Have you ever considered whether you "can only read" this passage as describing "part of the make up of God," because your theology requires it?
Is there any possibility that you are reading more into the passage than is actually there? Wouldn't it be better, to take the verse at face value? That way, we could also take the twenty-one other verses at face value, too. Then, it would all fit.
Certainly the other "I repented" verses are problematic but in every single case they denote action on the part of God, not God's character.
If a characteristic of God is "what He does not do-repent," how is it possible for Him to DO something [ " action on the part of God "] ("repent") which " He does not do-?"
Many of these verse uses the same Hebrew word "repent" as mentioned above.
Exactly!
Therefore you must interpret all action "I repented" verses in context of who God is and scripture.
This is good. If I were to say (on the other hand) that my UNDERSTANDING of a particular verse nullifies twenty-one other verses, that would NOT be good.
Just food for thought.
DG
Sorry, but this isn't my "theology" trying to understand these verses. I've been looking at this strictly as a logical issue and have taken all the verses at face value. Aside from the Bible the only weapon in my arsenel that I've used was prayer.
It is clear what makes this verse ("God is not man that He should repent") unique from the others grammatically and logically is the comparitive clause. While they may use the same Hebrew word my conclusion can only be these verses are talking apples and oranges. Some talk of the character of God and some talk of the actions of God.
I've NEVER said that one verse nullifies the other. In fact I believe the basic assumption was that all verses are in fact accurate. As we can see from these verses you must reconcile the actions of God with the character of God when interpreting the verses. This is a terrific illustration of where it is impossible to understand God's character by His actions. Thus you must understand God's character BEFORE you can understand His actions. This is an example where care must be taken to accurately handle the word of truth.
I try not to read into the scriptures but the flip side of that is the danger of purposely ignoring a piece of scripture which doesn't suit your theological understanding. Generally this rears it's head when we cannot reconcile one verse with another so we lump them all together and make a statement suited to our theology. Perhaps if I'm in error in my logic you could offer an interpretation of this verse for me?