Originally posted by CalJust
You see, this is exactly the kind of mental gymnastics that I am talking about.
No gymnastics. You explained God made a mistake. I pointed out that He as sorry from the start and not after realizing some mistake.
I think you misrepresented was was really written there.
Firstly, my attitude to, and relationship with God, is just fine.
Mine could use some deepening and growth ... always.
Nice to see yours is "just fine."
I am not accusing him of anything. I am accusing people like you of taking things literally that clearly are "mistakes" written in the original tect by over-zealous authors giving God anthropomorhic characteristics.
I thought you were kind of doing both.
Now if you and I can point out the mistakes of God, that means He endowed us with wisdom that He did not have within Himself to give.
How's that work?
I think the Cause is greater than the Effect.
Do you think our Creator bestowed upon us more wisdom than He was able to come up with?
Your story of Samuel and Israel asking for a king is one of the mental gymnastics I am referring to.
The only exercise I did was to read the account around the passage that you pointed out. That's pretty much it.
Maybe you think you have come up with some really new stuff no one ever thought of before?
Yes, you are absolutely right in your run-up to the story: Israel asking for a king, Samuel's sorrow, God warniing them, their persistence and then God relenting. All that is true. However, the story continues how Samuel was miraculously guided to Saul, followed by Saul's initial good performance, and then the final disobedience which caused him to be rejected by God.
I don't see how this establishes the error prone God theory.
The point that should bother you, or any literal reader, is why did God not chose David in the first place?
Okay. I'll think on that. Maybe I'll get back to you about that.
To say that God did not BECOME sorry is to twist the story. The narrative clearly shows (taken literally) that Saul was God's first choice, but the latter disappointed him, and so he chose another candidate: David. Just like a human manager would have done. Nothing that goes before that, changes that fact.
It did strike me something like that when I first read it.
For some reason it has not been a part of my considerations since.
I think OUR choosing and God's choosing are not the same.
Yes, He did give them THEIR choice driven by THEIR motives.
After the very sad failure of their agenda, God comes in with a man that is after His heart - David.
Even with David everything did not turn out perfect.
I think the imperfect people throughout the Old Testament were leading up to the One whom God Said "This is My Son, the Beloved. Hear Him."
The OT road up to perfection is seen traversing through many prophets, priests and kings. The transition from Saul to David is a dramatic step along the way.
By the way, I could find other examples of this kind of matter.
For example, David wants to build a temple for God.
In a sense God replies - " You build Me a house ?? I'll build YOU a house." Then latter God does have a temple built.
Man's way, for man's glory, with man's agenda is one thing.
God's way for His will is not the same.
I think this is how we should approach the paradox.
My point in this thread is not to malign God. In all these three scriptures, people that the Holy Spirit inspired to write down their history, included details that can readily be explained from a human point of view, but seen in the overall context of scripture, where obviously wrong.
I never would deny that the human sentiments come in along side sometimes, of the revelation of God.
has a flavor,
has his emphasis and John
want to get across his main points.
Some of the Psalms
are very full with human sentiment.
You have arguments with God.
You also have godly Israelites hoping their enemies really get it.
Sure, some human sentiments come in along with God's speaking.
God is NOT like the way these authors pictured!
No, it is more like He is that and MORE.
In the progressive revelation of God, we see more and more of His character.
" He's NOT like this but IS like that" is not what I see from Genesis
. I see a deepening unfolding.
I have to stop writing here.