christiandiscussions

Why does God seem to change over the course of the Bible. It seems like there's a creator, then a God who walks with his people (Cain & Abel, Enoch), then we get a God who seems a bit angrier (killing all the firstborn in Egypt, wiping out genocidally some tribes in Canaan), to a God of love who is far away (Jesus - In my Father's place are many mansions, for God so loved the world...) to really remote with the Apocalypse. Seems a trifle weird to me for a Deity to do so, unless its growing as an individual if you will. Ex. a character growing and changing its outlook in a story. I'd like to read what some of you good people have to say. My Bible scholarship just isn't up to snuff for this detailed a look.

Best,

Blue

That is a great question and one that is often asked. On the surface, I guess it could appear that God does in fact change over the Bible, but when you go a little deeper you realise that God in fact does not change at all. He is the same yesterday and today and forever. God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. There is no need for God to change and in fact he cannot change.

When people look at the God of the Old Testament and see him as a genocidal God, they do so because they do not understand the seriousness of sin. God is a holy God and cannot bear to have sin in his presence. In the beginning Adam and Eve enjoyed the perfect relationship with God that they were created for. However, they chose to rebel against God and as a result sin entered the world. Ever since then our relationship with God has been broken. This is our doing - not God's.

While many people like to emphasise that God is a God of love, they often overlook the fact that he is also a God of judgement. He is a holy and just God and deals out due punishment for sin. He made it clear from the beginning that the punishment for sin was death. There is nothing more strongly emphasised in the Bible than the reality of God the Judge. He cannot just overlook sin and remain true to himself. There is a price that must be paid. For unrepentant sinners, this means death. When God destroyed nations, it was an act of judgement. But they were not just random acts. He warned the nations time and time again through his prophets to repent of their sins. They were warned what the consequences would be. God is the Judge and He has the right to deal out punishment according to His purposes.

But what about the New Testament. We don't see such acts of judgement in the New Testament. Well this is in fact wrong. We do see acts of judgement in the New Testament. In the New Testament we see God's judgement: on the Jews for rejecting their Messiah (Matthew 21:43, 1 Thess 2:14); on Ananias and Sapphira for lying to God (Acts 5), on Herod for his pride (Acts 12:21); on Elymas for his opposition to the Gospel (Acts 13:8), on Christians at Corinth who were afflicted with illness (which in some cases proved fatal) by reason of their gross irreverence in connection particularly with the Lord's supper (1 Cor 11:29-32). (Taken from Knowing God by J.I. Packer)

In his teachings, Jesus talks more about hell and judgement than he does about love. Sin is serious to God. He deals out punishment when, and how, it suits his purposes.

The question you have asked is a difficult one to answer in a short space. I hope that what I have written has gone some way to answering your question. There is much more to say on the subject, but I will leave it there for now.

Hi Blue,

Welcome to Christian Discussions!

Your question here about Why does God seem to change? is an interesting one. It's one that can be explored through Biblical texts or through philosophical investigation. I'm primarily interested in looking at the Bible, since I believe it is God's infallible and inerrant Word of Truth.

Having said that, I'd like to ask a quick philosophical question and see where it takes us?
First a Starting Point --If by the concept of "God" we can agree that we are referring to a Person who is transcendent of all matter and creatures in the universe, then we have a premise as a starting point. Now, once we agree on this premise, we have to stick with it. In other words the definition of God has to be kept in mind in any discussions we have about Him. He is not like us. He is not a man. He is not limited in understanding -- like you and I are limited. That's very important to see as a starting point.

If God can change, then our definition of Him has just collapsed! That would mean He's not God, not the same as He was before He changed.
So now He would be transcendent of who He was before He changed.

How do you resolve this problem?

Blue wrote:Why does God seem to change over the course of the Bible.

It may not be as it seems.

It seems like there's a creator, then a God who walks with his people (Cain & Abel, Enoch), then we get a God who seems a bit angrier (killing all the firstborn in Egypt, wiping out genocidally some tribes in Canaan), to a God of love who is far away (Jesus - In my Father's place are many mansions, for God so loved the world...) to really remote with the Apocalypse.

Question, Should God be just a creator and nothing else? He should not walk with His people, he should not judge certain sins, rebellions and actions, just accept everything? I know, I know, since God so loved the world, how could he allow people to be killed and wiped out? The understanding in this comes with study, (open mindedness). I can understand why you see it this way, It is the most honest way to see and describe your position. This is what I admire about you, you are genuine and honest.
The beginning of understanding in this is knowing who God is, and his attributes, ect...These can only be found in scripture, and believed and excepted (through) by the Spirit.

Seems a trifle weird to me for a Deity to do so, unless its growing as an individual if you will. Ex. a character growing and changing its outlook in a story. I'd like to read what some of you good people have to say.

Interesting, blue, I am not so sure you are an agnostic atheist. The reason I say this is because an agnostic atheist is someone who believes that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. however, I do believe you may be in the right place to learn about this God, and then at a later date perhaps stay with your present beliefs, but have a better understanding about this God, which is presently unknowable to you.
Then to make a commitment as to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god, would better qualify to being an, agnostic atheist.

My Bible scholarship just isn't up to snuff for this detailed a look.

"It dose not seem to be." This is why I say, consider learning, after all, it is your hobby.
I look forward to many discussions with you. We do have a mature group of Christians here, and we all would be glad, and do our best to answer any questions you may have.

Great responses all! I'll get address them asap but I'm in AZ for few more days and my internet is spotty. But I will give a response to some interesting things you all brought up.

Oh and thank you for the welcome Brookside!


*okay I was able to secure some internet time tonight. Travelings great, but I miss my computer something awful sometimes.

In response to Brookside's question. First I'm going to respond with a provision to request further clarification of what you're asking later.

Having said that, I'd like to ask a quick philosophical question and see where it takes us?
First a Starting Point --If by the concept of "God" we can agree that we are referring to a Person who is transcendent of all matter and creatures in the universe, then we have a premise as a starting point. Now, once we agree on this premise, we have to stick with it. In other words the definition of God has to be kept in mind in any discussions we have about Him. He is not like us. He is not a man. He is not limited in understanding -- like you and I are limited. That's very important to see as a starting point.

If God can change, then our definition of Him has just collapsed! That would mean He's not God, not the same as He was before He changed.
So now He would be transcendent of who He was before He changed.

How do you resolve this problem?

Well if God as defined above does change, and our concept of God has to be a person (which is in itself a sticky question I think) that can change thus losing his transcendence, breaking the concept of God, why then he is not God. He is something else, something of independence and perhaps power but He doesn't exist. I resolve this problem by saying that such a being would be impossible to clarify as God, therefore we have not encountered a concept of Deity that is unchangeable and perfectly transcendent. Most gods in religious traditions do change to some extent. But I admit I am perhaps a little lost on what exactly you are asking here, so what I just wrote may sound like babble (caveat emptor should be the precursor on this post ). If it does help in my original question I was referring to "God" as addressed by the OT and NT and JudeauChristian tradition.

Dennis a response to your questions.

Question, Should God be just a creator and nothing else?

Now that is an interesting question that could spawn a whole other thread. What should God be? I would say the intent of my original question is to understand why God is so inconsistent in demeanor throughout His holy books history. His demeanor changes from saving Jonah and Nineveh, to sending bears after 42 children/youths for mocking someones bald head. It strikes me as peculiar. If God does change things up all the time, how can a person reliably trust God? Threat of punishment can only inspire so much loyalty, some men are natural rebels to authority (not describing myself at all here. ) and some will resist change in favor of what the old order was.

Interesting, blue, I am not so sure you are an agnostic atheist. The reason I say this is because an agnostic atheist is someone who believes that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. however, I do believe you may be in the right place to learn about this God, and then at a later date perhaps stay with your present beliefs, but have a better understanding about this God, which is presently unknowable to you.
Then to make a commitment as to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god, would better qualify to being an, agnostic atheist.

I would disagree in this respect. I am agnostic in the fact that there is no way for me to completely find out if there is no "God". Heck in my more whimsical moments I'm a bit of a pantheist. But I am an atheist to every religion I've come across due to either personal experience (Christianity, Wicca, Buddhism, neopagan traditions of many types) or study (Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikh). I do admit that due to being raised in the Christian tradition I do tend to be less inclined to trust other faiths right away, so that could be a blind spot. Who knows maybe Rastafarianism is the right way, but I'm doubting it. So I am atheist to the existence of any God really. Just agnosticism by itself is not a proper representation of my beliefs and I would feel bad telling other people that.

My this board is going to be fun I can already tell.

Blue