Why... ?

[KCDAD]

Distinction:
When you make a car, and some of it is steel, you say it is made from steel, not that it is made of steel because steel is not all the car is made of. I'm surprised you wouldn't see it.

You're accusing me of making the argument you've been making all along- that evidence is only acceptable if you accept it. Why?

Is there any dust in the cellular structure of a human being? Is it an essential part of what we call a human being?

God sifted through the dust to find just the right minerals and chemicals from which to make his mud pie human... is that it? (You do know that dust is made up of discarded skin and hair cells... how could those things be there before man was created?)

 

[Tawhano]

Anger management anyone? I have seen this much name calling since the Democratic debate. You keep demanding proof or evidence or sources for my statements.... why? Do you disagree with them? Do they anger you? Do you have no reasonable response to them of your own?

Don’t flatter yourself. I am not angry I am laughing at you. I’m not calling you names I am describing your behavior with the appropriate adjectives; names are nouns. I gave you reasonable responses and they fly right over your head. I keep asking for evidence because it is the reasonable thing to do in a discussion. You have given none because you have none.

If you disagree with them, tell me how and why... you be the "better man" and provide sources to prove me wrong.

I have done just that. You need to pay attention.

Until then, or at least until you can disagree with anything I wrote, I will stand by true statements.

Isn’t it funny that you refuse to answer my question and yet remain arrogant that you are right despite having no evidence to indicate this is the logical conclusion to make? This is just a cowardly way to avoid answering my questions and therefore furthering the logical conclusion that your reasoning is impaired by faulty logic. You have nothing.

 

[Tawhano]

Mesopotamian... not Babylonian... wow, huge... I mean huge mistake.
Oh wait... it is the same area, isn't it?

Grasping at straws now are we? Did you click on the link to his “source”? It is a broken link. I looked him up and sure enough he has written books and is qualified to make his assertions. Does this make it true? No. Does it make it false? No. But to you I can see how you would conclude this man’s words carry a lot of weight because he (like you) has a major problem with disclosing evidence for his conclusion.

Personally I think you are grasping at straws. Why did it take you so long to come up with this link? It makes me think you had no reason to come to the conclusion in the first place and now you are desperately searching the internet trying to find the evidence. Note that you originally said “El in the plural form of Elohim was the name of the Babylonian Supreme God and Yah was his son...” I could not find any reference to Yah being El’s son in that link.

The major problem I see with his thesis is that El was not the name of a god but a word meaning a god in the Hebrew language. But you know what, if you get the warm fuzzies believing you have found evidence then go for it.

 

[KCDAD]

Grasping at straws now are we? Did you click on the link to his “source”? It is a broken link. I looked him up and sure enough he has written books and is qualified to make his assertions. Does this make it true? No. Does it make it false? No. But to you I can see how you would conclude this man’s words carry a lot of weight because he (like you) has a major problem with disclosing evidence for his conclusion.

Personally I think you are grasping at straws. Why did it take you so long to come up with this link? It makes me think you had no reason to come to the conclusion in the first place and now you are desperately searching the internet trying to find the evidence. Note that you originally said “El in the plural form of Elohim was the name of the Babylonian Supreme God and Yah was his son...” I could not find any reference to Yah being El’s son in that link.

The major problem I see with his thesis is that El was not the name of a god but a word meaning a god in the Hebrew language. But you know what, if you get the warm fuzzies believing you have found evidence then go for it.

Not the name of a god, the word for god... wow! Brilliant! Why didn't I see that? That isn't anything like our language is it? Dear God... Oh God you are so great! We don't use our word for God to represent the name we call him do we? How many times have you heard saying "God damn" is blasphemous because it is taking the Lord's name in vain? How many times have you seen God spelled G_d? Why do we capitalize God?
Do you ever reason anything out or do you just see it as your purpose in life to be a nitpicker?

[FONT=&quot]"El is descended from Mesopotamian religion. He was the high god of a pantheon like the Sumerian god An and the Babylonian god Anu. He was remote and his main function may be described as an executive ruler who employed his sons to execute his decrees. The essential concern of this Aramean high god was social justice. Of subordinate rank but of prime importance was Hadad, who was the focus of worship as he was an intermediary god between the Arameans and El."
"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]When the Yahwistic Hebrews successfully dislodged those in power in Canaan, the sons of Jacob and the indigenous peoples created a new national identity they chose to call Israel. Yahweh filled the vacancy left by Hadad and El returned to his role as chief executor. In Jerusalem, Zedek disappeared and Yahweh replaced him. Yahweh became the son of El Elyon. He was assigned by El to rule over Jacob, El still needing a replacement for Hadad. El Elyon's pantheon is presented in Deut 32:8-9."

Read and learn... from the same site... note in account Yahweh replaces Hadad who is subordinate to El. Yahweh became the son of El -Elyon. Oh yeah... El is the name of the high God, not the word for God. Do you not understand etymology? The Hebrews used the name of this God for their word "God". For whatever reason, they decided to pluralize and feminize it into Elohim in Genesis.


[/FONT]

 

[Tawhano]

Is it logical to believe in the God of the bible and yet believe the bible is full of contradictions and errors written by men who were ignorant of their environment of natural laws that have since been discovered by scientific means? What is it meant by something being logical?

logical
adj.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner

Is belief in a god (any god) logical? I think it is a given that belief in a god is a personal spiritual revelation and therefore the core of a person’s belief in a god is that it is logical that a god exist because of this revelation. Whether or not this seems logical to those who do not believe there is a god is of no consequence in relation to the definition of logical. In the definition of logical the belief of a god is based on the known condition (personal revelation) to the person who believes so therefore it is logical to them.

This is the basis of my premise that it is logical to believe in the God of the bible. What if you also believe that the bible is not the word of God and is in fact erroneous and simply a collection of writings by men trying to explain the events they could not understand? Is it logical to believe in a God of a book you don’t believe to be true? I don’t believe so; it isn’t consistent with the core belief that a god exists. What would be consistent is to believe in a god that is able to preserve his identity in a book written by those who believed in him. Would there be errors; certainly but the message the god wanted to convey would logically remain intact. If you believe the bible is false then you would believe the god in that book is also false; that would be consistent.

Is it logical to dismiss events in the bible that don’t fit in with your personal experiences? Certainly it is logical, it is logical by the very definition of logical. Throw in the core basic belief that a god exists and he is omnipotent; is it logical now to dismiss these same events? I believe it is not. It would be inconsistent with your core belief that a god exists unless you believe the god is impotent and not omnipotent. It would be logical to attempt to explain them first in terms of what we know scientifically but to dismiss them outright would not be logical; it would not be consistent to our core belief.

Take the case of the event in Joshua Chapter 10. God caused the sun and moon to stand still. Would it be logical to explain this in other natural (non-miraculous) scenarios other than God actually stopped the earth? Yes, there are other ways to interpret this story other than the earth stopped. Do we logically discount this because of what we know about physics? Not if we start with our logical view that an omnipotent God exist. It would be illogical by definition to simply conclude this event was false if we believe in an omnipotent God. Do the laws of physics as we know them today predict cataclysmic results should the earth stop rotating? Yes. Can we explain how an omnipotent God could stop the earth in relations to the laws of physics without all the cataclysmic results? Yes.

We know from the laws of physics that an object moving will continue to move forward if not impeded by some force. If an omnipotent God stopped the earth from rotating then he is the force that the laws of physics demand to be present in such an event. It is this force that also stops the atmosphere from whisking away into space. It is this force that stops the waters on earth from continuing forward onto dry land. It is this force that stays the cataclysmic results from the rotation of the earth stopping. Is this logical? Yes it most certainly is. It satisfies the definition of logical; two known conditions, the revelation that God exist and the laws of nature are considered in a consistent and reasonable fashion. It fits and it is logical.

 

[Tawhano]

We don't use our word for God to represent the name we call him do we?

Are you serious? You produce evidence from our language to back up claims of an interpretation of an ancient language. It’s no wonder you believe the things you do, no logic results in illogical conclusions.

Do you ever reason anything out or do you just see it as your purpose in life to be a nitpicker?

Now that is just plain stupid. I demonstrated that I was reasoning the information you supplied and you turn around and call it nitpicking.

Read and learn... from the same site

Only a fool would take at face value as truth something somebody wrote with no evidence for it.

 

[KCDAD]

Tawhano;39894744Is it logical to believe in the God of the bible and yet believe the bible is full of contradictions and errors written by men who were ignorant of their environment of natural laws that have since been discovered by scientific means? What is it meant by something being logical?


Is belief in a god (any god) logical?

It depends upon the belief. Certainly beliefs can be based on logic. They can also be based on a library of oral stories handed down through many cultures and recorded hundreds or thousands of years later. If you base your belief in that, it would definitely be illogical.

Take the case of the event in Joshua Chapter 10. God caused the sun and moon to stand still. Would it be logical to explain this in other natural (non-miraculous) scenarios other than God actually stopped the earth? Yes, there are other ways to interpret this story other than the earth stopped. Do we logically discount this because of what we know about physics? Not if we start with our logical view that an omnipotent God exist. It would be illogical by definition to simply conclude this event was false if we believe in an omnipotent God. Do the laws of physics as we know them today predict cataclysmic results should the earth stop rotating? Yes. Can we explain how an omnipotent God could stop the earth in relations to the laws of physics without all the cataclysmic results? Yes.

So you have a God of lawlessness. God creates and establishes a universe based on laws that we have discovered in the fields of physics, biology and chemistry. He is a lawbreaker and yet he condemns us for breaking others of his laws. Yes, that is totally illogical, unreasonable and inconsistent with any God I would choose to worship.
I demand more from any God that wants to judge me.

 

[KCDAD]

Only a fool would take at face value as truth something somebody wrote with no evidence for it.

What evidence do you have for believing anything written in the Bible?
What evidence do you have of the Ten Commandments, for example?
What evidence do you have of any of Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament?

I believe truth when I read it or hear it. I take "at face value" those ideas that ring of truth. So do you. That is what it means to take something at face value.

By the way, how is our language fundamentally different than any other language? Language is a system of symbols used to convey meaning... whether it be Greek, Mathematics, English, Hebrew, American Sign Language, Piglatin, or Hieroglyphics.

 

[Tawhano]

They can also be based on a library of oral stories handed down through many cultures and recorded hundreds or thousands of years later. If you base your belief in that, it would definitely be illogical.

It would be illogical to believe an omnipotent god couldn’t preserve the message he wish to convey to his people? So is your god impotent and unable to intervene in his creation?

So you have a God of lawlessness.

Nope, had you been able to understand what you were reading you would see how uniformed your comment is.

God creates and establishes a universe based on laws that we have discovered in the fields of physics, biology and chemistry. He is a lawbreaker and yet he condemns us for breaking others of his laws.

Where did I remotely suggest God was a lawbreaker? Your inability to comprehend what it was I was saying is not surprising to me. I expect nothing more from you than illogical ramblings. I clearly said that God used the laws in place to perform the miracle.

I demand more from any God that wants to judge me.

Which is why you made a god you were comfortable with; and I concede that is in fact logical.

 

[CShephard53]

Is there any dust in the cellular structure of a human being? Is it an essential part of what we call a human being?

God sifted through the dust to find just the right minerals and chemicals from which to make his mud pie human... is that it? (You do know that dust is made up of discarded skin and hair cells... how could those things be there before man was created?)

Your ignorance is flattering. When you burn something, it's still made up of the same atoms- but in different form. Correct? When you create Hydrogen and Oxygen from water, do you still have water?

And you also forget that we're dealing with God here. If God can't form humans from dust, why should He be bothered with? If God can't prove His creative powers, how can we know they exist?

So you have a God of lawlessness. God creates and establishes a universe based on laws that we have discovered in the fields of physics, biology and chemistry. He is a lawbreaker and yet he condemns us for breaking others of his laws. Yes, that is totally illogical, unreasonable and inconsistent with any God I would choose to worship.
I demand more from any God that wants to judge me.

Tell me: where in the Bible does it state that physics are God's laws- unalterable laws? Where does it state that any of the laws you claim came from God, came from God? 2nd opinions?

It depends upon the belief. Certainly beliefs can be based on logic. They can also be based on a library of oral stories handed down through many cultures and recorded hundreds or thousands of years later. If you base your belief in that, it would definitely be illogical.

You again ignore the culture. They placed extreme emphasis on memorization and accuracy.

 

[Tawhano]

By the way, how is our language fundamentally different than any other language? Language is a system of symbols used to convey meaning...

Every language shares a common goal, this is true. The construction of sentences is similar in some languages but dramatically different in others. None of this has any bearings on my comment about you trying to convince me that the Hebrews used El as the name of God. In arguing that we use the word “God” as a proper name for God has absolutely nothing to do with how the Hebrews or in fact any ancient culture used the word. That you are unable to see this comes as no surprise to me.

 

[KCDAD]

It isn't my inability to understand what you wrote, it is your inability to understand what you wrote.

If God supersedes his own laws, he is worse than a lawbreaker, he is a hypocrite. God can not separate from the laws of creation. God can not be separate from his creation. Everything that came from God is God. (Just as the words you write or say can not separated from you.)

So you suggest that God became a force equal to the inertia of the stopped planet to maintain some kind of status quo on the planet? That force was applied equally to the moon, too I presume. Did God also stop the Earth from continuing in its orbit around the sun? Was there equal force applied to that event as well? Of course, all the planets must have felt this unique force applied throughout the solar system, galaxy and universe just to allow the Hebrews to win a battle. It is a truly a great God to alter the entire progress of the universe just so some humans can slaughter a bunch of other humans... why exactly was Joshua in this battle to begin with? Do you remember? Oh yeah, God wanted the Israelites to wipe out the indigenous peoples of Canaan. I think that's what the European settlers in North America said about wiping out the Native Americans.

It would be interesting to read what the Canaanites wrote about this genocide, wouldn't it? I wonder if it would read anything like what the Jews or the Roma wrote about during WWII, or the Chinese at Nanking? Perhaps it would read just like the Christians that wrote about the martyrdom of the saints in Rome, or the slaughter of Christians by the Romans. Maybe like the reports of the inquisition or the slaughter of the Huguenots. Ahhh, I got it. It would be like the Christian reports of the Moors invading Europe and Northern Africa! Well, what goes around comes around. God is sure a bloodthirsty old codger, ain't he?

 

[KCDAD]

Ha ha ha ha ha ....

Who said anything about burning? Or do you have hell on your mind?

The laws aren't alterable? They are universal and perfect? Great, let's change the one about honoring our parents. I know too many people that have abusive, neglectful or just plain mean parents. That'll let them off the hook.

Memorization and accuracy... right. That's what we got in our Bible... accuracy. Scribal errors, exaggerations, hyperbole, misprints, mistranslations, inconsistencies...

 

[KCDAD]

So go ahead and educate me. How did the Hebrews use El?

Elohim, El Shaddai, El Elyon, El Olam,
http://www.characterbuildingforfamilies.com/names.html

You are so wise.

 

[KCDAD]

It would be illogical to believe an omnipotent god couldn’t preserve the message he wish to convey to his people? So is your god impotent and unable to intervene in his creation?

It is illogical to think God would need to intervene to preserve or protect any human product. Why not just continue to reveal yourself? Why depend upon a learned ability like reading or understanding language to ensure everyone got your so terribly important message?

My God is perfect and doesn't need to keep intervening in his perfect creation. All is as God created it to be.

Apparently your God screwed up in creating and has to keep trying (and failing) to "fix" it.

 

[CShephard53]

Ha ha ha ha ha ....

Who said anything about burning? Or do you have hell on your mind?

The laws aren't alterable? They are universal and perfect? Great, let's change the one about honoring our parents. I know too many people that have abusive, neglectful or just plain mean parents. That'll let them off the hook.

Memorization and accuracy... right. That's what we got in our Bible... accuracy. Scribal errors, exaggerations, hyperbole, misprints, mistranslations, inconsistencies...

EVIDENCE? Do you possess one iota of EVIDENCE?

So go ahead and educate me. How did the Hebrews use El?

Elohim, El Shaddai, El Elyon, El Olam,
http://www.characterbuildingforfamilies.com/names.html

You are so wise.

Your sarcasm and ignorance, and strawmans are astounding.

The laws aren't alterable? They are universal and perfect? Great, let's change the one about honoring our parents. I know too many people that have abusive, neglectful or just plain mean parents. That'll let them off the hook.

Strawman, yet again. Fallacy. Who said anything about moral laws, hmm? Those are found in the Bible. The scientific laws you claim aren't in the Bible, unless you want to look at 2nd Opinions. Really.

If God supersedes his own laws, he is worse than a lawbreaker, he is a hypocrite. God can not separate from the laws of creation. God can not be separate from his creation. Everything that came from God is God. (Just as the words you write or say can not separated from you.)

Show where He does contradict Himself, please. Stop with the claims and provide evidence.

 

[Tawhano]

It isn't my inability to understand what you wrote, it is your inability to understand what you wrote.

Nope it is you that have a problem with understand the written word. Here is the proof; you say:

If God supersedes his own laws, he is worse than a lawbreaker

I asked you to show me where I remotely suggest God was a lawbreaker. Your answer was: oh that’s right you are unable to answer any of my questions. Your answer was nothing. I said nothing about God superseding his own laws, this is an emotional outbreak from you having difficulty in understand simple dialog. Let me clear this up for you; God did not break any laws.

So you suggest that God became a force equal to the inertia of the stopped planet to maintain some kind of status quo on the planet? That force was applied equally to the moon, too I presume. Did God also stop the Earth from continuing in its orbit around the sun? Was there equal force applied to that event as well? Of course, all the planets must have felt this unique force applied throughout the solar system, galaxy and universe just to allow the Hebrews to win a battle. It is a truly a great God to alter the entire progress of the universe just so some humans can slaughter a bunch of other humans... why exactly was Joshua in this battle to begin with? Do you remember?

Your emotional outburst is both childish and amusing. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance on topics you pretend to know something about. The rotation of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the orbit around the sun or the other planets in the solar system.

So go ahead and educate me. How did the Hebrews use El?

I fear that would be impossible. I will take this shift of onus as a statement that you have nothing to offer on this subject. The Hebrews use the word as a word. They would use the word with other words to describe their God. The Hebrews thought that God’s name was so holy they would not write it down. You can verify this on the web site you provided.

My God is perfect and doesn't need to keep intervening in his perfect creation. All is as God created it to be.

I see, so you live in a perfect world eh? Say no more.

Apparently your God screwed up in creating and has to keep trying (and failing) to "fix" it.

I said this once and I’ll say it again; apparently you have no concept of the God of the bible. God didn’t screw anything up. All is going according to his plan. Thank you for your concern though.

 

[KCDAD]

EVIDENCE? Do you possess one iota of EVIDENCE?

Your sarcasm and ignorance, and strawmans are astounding.

Strawman, yet again. Fallacy. Who said anything about moral laws, hmm? Those are found in the Bible. The scientific laws you claim aren't in the Bible, unless you want to look at 2nd Opinions. Really.



Show where He does contradict Himself, please. Stop with the claims and provide evidence.

You have ignored every instance I provided where the Bible contradicts itself. You have ignored every website I showed you answering your skepticism. Show me YOUR evidence of anything that is in the Bible from ANY outside source verifying it. You can't. All you can do is say the Bible verifies itself. And then you can't show WHY it verifies itself anymore than I can show Orwell's Animal Farm can be verified by anything but itself.

 

[KCDAD]

Nope it is you that have a problem with understand the written word. Here is the proof; you say:

I asked you to show me where I remotely suggest God was a lawbreaker. Your answer was: oh that’s right you are unable to answer any of my questions. Your answer was nothing. I said nothing about God superseding his own laws, this is an emotional outbreak from you having difficulty in understand simple dialog. Let me clear this up for you; God did not break any laws.

Your emotional outburst is both childish and amusing. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance on topics you pretend to know something about. The rotation of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the orbit around the sun or the other planets in the solar system.

I fear that would be impossible. I will take this shift of onus as a statement that you have nothing to offer on this subject. The Hebrews use the word as a word. They would use the word with other words to describe their God. The Hebrews thought that God’s name was so holy they would not write it down. You can verify this on the web site you provided.

I see, so you live in a perfect world eh? Say no more.

I said this once and I’ll say it again; apparently you have no concept of the God of the bible. God didn’t screw anything up. All is going according to his plan. Thank you for your concern though.

You are inconsistent and in denial.

They wouldn't write it down? Then what is YHWH? What is it that God told Moses his name was? How do you know what it was? It is written in the book of Genesis, Exodus, and nearly every other book in the Old Testament. You have no idea what you believe or what you are arguing.

You go ahead and keep in your little happy world of nonsense.

All is going to God's plan? That's why he he told Noah to build a boat? That's why he he is constantly changing his mind. That is why he no longer accepts blood sacrifices. That's why he had to "come down" to earth to die on the cross. That's right. God never changes in the Bible. You keep on saying it over and over. Maybe you will believe it yourself someday. Until then, don't bother me with your Sunday School Catechisms, I've outgrown them.

 

[CShephard53]

You have ignored every instance I provided where the Bible contradicts itself.

You haven't provided any on this thread, nor have you provided any in the other thread. You provided claimed contradictions, you never posted where, and the place you did- in a completely different thread- I rebutted quite soundly.

You have ignored every website I showed you answering your skepticism.

Yeah, it's called critical thinking. I don't blindly accept websites and claims that don't add up to anything. Debate.

Show me YOUR evidence of anything that is in the Bible from ANY outside source verifying it.

Okay, Jesus existed:
Backed in the Bible in Matthew 1. Also backed in secular sources:
[FONT=&quot]Josephus, in two different places (97 AD):
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whos name was James"

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day”.

Tacitus (AD 120):
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abomination, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from who the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and harmful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

Lucian (early 100's AD):
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”[/FONT]

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, but the rest of that iceberg is completely off topic.

You can't.

Just did.

All you can do is say the Bible verifies itself.

Yeah, except I never have. I said that Jesus verifies the Bible, I think.

And then you can't show WHY it verifies itself anymore than I can show Orwell's Animal Farm can be verified by anything but itself.

Can and did. You ignored it.

You are inconsistent and in denial.

In denial of your unsubstantiated claims, perhaps? Show me a couple instances where either of us have been inconsistent, if you can.

You go ahead and keep in your little happy world of nonsense.

Again, coming from someone who has yet to back any claims... Oh, and no need to be rude. Ad hominem gets you nowhere, and you're getting close to it here.

They wouldn't write it down? Then what is YHWH? What is it that God told Moses his name was? How do you know what it was? It is written in the book of Genesis, Exodus, and nearly every other book in the Old Testament. You have no idea what you believe or what you are arguing.

We don't even know how it's pronounced. The Jews never wrote the word down, you can learn that anywhere.

All is going to God's plan? That's why he he told Noah to build a boat? That's why he he is constantly changing his mind. That is why he no longer accepts blood sacrifices. That's why he had to "come down" to earth to die on the cross. That's right. God never changes in the Bible. You keep on saying it over and over. Maybe you will believe it yourself someday. Until then, don't bother me with your Sunday School Catechisms, I've outgrown them.

Please provide evidence where God changes His mind. Because everything you've put down here- Noah building a boat, sacrifices, Jesus' death- is not evidence of God changing His mind, but finishing a plan started in the beginning:
Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."