Actually "shanah" means perfect in the vernacular not unchanging.

I dunno if he' s happy - but with all his mandates concerning penis, he might just be gay.




...

Not that there' s anything wrong with that...

(March 28, 2019 at 2:53 pm)tackattack Wrote: Actually "shanah" means perfect in the vernacular not unchanging.

Not sure where your getting that from:

Shanah 

1. to repeat, do again, change, alter 
   
   1. (Qal) to change 
      
   2. (Niphal) to be repeated 
      
   3. (Piel) to change, alter 
      
   4. (Hithpael) to disguise oneself
      

שניתי

I changed a planned fishing accident into a boat escape.
זה בסדר, שניתי את דעתי.
That's okay, I changed my mind.
אני מתגעגע לבתי ולאחרונה ואני מקבל את העובדה שזה רק לפני 11 שעות שניתי את דרכי
I miss my daughter, and I have recently... and I accept the fact that it was only 11 hours ago... turned a corner.


שניתי את דעתי לגבי ההצעה שלך.
I changed my mind about your offer.
תראה, שניתי אתמול את התוכניות שלי בגלל מסיבת הרווקים שלך,
Look, I changed my plans last night for your baclor party, and I

https://context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/שניתי

I was wrong, and I apologize. I must have been dozing. According to Strong's concordance it means repeatable or consistent. And in context as Gae pointed out it doesn't connote that that he is incapable of changing how he feels, simply that He is the same God in the New Testament as all throughout the time span of the old.

(March 28, 2019 at 2:52 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 28, 2019 at 2:34 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: There are parables, metaphor, and allegory.....and then there are antonyms.

If you want to insist that magic book is full of coded antonymous references, acro, have at it.  The rest of us, and the rest of the christians you would disagree with,  just haven't found the right box of crackerjacks yet, I suppose.

The write of Malachi himself confirms that god in unchanging. 

Malachi 3:6 

“For I the Lord do not change."

Your interpretation of the meaning of passage implies that the writer contradicts himself, by suggesting god is changing, that one minute he feels hatred towards Esau, and other minute he feels love towards Jacob. That when he thinks of Jacob he feels love, that when he thinks of Esau he feels hate. 

It's one thing to say the writer didn't believe God is not changing, therefore he meant it literally here. But the writer indicated that God is unchanging, therefore unless he's contradicting himself, the passage here in context of the writers views, is not literal.

When I read a book, or a story, or novel, from a writer, I read them in context, not just in parts, or by resorting to quote mining to justify an interpretation. 

Now it's very well possible that some writers of scripture may not have held a view of God as immutable, but that's contrary to the variety of attributes assigned to God by orthodox believers, and would therefore be seen as false or premature conception of God.

'For I the Lord do not change' is a metaphor.  It means something else.

Boru

(March 28, 2019 at 4:30 pm)tackattack Wrote: I was wrong, and I apologize. I must have been dozing. According to Strong's concordance it means repeatable or consistent. And in context as Gae pointed out it doesn't connote that that he is incapable of changing how he feels, simply that He is the same God in the New Testament as all throughout the time span of the old.

Except of course Malachi can’t be referring to the NT, since he writing prior to it.

Secondly immutability not only stems from
scripture, but also by gods other attributes as well, such as by being eternal and omniscient, the verse if read literally implies gods is effected or changed by the actions of humans, actions he knew would take place before hand. So when did god feel hatred after the actions were performed, or when he knew the actions were going to take place?

We also seem to be at a crossroads, two verses from the same writers which can’t both be taken literally, or the negate what the writers said, you imply one is not literal and I suggest the other.

If the ot cant be about the shit in the nt..there goes "prophecy"

-and all for what, because you just can't accept what the word of god says about god? He gets sad, he gets happy. He makes mistakes and regrets. He loves and hates. He's cranky sometimes and breezy others. He has a type of girl and a type of guy.

Hell, the fucker is downright human.

(March 28, 2019 at 7:10 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If the ot cant be about the shit in the nt..there goes "prophecy"

-and all for what, because you just can't accept what the word of god says about god?  He gets sad, he gets happy. He makes mistakes and regrets.  He loves and hates.  He's cranky sometimes and breezy others.  He has a type of girl and a type of guy.

Hell, the fucker is downright human.

 Actually, prophecy can be extremely accurate, when written after the event.  Before the event, not so much 

@Gae; could you tell me if  the conclusion I've reached about fortune telling and god's total knowledge of everything  is valid?

IE that knowledge of the future abrogates free will.

I've never quite grasped the logic about predestination and the 144,000 saved.--if everything is predetermined, why worry? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144,000

(March 28, 2019 at 4:57 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Secondly immutability not only stems from
scripture, but also by gods other attributes as well, such as by being eternal and omniscient

I think this is why we can address immutability somewhat separate from Bible verses. There is a lot of thinking about God that isn't specifically in the Bible.

In this I think that tackattack was on the right track. "Perfection" in the case of God means, also, immutability. In some cases perfection would be different, as if we were talking about a perfect steak dinner. That would demand change, because it wouldn't be perfect if you couldn't digest it. When people talk about God, though, perfection includes immutability because any change from perfection would mean a change away from perfection. 

Quote:the verse if read literally implies gods is effected or changed by the actions of humans

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but doesn't the verse imply that God ISN'T affected or changed in this way? It says “For I the Lord do not change."

Quote:So when did god feel hatred after the actions were performed, or when he knew the actions were going to take place?

This, as usual, is a problem for people who read every verse in its most literal and simplest sense. Sola scriptura fundies and New Atheists. 

For a very long time people have discussed uni-vocal language, equi-vocal language, analogous language, etc. One of the whole reasons for talking about God is as a concept or place-holder for something that is beyond human description and can't easily be talked about in normal language. 

It's common for careless people to call all of this "metaphor," though metaphor is strictly speaking a specific type of trope. A is B, as when Baudelaire says that nature is a temple. That trope isn't relevant for Malachi's verse.

God is whatever God is and that’s is scripture. I can’t clearly define or put a box around what God is anymore than you. He exists as axiomatic because of the omni attributes. That is why God can do anything He wants to do. Just like you can hypothesize about logical contradiction of how you could act if you didn’t act like yourself, but merely thinking about them is something you do. You can’t be anyone but yourself and God CANT (yes I said can’t) be anything other than God. You make it out like God is a rock outside of our universe with your stance. Scripture is clear that God has emotions. Otherwise you have to rule out His Love. You are conflating Unchanging with unmoved by connotation at the least.