![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/07\/GogJudged.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>,\u00a0who was\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cChristians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute . . . I\u2019ve heard the good stuff, and it\u2019s not very good.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Such confusion would indeed be\u00a0predictable<\/em>, seeing that Bob himself admitted\u00a0(2-13-16<\/a>):\u00a0\u201cMy study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I\u2019m researching at the moment.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes if I am able, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.\u00a0It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that, rest assured that he either\u00a0hasn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0replied, or didn\u2019t\u00a0inform<\/em>\u00a0me that he did.\u00a0But don\u2019t hold your breath.<\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog (just prior to his\u00a0banning<\/em>\u00a0me from it), his opinion was as follows:\u00a0\u201cDave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn\u2019t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he\u2019s writing about.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0making the statement, Bob\u00a0wrote in a combox<\/a>\u00a0on his blog:\u00a0\u201cThe problem, it seems to me, is when someone gets these clues, like you, but ignores them. I suppose the act of ignoring could be deliberate or just out of apathy, but someone who\u2019s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat \u2018n sassy and ignorant.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Again,\u00a0Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on\u00a010-27-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou can\u2019t explain it to us, you can\u2019t defend it, you can\u2019t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It\u2019s clear you have nothing.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And again\u00a0on the same day<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf you can\u2019t answer the question, man up and say so.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And on\u00a010-26-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cyou refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>And\u00a0again<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou\u2019re<\/i>\u00a0the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds.\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 33 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or search \u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In his article,\u00a0The Leaky Noah\u2019s Ark Tale<\/a> (2 of 2)<\/a> (9-2-16; updated from a post on 7-4-13), Bible-Basher Bob pontificates:<\/p>\n What was going through God\u2019s mind?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s how God begins the project.<\/span><\/p>\n [Jehovah] regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So [Jehovah] said, \u201cI will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created\u2014and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground\u2014for I regret that I have made them.\u201d (Gen. 6:6\u20137)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n God regrets? God changes his mind? As an omniscient being, why didn\u2019t he see this coming? . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But in the early days, of course, God was merely powerful, not omniscient. And not particularly benevolent either.<\/span><\/p>\n I covered this general ground in my treatment of anthropopathism last time<\/a>. The present issue involves the same dynamics; that is: the Bible states something about God that human beings can relate to. He (at least prima facie<\/em> in the text, interpreted literally) thinks differently now about something He did. So the text says that He \u201cregretted\u201d it.<\/p>\n Kevin DeYoung, writing at The Gospel Coalition<\/em> site, stated:<\/p>\n The word of the Lord came to Samuel: \u201cI regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.\u201d (1 Samuel 15:10-11<\/a>)<\/p>\n In\u00a01 Samuel 15:35<\/a>, we see a similar statement:<\/p>\n And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.<\/p>\n Strong words. And surprising too. What does it mean for God to say \u201cI regret\u201d? Can God change his mind? Can we thwart God\u2019s plans? Is God ignorant about the future? Is God just like us in that he makes honest mistakes and sometimes look back at his decisions and says, \u201cGolly, I wish I could do that one over again\u201d? It seems like our God makes mistakes and is forced to change course.<\/p>\n And yet, we know this is not the right way to understand God\u2019s regret because of what we read a few verses earlier in\u00a01 Samuel 15<\/a>:<\/p>\n And Samuel said to him, \u201cThe Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.\u201d (28-29)<\/p>\n . . . As God\u2019s ways appear to us, there will be change and variation, but as God is in his character and essence there can be no variation of shadow due to change (James 1:17<\/a>; cf.\u00a0Mal.3:6<\/a>;\u00a0Heb. 13:8<\/a>;\u00a02 Tim. 2:13<\/a>). (\u201cDoes God Have Regret?\u201d<\/a>, 10-7-14)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The magnificent multi-volume Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/em> <\/a>elaborates a bit more:<\/p>\n To confirm his own words, he adds in\u00a01 Samuel 15:29<\/a><\/span>\u00a0: \u201c\u00a0And also the Trust of Israel doth not lie and doth not repent, for He is not a man to repent<\/em>\u00a0.\u201d \u05e0\u05e6\u05d7 signifies constancy, endurance, then confidence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant. . . . the context suggests the idea of unchangeableness. For a man\u2019s repentance or regret arises from his changeableness, from the fluctuations in his desires and actions. This is never the case with God; consequently He is \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e0\u05e6\u05d7 ,\u00a0the unchangeable One, in whom Israel can trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or repent of His purposes<\/em>\u00a0. These words are spoken \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c9\u0342\u03c2 (theomorphically), whereas in\u00a01 Samuel 15:11<\/a><\/span>\u00a0and other passages, which speak of God as repenting, the words are to be understood \u03b1\u0313\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u0342\u03c2 (anthropomorphically; cf.\u00a0Numbers 23:19<\/a><\/span>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here is the latter passage in RSV:<\/p>\n Numbers 23:19\u00a0<\/strong>God is not man, that he should lie,\u00a0or a son of man, that he should repent.\u00a0Has he said, and will he not do it?\u00a0Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The word,\u00a0anthropomorphically<\/em> is used several other times in the\u00a0Keil & Delitzsch Commentary<\/a><\/em>, as we learn from a search function<\/a> at the online version. Here are two examples:<\/p>\n [Exodus 33:18-23<\/strong><\/a>]\u00a0The manifested glory of the Lord would so surely be followed by the destruction of man, that even Moses needed to be protected before it (Exodus 33:21<\/a><\/span>,\u00a0Exodus 33:22<\/a><\/span>). Whilst Jehovah, therefore, allowed him to come to a place upon the rock near Him, i.e., upon the summit of Sinai (Exodus 34:2<\/a><\/span>), He said that He would put him in a cleft of the rock whilst He was passing by, and cover him with His hand when He had gone by, that he might see His back, because His face could not be seen. The back, as contrasted with the face, signifies the reflection of the glory of God that had just passed by. The words are transferred anthropomorphically<\/span> from man to God, because human language and human thought can only conceive of the nature of the absolute Spirit according to the analogy of the human form. As the inward nature of man manifests itself in his face, and the sight of his back gives only an imperfect and outward view of him, so Moses saw only the back and not the face of Jehovah. It is impossible to put more into human words concerning this unparalleled vision, which far surpasses all human thought and comprehension.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Keil & Delitzsch<\/em> comment on the very passage that Bob brought up:<\/p>\n [Genesis 6:5-8<\/strong><\/a>]\u00a0Now when the wickedness of man became great, and \u201c\u00a0every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil the whole day<\/em>\u00a0,\u201d i.e., continually and altogether evil, it repented God that He had made man, and He determined to destroy them. . . .<\/p>\n The force of \u05d9\u05e0\u05bc\u05d7\u05dd , \u201cit repented the Lord,\u201d may be gathered from the explanatory \u05d9\u05ea\u05e2\u05e6\u05bc\u05d1 , \u201cit grieved Him at His heart.\u201d This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature of His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Samuel 15:29<\/a><\/span>), \u201c\u00a0quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non praevisum accidit\u00a0<\/em>\u201d (\u00a0Calvin<\/em>\u00a0). The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that \u201cGod is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish\u201d (\u00a0Calvin<\/em>\u00a0).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dr. Bert Thompson, writing for the wonderful Apologetics Press<\/em> site in 2003 (\u201cWhy does God Sometimes Repent?\u201d<\/a>) observes:<\/p>\n On occasion, within Scripture we find the comment made that God \u201crepented\u201d of certain actions (or intended actions) on His part. [e.g., Jonah 3:10 (RSV): \u201cWhen God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it.\u201d] . . .<\/p>\n [D]uring the Patriarchal Age in which they were living, Noah and his contemporaries had received instructions on how to live righteously (see 1 Peter 3:18-20), and as long as they continued in this manner, God\u2019s presence and blessings would abide with them. But when they became sinful and unrepentant, He no longer could condone their actions. As a consequence of their sinful rebelliousness, God withdrew His spirit (Genesis 6:3), and pledged to send a flood to destroy all mankind except Noah and his immediate family (6:7). God was grieved (6:6), not because He did not know that this series of events would happen, or because He somehow \u201cregretted\u201d having created man in the first place, but because, having given man the choice to serve Him or reject Him, man had chosen the latter with such unanimity. . . .<\/p>\n The examples described above (from Genesis 6 and Jonah 3) represent situations in which God\u2019s actions were necessary because of the fact that man, although created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), had morphed into a sinful creature. Thus, God\u2019s decision to judge man via a universal flood, or to destroy the inhabitants of an entire city, was dependent upon man\u2019s (negative) response to the conditions of righteousness that God had imposed at an earlier time via His divine commands. . . .<\/p>\n Consider the following passage.<\/p>\n At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (Jeremiah 18:7-10).<\/p>\n This passage is an\u00a0explicit<\/b>\u00a0statement of the very principle under consideration here\u2014i.e., God\u2019s plan or rule of conduct in dealing with man. God\u2019s promises and\/or threats may be either directly stated, or implied. Whenever God, in reacting to a change of character or intent in certain persons, does not execute the threats, nor fulfill the promises He made to them, the reason is clear. If a wicked man turns from his wickedness, God no longer holds the threat against him. If a righteous man turns from righteousness to wickedness, God withdraws the previously promised blessings. It is precisely because God is immutable that His relationship to men, and\/or His treatment of them, varies with the changes in\u00a0their\u00a0<\/b>conduct. When the Scriptures thus speak of \u201cGod having repented,\u201d the wording is accommodative (viz., written from a human vantage point). As Samuel Davidson has well said: \u201cWhen repentance is attributed to God, it implies a change in His mode of dealing with men, such as would indicate on their part a change of purpose\u201d (1843, p. 527). From a human vantage point, we view God\u2019s act(s) as \u201crepentance.\u201d But, in reality, God\u2019s immutable law has not changed one iota; only the response of man to that law has changed. Seen in this light, God cannot be accused of any self-contradictory attributes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bob (always fair to and accurate about God at all times) also opined:<\/span> \u201cin the early days, of course, God was merely powerful, not omniscient.\u201d I disposed of this self-serving, complately groundless and arbitrary myth about the Bible and its presentation of God\u2019s attributes in the paper:\u00a0Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT?<\/a>\u00a0(God\u2019s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding)<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s one thing to simply state, \u201cI don\u2019t believe or accept what the Bible \/ Christianity teaches.\u201d We understand that this is (broadly speaking) the position of the atheist.<\/p>\n\n