The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God won't violate human 'free will'

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#81

No, I am not saying that 13 out of 23 versions is a vast majority. However, I still believe that a vast majority do so translate it, though I don’t have access to every Bible translation into English in order to prove this.However, I shouldn’t have affirmed that this is the case, without presenting adequate evidence.

I will point out, however, that I have a copy of the Jewish Study Bible. It is stated in the preface:

“THIS TRANSLATION OF TANAKH, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, produced by the Jewish Publication Society, was made directly from the traditional Hebrew text into the idiom of modern English. It represents the collaboration of academic scholars with rabbis from the three largest branches of organized Jewish religious life in America.”

How did these learned Jewish scholars translate the first part of Jeremiah 3:7? As follows:

I thought: After she had done all these things, she come back to me. But she did not come back…

1 Like
#82

Yes, good point.

But, still, knowing which translation captures the original intent is difficult.The Septuagint has been translated into English quite recently, but the original in Greek is quite old, maybe going back to the third century BC and is the very first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. And the Septuagint has Jeremiah 3.7 as this, in English: “And I said after she had committed all these acts of fornication, Turn again to me. Yet she returned not. And faithless Juda saw her faithlessness.”

Anyway, I called and later submitted a question about this issue to the Lockman Foundation, publishers of the NASB, which has the translation of Jeremiah 3:7 you favor. I asked why they chose that translation rather than the one found in other Bibles, like the Septuagint and the KJV. I haven’t received a reply yet.

#84

Clearly something is amiss here, bordering on the absurd.

What is said in verses 11 and 35 seems clearly to contradict what is expressed in the same chapter, i.e., see 1 Samuel 15:28-29, where it is said, in verse 29, that God will not have regret!

And Samuel said to him, “The 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.” (ESV)

#85

Again, I haven’t studied Hebrew. But in verse 29 in the Septuagint, a different Greek word is used, than that which is used in verses 11 and 35. The word used in its lexical form is “μετανουεω” which means to have a change of mind.

“The Lord will not lie or change his mind.” Indeed that’s the way it is translated in the NAS, NRSV, NIV, and others.

So when God saw how Saul turned out, He regretted having made him king. But once having made a decision about a matter, God does not change His mind about what He is going to do.

#86

Why should we go to the Septuagint? 1 Samuel was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek, and the Hebrew word in question used in all three verses (i.e., 1 Samuel 15:11, 1 Samuel 15:29, and 1 Samuel 15:35) is the same, not different. That Hebrew word is nacham. So, whatever it means in one of these three verses, it seems reasonable to think it could mean the same or a similar thing in the other two, especially since it is the same situation being addressed.

#87

In the Hebrew the word (נָחַם nacham) used in all three verses is indeed the same root word, however, their parsing is not the same… hence the probable differing words (though with the same basic meaning) used in the LXX to reflect this. Thus unlike man… God was not given nor subject to such flippant changing of the mind — vs.29 being in the infinitive is a strong word and appears only one other time in that exact parsing in Jer 31:15, where Rachel refused to be comforted, i.e., no matter what her mind was made up.

#88

Thanks for that. You said “probable differing words (though with the same basic meaning).” Thus, if one verse has the negative in it (i.e., 29), and the other two (i.e., 11 and 35) do not, then there is a contradiction if the key word nacham has “the same basic meaning” in all three verses.

That is, verse 11 says of God, such things as “it repents Me” or “I regret,” and verse 35 says such things as God repented or regretted what He had done. Thus, God is said to repent or regret in those two verses

But Verse 29 says God will not repent or regret.

#89

I’m thinking it’s more a case of… in the rarity that God changed his mind (few and far between) such wasn’t seen in terms of contradiction but rather, in contradistinction to man who could and did such with regularity… as for example with Israel’s constant vacillating in their faithfulness to God, as per the exodus etc; as far as I can tell.

#90

Why would a God who knows in advance all actions and decisions ever need to change his mind?

1 Like
#91

I am not saying that we should go to the Septuagint. I know only that I go to the Septuagint—for the following reasons:

  1. I have not studied Hebrew and therefore cannot go to the Hebrew.
  2. The Hebrew as we have it today was copied in the ninth century A.D., whereas the copies of the Septuagint translation from Hebrew to Greek were completed by 132 B.C. and was probably based on far more accurate Hebrew manuscripts.

However, if the much older Hebrew manuscripts from Cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls were available for these verses, I would recommend consulting an expert in the Hebrew language to translate them.

#92

With certainty I should think it hard to say why, other than to acknowledge there are indeed certain texts indicating just that, i.e., that… He changed his mind.

1 Like
#93

That’s fine, but perhaps I was not referring only to you. You are writing on an internet forum. Presumably you are not writing only for your own enlightenment. So, the we could include not only you, but also me and other readers with whom you are participating in this discussion.

In addition, as far as you know, my use of we could well have been just a mere colloquialism, so you need not take the word so literally.

I favor the Septuagint in many cases, and I used it to argue a previous point with you when you said a “vast majority” of translations favored the view you were arguing. The Septuagint was a part of the other side–not on the side of the “vast majority.”

#94

I agree. And have the impression that some texts leave it reasonable to conjecture that God changes his mind when He gets more up to date information about a situation than He’d previously had.

#95

Yes… and who was it said to be created in His image?

#96

But to God, an omniscient being, information not being up to date is incoherent. All information that God, an omniscient being, has is complete, and thus up to date, from the beginning (e.g., Hebrews 4:13, 1 John 3:20). So how could God get more up-to-date information than He already had?

And the Bible makes it clear in very many verses that God is omniscient and that His omniscience includes knowing what choices humans will make. That results from His knowing what’s in the hearts and thoughts of all humans.

“. . . forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men. . . .” 1 Kings 8:39

“. . . for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. . . .” 1 Chronicles 28:9

“Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.” Psalm 44: 21

“You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar.” Psalm 139:2

“Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.” Psalm 139:4

“I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind. . . .” Jeremiah 17:10

“And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, ‘Why are you thinking evil in your hearts’?” Matthew 9:4

“And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them. . . .” Matthew 12:25

“Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?’” Mark 2:8

“But He knew what they were thinking. . . .” Luke 6:8

“. . . You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men. . . .” Acts 1:24

“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12

“And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” Hebrews 4:13

“. . . for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.” 1 John 3:20

The omniscience of Jesus extends even to the counterfactual world, knowing what free agents would have done had conditions been different.

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Matthew 11:21

So if a few other biblical verses say or imply that God does not know what humans will freely choose, that is (1) evidence of a very serious contradiction, one that has immense negative repercussions on at least one critical argument for the existence of God, namely the ontological argument or (2) evidence that one is not reading the few contrary verses correctly, for example, because of such things as translation problems or interpretation problems, e.g., misinterpreting hyperbole or metaphor.

Which alternative do you accept or do you see yet another alternative?

#97

No, I agree some texts imply divine omniscience. Thus, #1 is precisely the alternative I have regularly argued here and in my posted papers. I.e. that many theological debates are explained by the evident reality that the Bible has many texts that reflect & encourage competing views on numerous questions.

I don’t find seeking to read all texts as so coherent as to be saying the same thing to be believable. I see great progression and diversity in its collection of writings.

#98

Interesting. So, you can live with the existence of a contradiction in a key attribute of God as described in the Bible. Correct?

And if you can live with such a contradiction, do you wonder about other important concepts that may also be contradictions that you may not be aware of? I’m thinking about such important concepts as the atonement, the fact that Jesus is God or the son of God, and the existence of life after death.

Further, would you not accept the ontological argument that argues for the existence of God as the maximally great being? I say that because a being that is omniscient but does not know what free-willed agents choose would not be a maximally great being, since it would be less great than a being who was omniscient AND did know what free-willed agents would choose, other things being equal.

#99

  1. Yes! I have no choice but to live with perceptions that appear to be reality, and I’ve often argued here that seeing all Biblical texts as inerrant and homogeneous requires more faith than I have.

  2. No, actually I am quite aware of all three, and my work on this site discusses diverse texts and views of the atonement, Jesus’ deity (cf recent discussion with DaveB), and my OT paper looks at diverse Bible texts on the nature of existence after death.

  3. No, like most philosophers, I find no philosophical proof of God to be airtight. But the ontological made the least sense. I doubt one can by internal logic argue a certain kind of deity must exist.

P.S. Wouldn’t arguing that Jesus of Nazareth is presented as “omniscient” be in tension with his own recorded insistence that he did not know when future events he spoke of would happen?

#102

I don’t know anything about Perfect Being Theism.

The ontological argument has had several revisions. The recent one by Alvin Plantinga as related by William Craig is this one.

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

  5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Are you implying that God knows all hearts only at a particular time? What is the basis for that thought? For example, consider 1 Chronicles 28:9 “. . . for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. . . .” What makes you think that this verse says God knows hearts only at that particular moment? It seems to me that the verse states that for any moment, He searches the hearts and understands every intent of the thoughts. But the set of “any” moments is all moments. I don’t see any reason in the verses I presented to limit His knowledge to a particular time.

Interesting that you would say that because I’ve read (can’t think of the reference on the spot) that the concepts of molinism and middle knowledge were precipitated by this verse! So, it’s not anachronistic at all. It spawned and thus preceded that whole field.

Besides that, I wasn’t even appealing to possible worlds, molinism, and middle knowledge. I was simply appealing just to the biblical fact that Jesus predicted what would have happened had the sinful, pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon seen the miracles that the Jewish Bethsaida and Chorazin apparently saw and ignored for the most part. He was so sure of this prediction that he said in the next verse that they (i.e., Tyre and Sidon) will have a more tolerable judgment.

#103

Again, I affirm that God is omniscient. He knows all things that can be known.
However, knowing in advance what a free-will agent will choose cannot be known.

I have given an analogy concerning God’s omnipotence. God can do all things that are possible to do.
But for God to create a stone so large that He cannot lift it, is not possible. Contradictions are not objects of power.

Knowing in advance what a free-will agent will choose is a contradiction. Contradictions are not objects of knowledge.