kill or don't kill - does God change?

[Sorin]

I understand the difference between kill and murder as Ray pointed out, but I still don't see how 'smite them' versus 'love your enemies' is not God changing His mind. I mean in the OT he used the Jews to kill off many Gentile nations, smite every male and even to take their virgin women for themselves, now we are told to not even look at a woman to lust after her.
This is an email I sent Ray, and I understand he is too busy to completely answer so I decided to ask you guys now.

Dear Ray,
>
> I was hoping you can shed some light on this. I just don't see how God
> changes not.
> I mean the God of the OT seems alot meaner than the God of the NT.
> Infact they're so different they seem like two totally different Gods.
>
> Deu 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou
> shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
>
>
> Deu 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that
> is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself
> [rape]; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy
> God hath given thee.
>
>
> Deu 20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities [which are] very far off
> from thee, which [are ] not of the cities of these nations.
>
>
> Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth
> give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that
> breatheth:
>
>
> Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and
> the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
> Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
>
>
> How do you connect this with
>
>
> Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
>
> Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.
>
> Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
> kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
>
> Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery [killing the males, and
> taking their women unto thyself is commiting both murder and adultery], Thou
> shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal [taking the spoil is stealing], Thou
> shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any
> other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou
> shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
>
>
>
> and
>
> Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
> do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,
> and persecute you;
>
> Luk 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them
> which hate you,
>
>
> Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing
> again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the
> Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.
>
>
>
> I thought God changes not, but apperantly He doe s change. Not just from OT
> to the NT, but also in the OT it'sself , "smite them, thou shalt not kill".
> I'm confused.
>
> I understand that God is God and He does as He pleases, He can create life
> and He can kill it and there's nothing we can do about it anymore than
> there's something we can do about being born or not, but when He tells us to
> 'smite them, take the women unto thyself' then says 'thou shalt not kill,
> thou shalt not commit adultery/rape' I just don't see how He 'Changes not'
> and how that isn't contradictory one to the other.
>
> I mean He gave some permission to kill and commit adultery, then tells us to
> not even think it, or look at a woman to lust after her rather, and to turn
> the other cheek.
>
> I'm confused.
>
> Take care,
> Sorin

Dear Sorin:

God killed all the children in the flood, and all the children of Sodom, and all the children

of Gomorrah. And Who do you suppose was responsible for the Twin Tower collapse that

killed a few thousand?  "Is there evil in the city and the LORD HAS NOT DONE IT?" (Amos 3:6).

Revelation tells us that Jesus is going to return to "MAKE WAR IN RIGHTEOUSNESS."

We look at God destroying children as something done to "innocent" people. But they are not

all that innocent. It was the "innocent" children of Sodom that a generation later werfe the adults

which God had to destroy.  The commandment was to "Not MURDER,"  as opposed to no kill.

This is way too big a subject fo an email, however. I simply cannot continue to answer essay

type questions such as this seeing that I receive TENS OF THOUSANDS of emails. Hope you understand.

God be with you,

Ray

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

Sorin,

  If I may answer this without having to go and look up the Scripture.  I understand the confusion that you are now facing with this question.  I will try my best to offer my two cents.

  When God ordered Mass nations to be killed there were many good reasons that he did this.  1.  He did this to keep the Jewish people pure, but they disobeyed in not eliminating all the pagan nations such as the Phillistines and they haunted and were a thorn in Israel's Flesh.  When God ordered such things he did this to purify and only did it when there was no recourse.  When a Nation refuses to acknowledge God we see several things happen - There is a chapter in Deutronomy that lists all the blessings and curses of Israel if they should choose to obey God or Not.  These curses serve as a punishment but had one purpose - to redirect and focus people's attention to God.  These served as a turning back.  Notice that many times that God used mercy and this was a last resort. 

  When Ninevah for the first time truly repented becuase of Jonah's message, God did not smite their nation as he was planning to do.  Sodom and Gomorrah were so evil and so unrepentant that they had to be wiped off the face of the earth.

  If you remember before the Israelites and I believe it is in Genesis where the Lord says that Jacob's sons and daughter will go to Eygypt for a time becuase the sins of the native people living in Canaan had not yet reached full measure.  In this God showed them mercy, yet in the end when the Israelites were taking over the promised land, they were beyond repentance.

  I am in agreeance with Ray.  Maybe you others can find these Scriptural references.  Hope this helps.

Sincerely,



  Anne C. McGuire
 

[DWIGHT]

Dear Sorin,

The literal scriptures are almost too much for us.  Killings, rapes, murders etc., etc.  But remember that Ray has told us that the bible is a great parable.  And the first principal for us in understanding His word is; first comes the natural and then comes the spiritual.  The first Adam was natural and the last Adam is spiritual.  The old man, who is carnal, is natural; the new man, is spiritual.  The scriptures are examples, metaphors and parables and they represent the whole picture of God's purpose.  God wants children and God wants His children to be just like Him.  He is very jealous over us.  The old testament was us under the law.  Death reigned in us and the law made us guilty.  God wanted no part of us under the law of sin and death.  He wants to kill all of the old in us and have us entirely to Himself in newness.

It is impossible to understand this with our old (man) mind.  God has abolished the old; murdered it, killed it, ground it to powder.  And now, through His Son has nailed it (all the old) to His cross.  Therefore, in God's mind, all is new in Him.  The old is gone and all is new.

Today, God is still murdering our old man with all its carnality and wickedness.  Paul said, "I die daily.....we are buried with Him."  Think of the scriptures as God and you.  The old testament is the old you; carnal, wicked, lost under the condemnation of the law, dead in your sins.  The new testament is the new you; being saved, under grace, no condemnation because your now in Christ.  Old things are passing away and behold all thing are becoming new.

I hope this helps a little.  

In His love,

Dwight

[Pax Vobiscum]

At the risk of being censured....

This is one of the most... um.... incomplete answers I have ever seen from Ray.

In this world where the slightest hint of subtlety is transformed into a "spiritual truth" inerrant, one is left wondering how to handle entries in the Bible which are in opposition to each other.  I am afraid, dear friends, that there are many, many examples.

But back to the issue.  

A theology of good questions is much more profound than a theology of weak answers.  I speak now more globally rather than of brother Ray specifically.  If we convince ourselves (insert the debate on free will here, btw) that the Bible is 1) The sole written authority of God almighty; 2) is complete as compiled between 200-1600 CE (insert the debate on original texts here, btw); and 3) an anthology ordained of God whose books are to be used to cross-reference each other at will (there's that word again!); then we are in a terrible position to answer such a profound question as Mr. Sorin submits.  Actually, as a nod to Sorin's post, I believe he is asking for a comment on an observation rather than an answer to an unanswerable question.

We are painted into a theological corner:  We must formulate an answer that is 1) from the Bible; 2) as published and accepted by people who think a certain way; and 3) can withstand Biblical cross-referencing the likes of which can only be compared to a graduate-level thesis (another nod to Sorin for not mentioning the OT laws governing who is to be killed for some pretty tame behaviors -- that would be too easy).

So we are left with: 1) It is a mystery (my favorite -- at times) 2) The modern Bible has been miscommunicated, mistranslated, mistreated, misdirected, etc... and God only knows what the "original" text said -- but it must be inerrant -- so it only seems like a contradiction; and/or 3) The words attributed to OT and NT prophets are on par with the message attributed to Jesus; and the weakest most spiritually demeaning answer of them all:  4) Oh, if you could only look past the words and read them like I, then you might be given the eyes to see with that I have, you poor soul!

Personally, I will stick to the words of Jesus which have stood the test of time, everytime, all the time.  
I leave much of our current debates alone so that I will have something to talk about when I get to heaven.

Peace

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

Pax V.,

  Thanks for sharing this.  Thanks for being bold to share your opinion on Ray.  You shared a great thing to do, Fall back on the words of Jesus.  Life is so simple when we do this and yet I find myself having to complicate matters.  Thanks for posting.

  Sincerely,



  Anne C. McGuire

[chuckt]

at the risk of sounding insensative, its no big deal,  one third of mankind is killed in war, others are killed in
unspeakable acts, we all die, are wwe not in the valley of death?


and so, what a great and glorious God we have, all those that died before are raised with us, all
will be given life.

this physical world is temporary!!

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.


guess what:

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

here are wonderfull words:

20 (Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing.
21 For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead.
22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;
24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.


woohoooo

[gmik]

Dear Sorin,

The literal scriptures are almost too much for us.  Killings, rapes, murders etc., etc.  But remember that Ray has told us that the bible is a great parable.  And the first principal for us in understanding His word is; first comes the natural and then comes the spiritual.  The first Adam was natural and the last Adam is spiritual.  The old man, who is carnal, is natural; the new man, is spiritual.  The scriptures are examples, metaphors and parables and they represent the whole picture of God's purpose.  God wants children and God wants His children to be just like Him.  He is very jealous over us.  The old testament was us under the law.  Death reigned in us and the law made us guilty.  God wanted no part of us under the law of sin and death.  He wants to kill all of the old in us and have us entirely to Himself in newness.

It is impossible to understand this with our old (man) mind.  God has abolished the old; murdered it, killed it, ground it to powder.  And now, through His Son has nailed it (all the old) to His cross.  Therefore, in God's mind, all is new in Him.  The old is gone and all is new.

Today, God is still murdering our old man with all its carnality and wickedness.  Paul said, "I die daily.....we are buried with Him."  Think of the scriptures as God and you.  The old testament is the old you; carnal, wicked, lost under the condemnation of the law, dead in your sins.  The new testament is the new you; being saved, under grace, no condemnation because your now in Christ.  Old things are passing away and behold all thing are becoming new.

I hope this helps a little.  

In His love,

Dwight

My thinking is like yours but it doesn't always come to me first thought.  I first see it naturally- yes killing is different from murder.  Yes, killing a child made sense bcz they grew up to be adult enemies.  But when I see it spiritually as in parables it resonates within me that it is the truth. (of course, they can both be truth)
Jesus was showing us the weakness of the flesh, murder?? why if you even think to lust after someone that is the same as...--'same as' is a simile, not the exact same thing.  I am sure He was speaking of the spirit.

Pax, an e mail is different from one of Ray's papers.  He also may not have felt well as we have just found out. EVERYTHING on this forum is based on the premise that we DO think the Bible (greek/hebrew) is God's Words, and that Jesus is His Son.

Sorin, PM Joe or Dennis or Chris if you didn't get your answer. Maybe they can help.

love,
gena

Yes, woooohooooo

[TRUTHSEEKER]

I understand the difference between kill and murder as Ray pointed out, but I still don't see how 'smite them' versus 'love your enemies' is not God changing His mind. I mean in the OT he used the Jews to kill off many Gentile nations, smite every male and even to take their virgin women for themselves, now we are told to not even look at a woman to lust after her.

In the old testament, God told the Israelites to kill/smite/destroy their enemies.  This is true.  The reason for this in its simplest form (I believe) is 1) God wanted his people to be a peculiar people.  Not a people like those of whom they were surrounded with.  Not to be adjusting to pagan ways and customs but rather to be the catalyst by which change occurs in the Earth.  This of course was the natural preceeding the spiritual.  The spiritual reality of this today is as children of God we too (the real jew) are to be a peculiar people. We too are to separate ourselves from the ways of the world and adopt God's way and alligning our will to HIS WILL.  2)  God wanted the fear of Israel to be well known among all other nations.  God had already promised to Israel that whereever their feet trod shall be their inheritance.  In other words, as soon as a neighboring nation even heard that Israel was on the move they knew to get out of the way because they had a God who fights for them.  The spiritual realization is that we too have a God who fights for us.  Not only is He with us but IN us.  When the world sees us, they ought to be the one's intimidated because we have God's holy spirit abiding in us.  God did not change his mind when Jesus commanded us to love our enemies.  You must remember that Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of the law and the prophets.  As the fulfillment of the law, Jesus brought to us spiritually what the law could not do naturally or physically.  In the physical, we fight,war, and battle our way in life as the Israelites did.  In the spirit we are in what God calls rest.  We who are in Christ Jesus are in God's rest.  We don't need to fight for that which is physical but remain in the peace and rest that is in God which is spiritual.  We no longer have to fight and kill surrounding nations in the flesh.  That is all apart of the old covenant.  We are not under the old but the new.  Under the new we ought to love our enemies.  This is all a part of being the fulfillment of the old or to say it better it is the spiritual reality of the new covenant.  Not lusting after women or men for that matter is also the fulfillment of the old and spiritual reality of the new covenant.  Once again, God never changes his mind.  All God did was bring about the spiritual reality (the new covenant) of what the old covenant was preparing us for.  I hope this helps.  I left out all of the scriptural references for space sake.  If you want them I can provide.  Be blessed.

[Slim]

Hi Sorin,

I too have often wondered on the apparent change of heart that God had with the coming of Jesus. He was a harsh taskmaster many times in the OT and people died. God was very strict if we have an accurate accounting. And then he gave us Jesus and everything changed. I am amazed at his generosity. Thank God for Jesus or I might have been "smote" myself. I wish I could answer your question, but I cannot. Sorry, at least you know you are not alone in your observation.

[SandyFla]

Sorin,

I can understand your confusion in this, as I don't understand myself.

Some have told me that God used the Israelites to kill off groups of people that He had no more use for after He used them to punish Israel. But if God wanted them dead, couldn't He have done it Himself (e.g., Noah & the flood/Sodom & Gomorrah)?

Sandy

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

Sandy,

  God did use the flood himself to kill the people excepting Noah and his family.  If you know of any man who can flood the earth please send them down here to West Texas.  We need rain and I think are in a drought condidion.  There's another prayer request, rain for West Texas.  There were also the 10 Plagues on Egypt.  The magicians themselves said around the 3, 4, or 5th plague [I cannot remember], "back off Pharoah, please let the people go, THIS IS THE FINGER OF GOD."  Yes He used Moses and Aaron to manifest the miracles, but he was behind it all along.  We need to see God behind all these things and know this is His will.   And there was another case where he killed someone for touching the Ark of the Covenant.  Hmmm, and there were some people that were cuasing trouble when Moses and the Israelites were in the desert that God did cause the earth to swallow them up whole.

  I believe it is more meaningful when God uses other vessels for judging and punishing.  It makes it more down to earth and more poignant.  Thought the finger of God is just or more awesome than his holy wrath at human hands.  God will use anything for a wake up call.  That's what I like, I see balence when I read the OT.  God has risen entire nations for the purpose of scourging Israel, and I believe that is what is going on with the nations that are so Anti-American.  I believe we need this type of chastisement, heck nothing has worked up to this point. 

  In the end it is important to remember that God is willing that none perish.  How we work this in with this thread, I am not sure, but this I know God is control and has his reasons.  I will and have no problem with those or myself when we question God's perfect will, becuase sometimes it does not make sense.  I think this is good to do.   It merely defines where we are and helps us grow stronger.  Great thread.
 
  Sincerely,



  Anne C. McGuire

[TRUTHSEEKER]

God will have no one perish because he is the one..."Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (I Tim 2:4-5).  God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6) in this present age but it will not always be so.  Jesus came for this very reason.  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

Truthseeker,

  Thanks for posting this.  It simplistically and elegantly sums up what I have posted.  Sometimes I am little too wordy.   

  Sincerely,



  Anne C. McGuire

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

Hi,

  I found an e-mail that relates to this thread.  If I find any more I shall post them in this particular post.

   Murder?
« on: September 17, 2006, 08:14:15 » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ray,

Why did God command Israel to murder in the OT despite the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill"? Didnt Jesus say, "love your enemies"?

Thanks for everything, God has truly blessed me through your site. Hope to hear from you soon God bless.

Joed


Dear Joed:
You have it completely backwards:  God commanded Israel to "kill" their enemies, however, the seventh commandment is "thou shalt not MURDER." The same holds for the New Tesament commandment (Matt. 5:21). The translators didn't quite get that one right.  God used his physical nation of Israel to Judge the heathens in the land of Canaan, where as in the future God will use his Spiritual Nation of Israel to Judge the whole word system of Babylon the Great.
God be with you,
Ray

[/color]

  Sincerely,



  Anne C. McGuire

[Deborah-Leigh]

Hi Sorin

Funny enough....this excerpt I am going to post now for you, was first introduced to me in the Poetry Thread!   8)Hope it helps you. It is from Ray's second letter to James Kennedy.

RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE

If a theologian can't see the "absolute" versus the "relative" in Scripture, he is in no position to teach anyone.

A little boys asks: "Why did God say in Gen. 3:9: 'Where art thou [Adam]?' Mommy says that God knows everything." (I Jn 3:20). You say, "Of course God knew where Adam was. Adam sinned. Adam felt bad. He thought he could hide from God. God was condescending to man's level. It was for Adam's benefit that God asked, 'Where art thou Adam?'" You say, "That's not a problem. That's easy to understand and answer. It's stupid to think that God didn't know where Adam was."

And, of course, we have Scriptural proof that God knew where Adam was because "He [God] knows all" (I Jn 3:20)

Neither did our Lord ask questions out of ignorance:

"Believe ye that I am able to do this?" (Matt. 9:28)

"Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48)

"How many loaves have ye?" (Matt. 15:34)

"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 116:13)

Christ asked dozens of questions during His ministry. But He already knew all the answers:

" ... because of His knowing ALL men ... " (Matt. 21:27).

Christ even answered questions by asking questions. The Pharisees asked why His disciples transgressed the "traditions." Our Lord knew how to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by asking: "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?" (Mat. 15:3)

This brings up another apparent contradiction, however, because Prov. 26:4 says: "answer not a fool according to his folly ... " Our Lord knew how to do that as well: "Neither am I telling you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mat. 21:27). These two scriptures in Proverbs should teach us to never pit one verse of Scripture against another. Verse 4 and 5 do not contradict. They are both true.

So if it's stupid to think that God didn't really know where Adam was, a relative statement condescending to man's level, isn't it then, likewise, stupid to believe that God contradicts Himself in the following verses:



THE RELATIVE:
THE ABSOLUTE:

" ... seek, and ye shall find ... " (Mat. 7:7) "Not one is seeking out God" (Rom. 3:11)
"God changed His mind" (Ex. 32:14) "God is not a man Who changes His mind" (I Sam. 15:29)
" ... choose you this day whom ye will serve." (Josh. 24:15) "Ye have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you ... " (Jn. 15:16)
" ... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ... " (I Jn. 3:10) "All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18)
"Zechariah was just before God" (Lk. 1:5) (Comparing him to the corrupt priests) "Not one is just" (Rom. 3:10)
(Comparing man with God)

One is the "relative" the other is the "absolute." One is from man's point of view, comparing men with men, the other is from God's point of view. One shows how a thing is perceived while the other shows how it actually is. One is for minors while the other is for the mature.

Both Scriptures are true. The relative is true and the absolute is true. They do not contradict. However, one really is "relative" while the other is "absolute."

Theologians are always taking Scriptures that speak of the relative, from man's point of view, and insist that these verses are absolute. By doing this they commit a double sin. Because then they insist that these relative truths actually nullify God's absolute declarations. They won't admit to this in their own words, but this is what they do when they retain the "relative" at the expense of rejecting the "absolute."Unquote

Peace to you

Arcturus

[TimothyVI]

I sincerely hope that I do not get banned, or get this thread locked. I am a little unclear about
whether we are permitted to dissagree or not. I have the same question as sorin about the appearance
that God changed somewhere between the pre Christ age and the age of Jesus.

Most of the replies to sorin in this thread were just an attempt to justify the actions of the old testament God in my opinion.
Of course God needs no justification, or reason for anything that He does. He is God!
That still does not answer the question, did God change? In the old testament God had people hacking up
other people for no apparent reason other than that they happen to be sitting on some land that God wanted to give
to someone else. O.K. that is a little stretch of the scriptures, but you know what I am talking about. If a group of strangers marched into your town and killed every man there, you would be hard pressed to not call it murder. So I think you are splitting hairs trying to draw a distinction between thou shall not kill, or thou shall not murder.

Then in the new testament, God tells us not only that we should not hurt our enemies, but in fact we should love them.
I don't see where this has anything to do with relavent or absolute. This is a question concerning the
apparent attributes of God. And did they change.

I have to agree with Pax Vobiscum. I read the old testament because there is much there that I need to learn.
But I tend to place all of my faith in what Jesus had to say while he lived among us.

Sorin, I hope that you got the answer that you sought in the replies posted above. I respect and love all of these people,
and really appreciate their attempts to help when we have questions.
But I fear that none of the answers were of much help to me concerning this particular issue. Even Ray's reply left me still needing an answer.

Tim

[TRUTHSEEKER]

I sincerely hope that I do not get banned, or get this thread locked. I am a little unclear about
whether we are permitted to dissagree or not. I have the same question as sorin about the appearance
that God changed somewhere between the pre Christ age and the age of Jesus.

Most of the replies to sorin in this thread were just an attempt to justify the actions of the old testament God in my opinion.
Of course God needs no justification, or reason for anything that He does. He is God!
That still does not answer the question, did God change? In the old testament God had people hacking up
other people for no apparent reason other than that they happen to be sitting on some land that God wanted to give
to someone else. O.K. that is a little stretch of the scriptures, but you know what I am talking about. If a group of strangers marched into your town and killed every man there, you would be hard pressed to not call it murder. So I think you are splitting hairs trying to draw a distinction between thou shall not kill, or thou shall not murder.

Then in the new testament, God tells us not only that we should not hurt our enemies, but in fact we should love them.
I don't see where this has anything to do with relavent or absolute. This is a question concerning the
apparent attributes of God. And did they change.

I have to agree with Pax Vobiscum. I read the old testament because there is much there that I need to learn.
But I tend to place all of my faith in what Jesus had to say while he lived among us.

Sorin, I hope that you got the answer that you sought in the replies posted above. I respect and love all of these people,
and really appreciate their attempts to help when we have questions.
But I fear that none of the answers were of much help to me concerning this particular issue. Even Ray's reply left me still needing an answer.

Tim

I don't think that you'd be banned for disagreeing.  You might be banned for causing contempt among other forum users but not for desiring knowledge.  I too desire knowledge thus the moniker truthseeker.  It is a healthy desire to understand that which seems hard to understand.  The answer according to the Word is that God doesn't change...ever! That is a scriptural truth.  God doesn't change.  This is absolute truth.  It 'appears' to us that God changes because in the old testament has God doing or saying one thing and in the new testament he says another.  I'm in agreement with Ray that one is relative while the other is absolute.  You mentioned that it appears that God had people hacking up
other people for no apparent reason other than that they happen to be sitting on some land that God wanted to give
to someone else.  In fact, there was a great purpose in this.  Not so much in the act of 'hacking' up people but rather to be a judge over all the other nations as God's anointed chosen people.  I believe that God committed his people to doing this because as the scripture says the natural preceeds the spiritual.  Old testament Israel were God's elect during that age.  In the age to come we the true Jew will inherit the earth and not just some piece of land.  We will judge the Earth with Christ.  We will exercise power and authority and dominion in the Earth just as Israel of old were to judge the nations.  I too would be hard pressed to call it murder if some group of people came into my town or home for that matter and destroyed my home and family.  But remember, this is relative from man's point of view.  The absolute in this is always God.  He uses the physical to emerge with the spiritual.  This is not God changing at all.  The old covenant and its ten commandments were a schoolmaster for us so that we would know what the difference is between right and wrong.  When Christ's spirit enters and changes the lives of them that believe we no longer need laws written on tablets of stone because God's higher spiritual laws will be wriiten on our hearts and minds.  The spiritual is the fulfillment of the natural.  This is God's way.  I believe many will always have problems with this concept because as the scriptures says God's ways are not our ways neither are his thoughts our thoughts.  We must have the mind of Christ to fully comprehend these truths.  I encourage all in the forum to keep on asking and pursuing God with all your heart and I believe he will reveal you all you need to know.

[John]

I'm in agreement with Ray that one is relative while the other is absolute.

Um..O.K

As if my confusion is not complicated enough, the replies to Sorins post have only added to it. I agree with Sorin, I am confused with the whole thing, and as far as one being relative and the other absolute, which is which? Is is an absolute that God ordered Israel to do what it seems? That seems simple enough to me, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE,  I would have to say yes, He did. Is it an absolute that Jesus gave the commandment to love your enemies? That's another easy question, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, yes He did. Is it an absolute that from the OT to the NT that God changed? Ok, somebody jump in and answer this one and that should take care of it.

Is any of this relative? ABSOLUTELY

Back to complicated confusion,
Peace,
John

[TRUTHSEEKER]

Um..O.K

As if my confusion is not complicated enough, the replies to Sorins post have only added to it. I agree with Sorin, I am confused with the whole thing, and as far as one being relative and the other absolute, which is which? Is is an absolute that God ordered Israel to do what it seems? That seems simple enough to me, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE,  I would have to say yes, He did. Is it an absolute that Jesus gave the commandment to love your enemies? That's another easy question, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, yes He did. Is it an absolute that from the OT to the NT that God changed? Ok, somebody jump in and answer this one and that should take care of it.

Is any of this relative? ABSOLUTELY

Back to complicated confusion,
Peace,
John

Well, in my little attempt to assist you...here goes.  When Ray spoke on that which is relative he meant how things 'appear' from our perspective.  The absolute is God's perspective or the reality of it all if you will.  I think why you're confused is that you are confusing the two themes as it relates to actual events.  Relative and Absolute (I believe) has nothing to do with actual events but rather differing perspectives.  For instance, does it appear that God changed in his dealings with mankind....of course.  That is relative from our perspective.  With God, the absolute truth is that he uses natural, phyical things of this life to bring about his purposes and plans. In this he never changed.  Better yet think of it like this.  God planned the course of all of history.  He has never diverted from his original plans in his dealings with man.  He used physical Israel of old to portray what was to come spiritually for us the spiritual Israel...the church.  I don't think I can explain this any better.  I pray this helps.  If not, keep on praying and ask God to show you his truth.  Be blessed.

[John]

TRUTHSEEKER,

I am OK with being confused with the Topic, but thanks 

Peace,
John