Daniel 4:35 What do my LDS Friends Think and is there an Official Position?

[Navidad]

I have always enjoyed trying to think through and understand Daniel 4:35 in its appropriate context. In my preferred version, the CSB, it says: "All the inhabitants of the earth are counted as nothing, and he does what he wants with the army of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can block his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

The King James says: "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

The two versions are basically saying the same thing. What do my LDS friends understand this verse to be saying? I have always thought it to be a very important verse with profound implications. Summarizing the Navidadian version: "God is God and We are Not!" I sometimes hear from my LDS friends that they (Male priesthood holders) have the authority or power to bind God. I also quite often hear that God wouldn't do this because "God is not a God of confusion." I have difficulty understanding those two statements and reconciling them with Daniel 4:35. So I am simply asking you all (pardon my southern talk) for your thoughts and opinions on this verse. And it the LDS church has an official position or interpretation on its meaning and significance. Thanks and best wishes.

I may not be able to reply much today because we have a group coming to our house from the church history department. They are here this week to gather data and learn more about the history of the colonies, interestingly - both LDS and fundamentalist. They gave me a very broad list of topics they want to discuss and record this afternoon. I am both fascinated and pleased that they are delving into controversial issues, that to my knowledge have only been dealt with by non-LDS historians. I look forward and count it a privilege to dialogue with them - folks from both the SLC and the Mexico City LDS archives and church history centers - Sorry for the digression.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Navidad

[blackstrap]

In the PoGP Moses 1 : 10 SAYS SOMETHING SIMILAR. 

[webbles]

I don't think there is an official position on that specific verse because we usually don't do that.  But I don't see any issues with it.

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I sometimes hear from my LDS friends that they (Male priesthood holders) have the authority or power to bind God.

This is because God delegated us that power.  See Matthew 16:19 and Heleman 10:7.  So, I agree with the verse where it says "and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" except for in the few cases that He Himself delegated the power to us.  Because of that delegation, we can bind Him.  He can revoke that delegation and so He still controls it.

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I also quite often hear that God wouldn't do this because "God is not a God of confusion."

This stems from 1 Corinthians 14:33 and D&C 88:119.  If God Himself (through His prophets) tells us that He does not author confusion or that His house is one of order, then why should we doubt that?  We aren't "staying his hand" or saying to Him "What doest thou?"  We are listening to what He said.

[InCognitus]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have always enjoyed trying to think through and understand Daniel 4:35 in its appropriate context. In my preferred version, the CSB, it says: "All the inhabitants of the earth are counted as nothing, and he does what he wants with the army of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can block his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

The King James says: "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

The two versions are basically saying the same thing. What do my LDS friends understand this verse to be saying? I have always thought it to be a very important verse with profound implications. Summarizing the Navidadian version: "God is God and We are Not!" I sometimes hear from my LDS friends that they (Male priesthood holders) have the authority or power to bind God. I also quite often hear that God wouldn't do this because "God is not a God of confusion." I have difficulty understanding those two statements and reconciling them with Daniel 4:35. So I am simply asking you all (pardon my southern talk) for your thoughts and opinions on this verse. And it the LDS church has an official position on its meaning and significance. Thanks and best wishes.

First, to the meaning of Daniel 4:35, the footnote in LDS scriptures has four cross references:

Psalms 39:5:  "Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity."

Isaiah 40:15: "Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing."

Book of Mormon - Helaman 12:6-8:  "Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.  O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.  For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God."

And as blackstrap mentioned, Moses 1:9–10 (for a little more context):  "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth.  And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed."

As for an "official" position, I'm not sure what more could be said.  Brigham Young quoted this verse and spoke on it and our relationship to God in Journal of Discourses, and the topic seems to deal with some of the things your bring up.  Here's the relevant portion of Brigham Young's address, and he speaks to the meaning of the verse in its context:

Quote

Brother John Taylor in his remarks referred to Nebuchadnezzar. It is said of him, "And the king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty? While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee." "The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagle's feathers, and his nails like bird's claws." And there the great king of Babylon remained until he learned that, "all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" This great king became satisfied that he could not possess power, wealth, majesty and earthly glory only as the King of kings gave it to him.

When God bestows upon us power to command the elements—to speak, and the soil is formed and filled with fertility—to speak, and the rain descends upon it to moisten and germinate the seed that we have planted and to nourish it until it ripens its golden fruit, then shall we possess true riches, and not until then. When we possess this power by the irrevocable decree of heaven, we possess wealth that cannot take the wings of the morning and leave us poor indeed. Can we live to learn some of these things?  (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.266 - p.267, Brigham Young, Our Relationship and Duty to God and His Kingdom—the True Source of the Prosperity and Wealth of Individuals and Nations, and How to Obtain Them—Counsel to the Saints, October 6, 1863)

 

[Pyreaux]

Abraham had faith that God is both bound by the everlasting covenant (of the priesthood) and that God can inexplicably do as he wills, and demand Abraham's son Issac and expect not to be questioned. We can have faith that God is still bound to his promise he made to Abraham, Abraham trusted that even if Issac had died, he could still be raised from the dead, "accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead" (Hebrews 11:19).

The power of the covenant is a "binding" power over the sea (and the wicked spirits therein, like the rebel angel Rahab) is originally the Lord's power. Psalm 89:8-10 "Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee? Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm."

The Lord anointed David with the holy oil, not only as an emblem, but as a messianic King Priest (Psalm 89:19-37). The portrayal of the idealized Davidic king is in Ps 89:26 as one whose “hand is set to the sea”, the Lord has given this binding power over the sea into human hands, which in psalms represent spiritual forces.

The "true" that "hath the key of David" referring to the binding/sealing power of the priesthood. Keys lock and unlock, bind and unbind, seal and unseal (Isaiah 22:22). Types of binding range from to binding devilish spirits, spirits of infirmity, wild spirits in nature, to sealing the spirits of spouses upon each other and sealing the Holy Spirit upon us, "sealed with that holy Spirit" (Ephesians 1:13-14), by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery " (1 Timothy 4:14).

Edited July 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I sometimes hear from my LDS friends that they (Male priesthood holders) have the authority or power to bind God.

Do they use the phrase “bind God”?

How would you describe the covenant you have made with God?  Is God bound by covenants he makes with you or can he break such if he so wills?

Edited July 1, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do they use the phrase “bind God”?

How would you describe the covenant you have made with God?  Is God bound by covenants he makes with you or can he break such if he so wills?

Yes, they used the phrase that their priesthood authority enables them to "bind God." I have often wondered if that isn't another confusion in definition of terms. The verse that is often used is often translated very differently because of the tenses involved. However, in my understanding (which may be wrong - that is why I bring it up), the sense is that if person x by the power or authority of the LDS priesthood deems thing y to be the case, then God will agree by virtue of the nature and power of the LDS priesthood . . . and that no one else except an LDS priesthood holder has the authority to bind God - not by virtue of a pre-established covenant like that of II Chron 7:14, but by a decision reached by a LDS priesthood holder, God is bound by that - not in a covenantal sense, but in an authority sense. Also I use covenants, that are made outside of scriptural covenants like John 3:16 and the aforementioned in the sense of promises I make to Him. Scriptural covenants are two way - like two people at the marriage altar.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

God is both bound by the everlasting covenant (of the priesthood) and that God can inexplicably do as he wills,

Yep, that is the case and the mystery.

[mfbukowski]

The only time you will see that is regarding covenants- it's pretty distastful language to me, yet in a sense it is technically true.

As we all know- a covenant is a contract.   That means for example  two parties agree that party A will do an activity which will benefit party B,  which "binds" party B to do something for party A.

So you drive into a gas station, and you pay your 50 bucks for some gas, thereby binding the gas station owner to actually deliver that much in gasoline.

Sometimes it is said in Mormon scripture that if one takes on certain covenants, - there are so many- but let's make it monetary since that is maybe to most easy and literal - that if one takes on a covenant with God to do activity A- let's say paying tithing- then God is "Bound" to deliver blessings.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2010-07-0066-the-lord-is-bound?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes, they used the phrase that their priesthood authority enables them to "bind God." I have often wondered if that isn't another confusion in definition of terms. The verse that is often used is often translated very differently because of the tenses involved. However, in my understanding (which may be wrong - that is why I bring it up), the sense is that if person x by the power or authority of the LDS priesthood deems thing y to be the case, then God will agree by virtue of the nature and power of the LDS priesthood . . . and that no one else except an LDS priesthood holder has the authority to bind God - not by virtue of a pre-established covenant like that of II Chron 7:14, but by a decision reached by a LDS priesthood holder, God is bound by that - not in a covenantal sense, but in an authority sense. Also I use covenants, that are made outside of scriptural covenants like John 3:16 and the aforementioned in the sense of promises I make to Him. Scriptural covenants are two way - like two people at the marriage altar.

I agree it is a strange way to see it.

It's like saying that I, MFB bind the United Sates of America to send me money just for being the wonderful person I am and paying my taxes and getting my tax refund.

 

[The Nehor]

On 7/1/2023 at 10:15 AM, Navidad said:

"All the inhabitants of the earth are counted as nothing, and he does what he wants with the army of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can block his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

I say that to God pretty often. Does this mean I am some kind of deity?

[Dario_M]

You know... i have received the priesthood since.....1 a 2 months ago?? I don't know exactly when it was anymore. But i don't feel any different then bevore i had the prieshood. I think you need to see it more like a new titel then that you really see it as having more powers. Offcourse you are allowed to do more things...but still. 

I think after the endowmend you will really start noticing changes. And especially more responsibility's. But you do have more power as well. At least if i may believe my LDS church friends. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Dario_M

[CV75]

On 7/1/2023 at 1:55 PM, Navidad said:

Yep, that is the case and the mystery.

I see it in terms of He is bound [certain] to come again. "God is Certain and We Are Not." We become sure in Him (Isaiah 22: 20-25; phrases such as sure promise, calling and election made sure, etc.).

[Orthodox Christian]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:15 PM, Navidad said:

I have always enjoyed trying to think through and understand Daniel 4:35 in its appropriate context. In my preferred version, the CSB, it says: "All the inhabitants of the earth are counted as nothing, and he does what he wants with the army of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can block his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

The King James says: "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

The two versions are basically saying the same thing. What do my LDS friends understand this verse to be saying? I have always thought it to be a very important verse with profound implications. Summarizing the Navidadian version: "God is God and We are Not!" I sometimes hear from my LDS friends that they (Male priesthood holders) have the authority or power to bind God. I also quite often hear that God wouldn't do this because "God is not a God of confusion." I have difficulty understanding those two statements and reconciling them with Daniel 4:35. So I am simply asking you all (pardon my southern talk) for your thoughts and opinions on this verse. And it the LDS church has an official position or interpretation on its meaning and significance. Thanks and best wishes.

I may not be able to reply much today because we have a group coming to our house from the church history department. They are here this week to gather data and learn more about the history of the colonies, interestingly - both LDS and fundamentalist. They gave me a very broad list of topics they want to discuss and record this afternoon. I am both fascinated and pleased that they are delving into controversial issues, that to my knowledge have only been dealt with by non-LDS historians. I look forward and count it a privilege to dialogue with them - folks from both the SLC and the Mexico City LDS archives and church history centers - Sorry for the digression.

Sorry its only the first oart of the post that I wanted to quote. 

Its interesting that St Paul expanded this theme at least in relation to God's sovereignty. See Romans 10-22 and Isaiah 45:9

Edited July 3, 2023 by Orthodox Christian

[BlueDreams]

On 7/1/2023 at 11:52 AM, Navidad said:

Yes, they used the phrase that their priesthood authority enables them to "bind God." I have often wondered if that isn't another confusion in definition of terms. The verse that is often used is often translated very differently because of the tenses involved. However, in my understanding (which may be wrong - that is why I bring it up), the sense is that if person x by the power or authority of the LDS priesthood deems thing y to be the case, then God will agree by virtue of the nature and power of the LDS priesthood . . . and that no one else except an LDS priesthood holder has the authority to bind God - not by virtue of a pre-established covenant like that of II Chron 7:14, but by a decision reached by a LDS priesthood holder, God is bound by that - not in a covenantal sense, but in an authority sense. Also I use covenants, that are made outside of scriptural covenants like John 3:16 and the aforementioned in the sense of promises I make to Him. Scriptural covenants are two way - like two people at the marriage altar.

I'm in camp cringe on this one. As in I can see where they're getting that, but I think it's an interpretation of doctrine that's slightly off the mark if I'm being honest. 

We've got 2 veins of scriptures that follows the idea of binding. The first is tied to priesthood power delegated to us. This is usually tied to scriptures like Matt 16:19. Of having power/keys to bind on earth in a manner that also binds in heaven. Most often, that's described as the sealing power...though in practice it's not limited to sealings. It also includes baptisms and other ordinances. It can also include certain records. (See DC 128: 6-8) 

The other is epitomized in DC 82:10. This is the closest to what you're describing. It says "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but When ye do not what I say ye have no promise." This is tied to covenants in general. I'd say it would tie to both formal and informal versions of that. Such as a fervent prayer that God answers. 

I said I saw the line of thought as missing the mark. The reason to that is that ALL of these uses are first and foremost predicated on God's will...not ours. Say we can "bind God" can lose sight of this fact and lead us to presume that we'll get an outcome we want in our temporal framework as opposed to an outcome God promises us within an eternal oriented framework. Our temporal views and experiences are "nothing" to paraphrase several scriptures (both the one you quoted and several very frank ones in the BOM and POGP). We don't bind God. God binds us to Them and God binds themselves by their word and promises to us. If we lose sight of this nothingness in this, then it can lead to risky assumptions that assumes more power in this relationship than we really have. This can lead to bitterness in frustration because we haven't really learned "thy will, not mine" as a fundamental component to access of God's delegated power, sight, and capacity. So for example a person with a poor understanding of this may give a blessing of healing without checking in with God if that's actually what's needed or granted. When that doesn't happen, people are confused by the lack of promised blessings. On a more informal note, I remember praying and being assured a desired outcome that I couldn't see. I assumed what that specifically looked like. When that specific outcome didn't happen in a spectacular fashion I could have assume a "I bound god" orientation and grown bitter or dismissive of God. Rather I knew "God bound himself to me"...and so I knew the gist of the promise would be fulfilled by their will...not mine which gave me more capacity to wait and walk in faith. Sure enough, it did come in a completely unexpected way. 

 

So to me binding in LDS theology doesn't really conflict with this scripture. But certain attitudes that come from a place of "I can bind God" may do so. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm in camp cringe on this one. As in I can see where they're getting that, but I think it's an interpretation of doctrine that's slightly off the mark if I'm being honest. 

We've got 2 veins of scriptures that follows the idea of binding. The first is tied to priesthood power delegated to us. This is usually tied to scriptures like Matt 16:19. Of having power/keys to bind on earth in a manner that also binds in heaven. Most often, that's described as the sealing power...though in practice it's not limited to sealings. It also includes baptisms and other ordinances. It can also include certain records. (See DC 128: 6-8) 

The other is epitomized in DC 82:10. This is the closest to what you're describing. It says "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but When ye do not what I say ye have no promise." This is tied to covenants in general. I'd say it would tie to both formal and informal versions of that. Such as a fervent prayer that God answers. 

I said I saw the line of thought as missing the mark. The reason to that is that ALL of these uses are first and foremost predicated on God's will...not ours. Say we can "bind God" can lose sight of this fact and lead us to presume that we'll get an outcome we want in our temporal framework as opposed to an outcome God promises us within an eternal oriented framework. Our temporal views and experiences are "nothing" to paraphrase several scriptures (both the one you quoted and several very frank ones in the BOM and POGP). We don't bind God. God binds us to Them and God binds themselves by their word and promises to us. If we lose sight of this nothingness in this, then it can lead to risky assumptions that assumes more power in this relationship than we really have. This can lead to bitterness in frustration because we haven't really learned "thy will, not mine" as a fundamental component to access of God's delegated power, sight, and capacity. So for example a person with a poor understanding of this may give a blessing of healing without checking in with God if that's actually what's needed or granted. When that doesn't happen, people are confused by the lack of promised blessings. On a more informal note, I remember praying and being assured a desired outcome that I couldn't see. I assumed what that specifically looked like. When that specific outcome didn't happen in a spectacular fashion I could have assume a "I bound god" orientation and grown bitter or dismissive of God. Rather I knew "God bound himself to me"...and so I knew the gist of the promise would be fulfilled by their will...not mine which gave me more capacity to wait and walk in faith. Sure enough, it did come in a completely unexpected way. 

 

So to me binding in LDS theology doesn't really conflict with this scripture. But certain attitudes that come from a place of "I can bind God" may do so. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

 

 

This. For a period on my Mission it was prevalent to talk about using obedience to “bind the Lord” as if we could compel an outcome. It usually led to frustration.

This is also why I am not as enthusiastic or trusting about God’s promises as I used to be. If a promise doesn’t happen it might be for the far future on in another world or it may have already happened in a way I don’t recognize or whatever. So expecting things seems to be a sucker’s game.

[Saint Bonaventure]

Augustine alluded to Daniel 4:35 when he described the words of Ambrose as a balm. He thought of himself as coming out of a grandiose, blind, Nebuchadnezzar-like madness to the sobering reality of God. He had to be confounded in order to be converted, something many of us can relate to:

Quote

 

I joyed also that the old Scriptures of the law and the Prophets were laid before me, not now to be perused with that eye to which before they seemed absurd, when I reviled Thy holy ones for so thinking, whereas indeed they thought not so: and with joy I heard Ambrose in his sermons to the people, oftentimes most diligently recommend this text for a rule, The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life; whilst he drew aside the mystic veil, laying open spiritually what, according to the letter, seemed to teach something unsound; teaching herein nothing that offended me, though he taught what I knew not as yet, whether it were true. For I kept my heart from assenting to any thing, fearing to fall headlong; but by hanging in suspense I was the worse killed. For I wished to be as assured of the things I saw not, as I was that seven and three are ten. For I was not so mad as to think that even this could not be comprehended; but I desired to have other things as clear as this, whether things corporeal, which were not present to my senses, or spiritual, whereof I knew not how to conceive, except corporeally. And by believing might I have been cured, that so the eyesight of my soul being cleared, might in some way be directed to Thy truth, which abideth always, and in no part faileth. But as it happens that one who has tried a bad physician, fears to trust himself with a good one, so was it with the health of my soul, which could not be healed but by believing, and lest it should believe falsehoods, refused to be cured; resisting Thy hands, Who hast prepared the medicines of faith, and hast applied them to the diseases of the whole world, and given unto them so great authority.

Saint Augustine Bishop of Hippo, The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans. E. B. Pusey (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

 

 

[Tacenda]

On 7/1/2023 at 6:30 PM, mfbukowski said:

The only time you will see that is regarding covenants- it's pretty distastful language to me, yet in a sense it is technically true.

As we all know- a covenant is a contract.   That means for example  two parties agree that party A will do an activity which will benefit party B,  which "binds" party B to do something for party A.

So you drive into a gas station, and you pay your 50 bucks for some gas, thereby binding the gas station owner to actually deliver that much in gasoline.

Sometimes it is said in Mormon scripture that if one takes on certain covenants, - there are so many- but let's make it monetary since that is maybe to most easy and literal - that if one takes on a covenant with God to do activity A- let's say paying tithing- then God is "Bound" to deliver blessings.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2010-07-0066-the-lord-is-bound?lang=eng

I never liked this idea. That God is bound to deliver blessings because we covenanted. I think He delivers them to non LDS as well. I also believe the covenants I've made sound more to the church than to God. 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Tacenda

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

never liked this idea. That God is bound to deliver blessings because we covenanted. I think He delivers them to non LDS as well.

What makes you think our doctrine excludes God blessing nonmembers?  Or do you mean only certain blessings?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I never liked this idea. That God is bound to deliver blessings because we covenanted. I think He delivers them to non LDS as well. I also believe the covenants I've made sound more to the church than to God. 

No doubt in me that God blesses non members just as much, but perhaps we are given more chances to follow him than others.  Perhaps more is expected because we don't seek just to experience heaven but be like God himself!

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No doubt in me that God blesses non members just as much, but perhaps we are given more chances to follow him than others.  Perhaps more is expected because we don't seek just to experience heaven but be like God himself!

You tell it like it is, love it! And that my friend is true. But the church won't come out and say that publicly. 

But I know I made covenants to the COJCOLDS not just to God/Jesus.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

What makes you think our doctrine excludes God blessing nonmembers?  Or do you mean only certain blessings?

Yes, I guess you could say that. But I never liked the idea that God is bound by anything.  

Edited July 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You tell it like it is, love it! And that my friend is true. But the church won't come out and say that publicly. 

But I know I made covenants to the COJCOLDS not just to God/Jesus.

We are all climbing the ladder, hopefully, to heaven. OOPS - BEYOND "heaven" as we see it and others don't.  The ladder needs maintenence.   Can't get there with busted rungs .

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, I guess you could say that. But I never liked the idea that God is bound by anything.  

You don’t think it a good idea for God to keep his promises?  He is bound by his own words, he is trustworthy. 
 

If he doesn’t want to be bound, he just won’t make any promises/covenants.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, I guess you could say that. But I never liked the idea that God is bound by anything.  

So that means He can lie?

He can break Covenants?

No!

Like the scriptures say, He would cease to be God, if He broke his word.  He would no longer be trustworthy!

Who wants a God you can't trust??? 

Edited July 9, 2023 by mfbukowski