>>>I didn't realize it was the regular use of words which mean different things, depending what they apply to. Never say what they mean, never mean what they say, eh?
>
>>Language is very complex - you should know that many words mean much different things at different times.
>
>...within the same book. Which means it all requires interpretation... which means too much power for interpreters, for they get to decide the truth.
>

There is some interpretation/translation necessary. You know the original manuscripts were written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Unless one knows those languages, we have to rely on fallible people to translate these for us. For the most part, extreme care has been taken to translate the Bible. Once in English, there are some difficulties in the language. That's why one needs to spend time studying the Bible.


>>You over-generalize when you say the "never say what they mean..."
>
>Shows my age. Remember the song?
>

What song (now I'm showing my age?)

>>>> But, besides that do you agree that there was a time when President Bush was at peace with Iraq? Well, now he is at war? Is this a contradiction? Can a person be one thing at one time and another (opposite) thing at another time? Sure they can - again - I see no contradiction here.
>>>
>>>So this God person is mutable? So, if he can change so much and so often, how much of these old texts is still valid? Can they still be trusted? He might have changed his mind an infinite number of times.
>>
>>God is immutable in His character.
>
>That's by definition, but the example you pulled above shows the change of presidential mind as a valid analogy. So while staying in character, he can change his mind. My question goes to the validity of the texts as they depict or explicate that mind.

Let's take Pres. Bush out of the picture for a minute (I don't want to get into another discussion about him and Iraq.) Let's say Pres A is a friend to Nation A. Let's then say that Nation A begins to attack Pres A's country. Pres A is now at war with Nation A. Has Pres A changed in his character? I say 'no.' Nation A has changed and Pres A reacted to that change. Is that a better analogy?