so deep..that He made us corruptible,maybe? But then I think of His placing the rainbow..as a
'sign' that He would never again...as a perpetual covenant..between Him and His creation.
and when I read in the Revelation of Jesus Christ of rainbows etc. I know He has passed over judgement/condemnation of man
in favour of Grace/mercy unto us. If He had not left us a seed..we would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah.......
that 'seed' that mind of Christ..to bring into subjection all things..makes all the differnce.
God is no liar......
"God is no liar......" This I also believe, I believe the repent in Gen.6 as to to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console, but I do not believe He changed anything.
I was discussing this subject with folks who believe God changed his mind where as I stand by Mal 3:6 For I, Jehovah, change/alter not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
They say that He changed His mind[repented] with Nineveh and with Hezekiah among others. I do not.
That is why I ask. :HeartThrob:
:thumbsup: great topic Micah. out the door..must pick up my grandson.....ttyl :girlheart:
Quote from: micah7:9 on February 19, 2016, 10:39:46 PM
"God is no liar......" This I also believe, I believe the repent in Gen.6 as to to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console, but I do not believe He changed anything.
I was discussing this subject with folks who believe God changed his mind where as I stand by Mal 3:6 For I, Jehovah, change/alter not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
They say that He changed His mind[repented] with Nineveh and with Hezekiah among others. I do not.
That is why I ask. :HeartThrob:
Shalom Micah,
When Father is written of from our perspective, he (from our perspective) repents, dwells in a tabernacle, goes down to see what is going on on earth, etc.
From his perspective, however, he does not repent, cannot be contained by his entire creation, knows everything, etc.
So when scripture says in Gen 6:6,7 that God repented (regretted) making man, from our perspective of what happened, that is true.
When scripture says that God is not a man that he should repent, (regret) from his perspective, this is equally true.
With regard to your discussion concerning the changing of God's mind with Ninevah and Hezekiah, there is something in Hebrew grammar that lets us know when God is saying something that involves a choice on man's part, such as with Ninevah and Hezekiah, and when God is saying something that does not involve man's choice at all, but rather is an absolute certainty. You will see instances of a doubling of an action, such as is found in Gen 2:17 and Gen 18:10, to name a couple of popular examples. This doubling acts as an indicator of certainty, with no chance of any change occurring. You will not see this doubling in the account of Jonah or Hezekiah, indicating that human choice had some role to play in the outcome.
Hope this makes sense
Ronen
Ronen
Got it thanks :Peace2:
Hi all, just another point of view.
Does God repent. It is not the first time this question has been wondered about. The Hebrew word nacham (H5162) found in the OT, as in Ex. 32:14, has a number of meanings in English.
Each translation I examined has a meaning of this word that is very inconsistent. Does it mean mercy, regret, repent, pity, comfort, sigh, etc? Is the true meaning to be found from the context? It looks like the translators chose words that fit their ideas, biases, opinions and concepts. So is there a suitable English equivalent word for nacham?
Definitions from bible scholars into English of Strong's- H5162:
nâcham
naw-kham'
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself)
KJV Usage: comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er, -ing, self).
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a. (Niphal)
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b. (Piel) to comfort, console
c. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d. (Hithpael)
1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself
Note the many and varied meanings ascribed to this Hebrew word. The translated versions of the bible in English are inconsistent, not only from one version to another but within a version itself. The Hebrew word nacham (H5162) appears over a 100 times in the OT. The KJV translates Strongs H5162 in the following manner: comfort 57 times, repent 41 times, comforter 9 times and, ease once.
Also the "literal" translations such as the CLV, Rotherhams and Young's are inconsistent in translating the word. The only version that is consistent is the exeGeses Companion Bible which translates the word into the English word "sighs". IMO this is a good rendering, but perhaps others could shed more light on the meaning.
To examine this topic more thoroughly, look at the account concerning Moses trying to convince God to repent and change His mind about the fate of the nation of Israel, as some translations state (Exodus 32: 9-14).
Yes, we know Moses did not succeed. God did not repent nor can He IMO.
Some notable scholars on this tent-maker web site are of the opinion that God does change His mind. Can He? Of course He can but that would be unlike since He is perfect and omnipotent. He says He changes not.
In Exodus 32 God decided not to wipe out the nation of Israel. Perhaps God needed to make Moses understand how he (Moses) truly felt about the Israelites. In order to make Moses realize how deeply he cared about them, God purposed that He take them away by wiping them out. Was this something God was debating on doing or just helping Moses see how much he (Moses) loved them, so he would be willing to do all he had to go through to help them. God may have been just using a little reverse physiology there it seems to help Moses understand. Yes, a possibility.
So God does not repent. And yet we find in Ex 32:14 the following according to various translations of the word nacham
Rotherham(i) 14 So then Yahweh was grieved (H5162),—over the calamity—which he had spoken of inflicting on his people.
YLT(i) 14 and Jehovah repenteth (H5162) of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people.
CLV(i) 14 So Yahweh showed mercy (H5162) concerning the evil which He spoke of doing to His people.
ECB(i) 14 - and Yah Veh sighs (H5162) of the evil he worded to work to his people.
KJV Exo 32:14 And the LORD repented (H5162) of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
The CLV uses the word "mercy": for nacham (H5162) in Ex. 32:14.
This is inconsistent and is never thus translated anywhere else in the OT CLV version.
Note these verses from some translations of Num 23:19:
CLV(i) 19 El is not a man that He should lie. Nor a son of humanity that He should feel regret (H5162). Does He say it and then not do it? Or speak and then not carry it out?
Rotherham(i) 19 GOD is, not a man, that he should lie, Nor a son of Adam, that he should repent (H5162),—Hath, he, said, and will not perform? Yea spoken, and will not make it stand fast?
YLT(i) 19 God is not a man—and lieth, And a son of man—and repenteth (H5162)! Hath He said—and doth He not do it ? And spoken—and doth He not confirm it?
ECB(i) 19 El is neither a man, that he lies; nor the son of humanity, that he sighs (H5162): Says he ever, and not work? Or words he ever, and it not rise?
KJV(i) 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent (H5162): has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
So what can we deduce from this?
I suggest that the pure (root) meaning of nacham is "sigh". If this is reasonable then we can gain further insight by looking at the context of the particular verse in which nacham (sigh) is used.
So, based on the context and content of a verse, could not nacham (sigh) signify an expression of:
sighing to indicate comfort or consoling
sighing to indicate pity or compassion
sighing to indicate wrath or disdain
sighing to indicate power/perfection (as in Num 23:19)
Sighing is a expression of a thought and may not result in an action. Also the sigh of comfort is most often used in verses talking about humans, whereas the sigh of other attributes is used in verses referring to God.
These two scriptures (Ex. 32:14 and Num 23:19) and others too, may have more meaning based on the real meaning of nacham. Just my opinion.
:2c:
Shalom Joe,
I totally agree with the rendering of the word as 'sigh'. The Sensory Translation I am working on translates every נח root word derivative as 'sigh', as the letters define the meaning of the word in that way. Although English contains many more individual words to try and express various nuances of meaning from Semitic words, too many times when one drinks the water further down the stream it becomes polluted, so to speak.
Ronen
Quote from: joeteekay on February 20, 2016, 04:56:12 AM
Hi all, just another point of view.
Does God repent. It is not the first time this question has been wondered about. The Hebrew word nacham (H5162) found in the OT, as in Ex. 32:14, has a number of meanings in English.
Each translation I examined has a meaning of this word that is very inconsistent. Does it mean mercy, regret, repent, pity, comfort, sigh, etc? Is the true meaning to be found from the context? It looks like the translators chose words that fit their ideas, biases, opinions and concepts. So is there a suitable English equivalent word for nacham?
Definitions from bible scholars into English of Strong's- H5162:
nâcham
naw-kham'
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself)
KJV Usage: comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er, -ing, self).
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a. (Niphal)
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b. (Piel) to comfort, console
c. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d. (Hithpael)
1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself
Note the many and varied meanings ascribed to this Hebrew word. The translated versions of the bible in English are inconsistent, not only from one version to another but within a version itself. The Hebrew word nacham (H5162) appears over a 100 times in the OT. The KJV translates Strongs H5162 in the following manner: comfort 57 times, repent 41 times, comforter 9 times and, ease once.
Also the "literal" translations such as the CLV, Rotherhams and Young's are inconsistent in translating the word. The only version that is consistent is the exeGeses Companion Bible which translates the word into the English word "sighs". IMO this is a good rendering, but perhaps others could shed more light on the meaning.
To examine this topic more thoroughly, look at the account concerning Moses trying to convince God to repent and change His mind about the fate of the nation of Israel, as some translations state (Exodus 32: 9-14).
Yes, we know Moses did not succeed. God did not repent nor can He IMO.
Some notable scholars on this tent-maker web site are of the opinion that God does change His mind. Can He? Of course He can but that would be unlike since He is perfect and omnipotent. He says He changes not.
In Exodus 32 God decided not to wipe out the nation of Israel. Perhaps God needed to make Moses understand how he (Moses) truly felt about the Israelites. In order to make Moses realize how deeply he cared about them, God purposed that He take them away by wiping them out. Was this something God was debating on doing or just helping Moses see how much he (Moses) loved them, so he would be willing to do all he had to go through to help them. God may have been just using a little reverse physiology there it seems to help Moses understand. Yes, a possibility.
So God does not repent. And yet we find in Ex 32:14 the following according to various translations of the word nacham
Rotherham(i) 14 So then Yahweh was grieved (H5162),—over the calamity—which he had spoken of inflicting on his people.
YLT(i) 14 and Jehovah repenteth (H5162) of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people.
CLV(i) 14 So Yahweh showed mercy (H5162) concerning the evil which He spoke of doing to His people.
ECB(i) 14 - and Yah Veh sighs (H5162) of the evil he worded to work to his people.
KJV Exo 32:14 And the LORD repented (H5162) of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
The CLV uses the word "mercy": for nacham (H5162) in Ex. 32:14.
This is inconsistent and is never thus translated anywhere else in the OT CLV version.
Note these verses from some translations of Num 23:19:
CLV(i) 19 El is not a man that He should lie. Nor a son of humanity that He should feel regret (H5162). Does He say it and then not do it? Or speak and then not carry it out?
Rotherham(i) 19 GOD is, not a man, that he should lie, Nor a son of Adam, that he should repent (H5162),—Hath, he, said, and will not perform? Yea spoken, and will not make it stand fast?
YLT(i) 19 God is not a man—and lieth, And a son of man—and repenteth (H5162)! Hath He said—and doth He not do it ? And spoken—and doth He not confirm it?
ECB(i) 19 El is neither a man, that he lies; nor the son of humanity, that he sighs (H5162): Says he ever, and not work? Or words he ever, and it not rise?
KJV(i) 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent (H5162): has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
So what can we deduce from this?
I suggest that the pure (root) meaning of nacham is "sigh". If this is reasonable then we can gain further insight by looking at the context of the particular verse in which nacham (sigh) is used.
So, based on the context and content of a verse, could not nacham (sigh) signify an expression of:
sighing to indicate comfort or consoling
sighing to indicate pity or compassion
sighing to indicate wrath or disdain
sighing to indicate power/perfection (as in Num 23:19)
Sighing is a expression of a thought and may not result in an action. Also the sigh of comfort is most often used in verses talking about humans, whereas the sigh of other attributes is used in verses referring to God.
These two scriptures (Ex. 32:14 and Num 23:19) and others too, may have more meaning based on the real meaning of nacham. Just my opinion.
:2c:
:iagree:
Quote from: gregoryfl on February 20, 2016, 06:00:30 AM
Shalom Joe,
I totally agree with the rendering of the word as 'sigh'. The Sensory Translation I am working on translates every נח root word derivative as 'sigh', as the letters define the meaning of the word in that way. Although English contains many more individual words to try and express various nuances of meaning from Semitic words, too many times when one drinks the water further down the stream it becomes polluted, so to speak.
Ronen
:Peace2:
Quote from: micah7:9 on February 19, 2016, 10:39:46 PM
"God is no liar......" This I also believe, I believe the repent in Gen.6 as to to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console, but I do not believe He changed anything.
I was discussing this subject with folks who believe God changed his mind where as I stand by Mal 3:6 For I, Jehovah, change/alter not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
They say that He changed His mind[repented] with Nineveh and with Hezekiah among others. I do not.
That is why I ask. :HeartThrob:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: ...Can't blame Yahweh for sighing.. that He "changed His mind" is a ridiculous idea!! imo :laughing7: always good to confirm it by the original language..
...surely not eveRything an off track preacher, prophet or teacher says is untrue..
:smile:
Quote from: gregoryfl on February 20, 2016, 02:11:30 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on February 19, 2016, 10:39:46 PM
"God is no liar......" This I also believe, I believe the repent in Gen.6 as to to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console, but I do not believe He changed anything.
I was discussing this subject with folks who believe God changed his mind where as I stand by Mal 3:6 For I, Jehovah, change/alter not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
They say that He changed His mind[repented] with Nineveh and with Hezekiah among others. I do not.
That is why I ask. :HeartThrob:
Shalom Micah,
When Father is written of from our perspective, he (from our perspective) repents, dwells in a tabernacle, goes down to see what is going on on earth, etc.
From his perspective, however, he does not repent, cannot be contained by his entire creation, knows everything, etc.
So when scripture says in Gen 6:6,7 that God repented (regretted) making man, from our perspective of what happened, that is true.
When scripture says that God is not a man that he should repent, (regret) from his perspective, this is equally true.
With regard to your discussion concerning the changing of God's mind with Ninevah and Hezekiah, there is something in Hebrew grammar that lets us know when God is saying something that involves a choice on man's part, such as with Ninevah and Hezekiah, and when God is saying something that does not involve man's choice at all, but rather is an absolute certainty. You will see instances of a doubling of an action, such as is found in Gen 2:17 and Gen 18:10, to name a couple of popular examples. This doubling acts as an indicator of certainty, with no chance of any change occurring. You will not see this doubling in the account of Jonah or Hezekiah, indicating that human choice had some role to play in the outcome.
Hope this makes sense
Ronen
Ronen
Ronen,
I've been thinking a lot about your post here.
In my aionian quest to reconcile God in the old testament with God described by Darryl in his post in U.R. affirmations #23 (1 John 4:8) :cloud9:, I am wondering if your comments about God's perspective vs man's perspective may have application in some of those hard to understand verses in the old testament.
In particular, in the sixth commandment (of the ten) He told them not to kill (murder), yet there are several instances where it is written that God either told the Jews to kill, or even had a direct hand in it.
It seems to me that God would not make a rule for his people and then break the rule.
So I guess my question for you is if you think it possible that these stories are just that, stories. (Based on facts but assembled from man's perspective, and I might go so far as to say that an account can be told in a way as to try to give a certain impression (we see this in politics every day - we call it 'spin')).
If as a believer, you know that God is in control of everything, and someone dies, it would be pretty easy to say God killed that person, after all, he is in control of everything.
Just wondering. I just won't be able to get a good night's sleep until I have all of the answers to all of my life's dilemmas :dunno:
Pat
Shalom Patinak,
I am probably not one that you should be seeking those types of answers to, as the understanding I have is not what most here, or anywhere, would see as logical or believable.
Do I believe God has a nose, eyes, a mouth, wings, etc? Not literally no, but I also do not believe that those parts being attributed to God are false either.
Does God give life, and take it? I believe he does. Does God רצח (murder)? No, scripture never ascribes that to him.
I do believe the history of scripture is based on fact, most of the time from man's perspective; and at times we are given a glimpse into the Creator's perspective. In reading the text, you can usually tell which perspective is given. For me personally, when I see conflict in the ideas I read in scripture, by going back to the original meanings of the words I can find how to two can coexist in peace.
Ronen
I believe the issues have to do with our limited view, our finite ability to perceive and understand God's grand design and why He does things. What we see darkly, He sees, knows, and uses for His Higher Purpose.
One problem I have with "man's perspective" or "just stories" is addressed in the following by Erik Lutz;
"Jesus quoted David's words as Scripture and added that he spoke by the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36). The Apostle Peter said, "this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke by the mouth of David" (Acts 1:16).
But David wasn't the only one who spoke by the Holy Spirit. For example, Zacharias said that God "spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began" (Luke 1:70). Obviously, the word "prophet" does not only refer to what we have termed the "major" or "minor" prophets in the Old Testament, since the prophets of God "have been since the world began." Instead, this refers to any man of God who was moved by the Holy Spirit to speak or write inspired words of truth from God. [prophecy - something that is declared by a prophet].
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20–21)
In fact, prophets are very often simply called "men of God" throughout Scripture (e.g., 1 Samuel 2:27; 1 Kings 17:24; 2 Kings 6:6), including Moses, who wrote several books of the Bible (Deuteronomy 33:1). So we can know that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written through men by the Holy Spirit.
But what about the New Testament? Were the writers of the Gospels, Epistles, etc. also inspired by the Holy Spirit? Jesus gave the following answer to His disciples:
"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things I said to you." (John 14:26)
The Holy Spirit also inspired the writers of the New Testament. Therefore, like Paul, we can be confident that "All Scripture is God-breathed . . . so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17."
I know there are instances in the scriptures where a person is expressing their own feelings or perspective, but I think those are usually very obvious and don't take a lot of second guessing. Seems to look for more of those incidences than are obvious, is to make the scriptures a pretty slippery slope, i.e., I can make the scriptures say anything or nothing, depending on what I decide to arbitrarily attribute to man rather than God. :2c:
Ronen and jabcat,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, I have the greatest respect for you both.
I totally understand that I am walking a thin line bringing up such things that might be perceived as questioning scripture inerrancy. Actually, just the opposite is true, but for now I will just keep praying for answers.
Pat
Quote from: Patinak on February 21, 2016, 09:23:03 AM
If as a believer, you know that God is in control of everything, and someone dies, it would be pretty easy to say God killed that person, after all, he is in control of everything.
The wages of sin is death.
The people that were killed were doing despicable deeds.
If there is no resurrection this would be pointless. The very point Paul makes in 1 Cor 15 about " if there is no resurrection then we should be pitied the most."
I.M.O these people were killed because they were a law unto themselves. Worshipping other gods as well as sacrificing to those gods. Killing them would highlight this wrong way of worship to the Jews.
Seems to show the whole purpose of the law was to establish behavioural patterns which would be better by which to live. Breaking the law needs a price to be paid. The whole concept of Christ paying the price, which had not happened yet for them.
All depicting the need for grace to cover a multitude of sins.
Quote from: Ross on February 22, 2016, 10:05:37 AM
Quote from: Patinak on February 21, 2016, 09:23:03 AM
If as a believer, you know that God is in control of everything, and someone dies, it would be pretty easy to say God killed that person, after all, he is in control of everything.
The wages of sin is death.
The people that were killed were doing despicable deeds.
If there is no resurrection this would be pointless. The very point Paul makes in 1 Cor 15 about " if there is no resurrection then we should be pitied the most."
I.M.O these people were killed because they were a law unto themselves. Worshipping other gods as well as sacrificing to those gods. Killing them would highlight this wrong way of worship to the Jews.
Seems to show the whole purpose of the law was to establish behavioural patterns which would be better by which to live. Breaking the law needs a price to be paid. The whole concept of Christ paying the price, which had not happened yet for them.
All depicting the need for grace to cover a multitude of sins.
Ross,
Thanks for your reply.
One thing I definitely agree with is the need for grace.
However, if we read the following passage literally, I can't imagine that the infant and suckling were doing 'despicable deeds':
[1Sa 15:3 KJV] 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Maybe it is that I have been so used to God showing me the importance of each one of his creation, that when I read about this kind of "wholesale" killing, it just doesn't seem to resonate with the better way that Jesus came to teach.
Pat
Quote from: Patinak on February 22, 2016, 09:07:40 AM
Ronen and jabcat,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, I have the greatest respect for you both.
I totally understand that I am walking a thin line bringing up such things that might be perceived as questioning scripture inerrancy. Actually, just the opposite is true, but for now I will just keep praying for answers.
Pat
Thank you for your kind words. If you look candidly at scripture, you often see the same sort of struggle, so you are in good company. As an aside, when I speak of man's perspective, I do not see this as separated from God's hand and inspiration, for very often we see he himself expressing things according to man's reality in this physical world. I truly believe that as you struggle and pray through this, if you adopt the mindset that embraces the totality of what you see as contradiction, instead of embracing only the one in favor of the other, your journey will be one of discussion, and discovery.
Ronen
Quote from: gregoryfl on February 22, 2016, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: Patinak on February 22, 2016, 09:07:40 AM
Ronen and jabcat,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, I have the greatest respect for you both.
I totally understand that I am walking a thin line bringing up such things that might be perceived as questioning scripture inerrancy. Actually, just the opposite is true, but for now I will just keep praying for answers.
Pat
Thank you for your kind words. If you look candidly at scripture, you often see the same sort of struggle, so you are in good company. As an aside, when I speak of man's perspective, I do not see this as separated from God's hand and inspiration, for very often we see he himself expressing things according to man's reality in this physical world. I truly believe that as you struggle and pray through this, if you adopt the mindset that embraces the totality of what you see as contradiction, instead of embracing only the one in favor of the other, your journey will be one of discussion, and discovery.
Ronen
This is why I love it here, abundant wisdom and kindness.
I will meditate on your suggestions, thanks.
Pat
Quote from: Patinak on February 22, 2016, 09:07:40 AM
Ronen and jabcat,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, I have the greatest respect for you both.
I totally understand that I am walking a thin line bringing up such things that might be perceived as questioning scripture inerrancy. Actually, just the opposite is true, but for now I will just keep praying for answers.
Pat
:handshake: Continuing to pray about it and look to the Lord is the way to go! I wrote what I did, not that I am even close to personally having my own understanding of it all - not at all. More so, basic guidelines that I believe need to stay in place, whether I/we understand fully or not. :2c:
Quote from: gregoryfl on February 22, 2016, 02:30:41 PM
Thank you for your kind words. If you look candidly at scripture, you often see the same sort of struggle, so you are in good company. As an aside, when I speak of man's perspective, I do not see this as separated from God's hand and inspiration, for very often we see he himself expressing things according to man's reality in this physical world. I truly believe that as you struggle and pray through this, if you adopt the mindset that embraces the totality of what you see as contradiction, instead of embracing only the one in favor of the other, your journey will be one of discussion, and discovery.
Ronen
:nod:
Quote from: gregoryfl on February 22, 2016, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: Patinak on February 22, 2016, 09:07:40 AM
Ronen and jabcat,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, I have the greatest respect for you both.
I totally understand that I am walking a thin line bringing up such things that might be perceived as questioning scripture inerrancy. Actually, just the opposite is true, but for now I will just keep praying for answers.
Pat
Thank you for your kind words. If you look candidly at scripture, you often see the same sort of struggle, so you are in good company. As an aside, when I speak of man's perspective, I do not see this as separated from God's hand and inspiration, for very often we see he himself expressing things according to man's reality in this physical world. I truly believe that as you struggle and pray through this, if you adopt the mindset that embraces the totality of what you see as contradiction, instead of embracing only the one in favor of the other, your journey will be one of discussion, and discovery.
Ronen
:cloud9: Amen. Over the years, every time I THOUGHT there was a contradiction, I later found out I just didn't have enough or the right information, but once I did, it all fit together perfectly like the elaborately designed "puzzle" it is. Of it's perfection, I HAVE NO DOUBT. My :2c: Blessings....