Yes, I fully agree. That is, to the extent I understand what you all are talking about. :) I see "perfect" as being a very relative term. We can talk about a perfect "thing", such as a car. Such a car would never rust, never need repairs, and would never wear out in any way. That is static. OTOH, we could talk about "perfect" as being an action in a particular circumstance, or better, a perfect application of a perfect idea in a particular circumstance. That is dynamic, and involves what we might perceive as "change".
For example, Israel faced many different enemies in the OT and in many cases the God-led solution to "perfect" victory was different. In one case the answer was to "plague" the enemy into submission. In another, it was to kill every living member of the whole community of the enemy, including animals. In another, it was to kill only one (Goliath). In each case, the results were roughly the same, victory for Israel, but they were arrived at by extremely different means. I submit that all were "perfect" solutions given the circumstances. That includes the zillion number of variables that God factored into each solution that are well beyond our comprehension.
Therefore, it is not correct to say there is one "perfect" solution for every enemy faced (along with a myriad of other examples). It IS dynamic, as I think your point is, and the standard against which perfection is measured is God's essence, through His will. When God wanted perfect victory for the Israelites, that never changed, it always happened. It was the application of that desire which changed, according to God's perfect will.
Oh, that makes God a "relative term," FK. Brilliant.
Thanks thanks.
Well put.