(transplanting from the RPGs thread):

I'm going to just restate what's been said minus the vitriol; Kathulos, that isn't changing your mind.  I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

If you had said "clean your room, and I'll spank you" and then he cleaned his room and you decided not to spank him, that would be changing your mind.

Or, if you said "clean your room, or I'll spank you" and he says "no", but you don't spank him, that would be changing your mind as well.

Also, if you said "clean your room, or I'll spank you", and he said "okay" and cleaned his room, but you spanked him anyways, that would also be changing your mind.

All of the above are examples of changing your mind given the ultimatum you've provided.  The example you provided is not, because you didn't deviate from the ultimatum.

No to mention a human being with finite intelligence does not know which outcome the child will choose, while under the standard view of God he is supposed to already know the outcome ... so there is no point in giving any sort of ultimatum.

Actually the Above ae examples of going back on your word. If you Intended to do whichever action you did but said differently you havn't changed your mind have you?

Just thought i would put fuel on the fire by putting down It could be a lie instead of changing of mind.

If God had zero intention of actually carrying out one of two options (even if it is because He knew one option would never be chosen) then he is a liar.

The easier option is that both options were possibilities, and because God cannot know the future since it is unknowable, he could only respond after the fact.

God extending the life of Hezekiah is another very clear example of this sort of thing.

It's more along the lines of God not speaking according to English grammatical rules actually.

"Repent" is what God has done. But that doesn't mean he's ever done anything wrong.

Set aside the grammatical concerns for a moment (even though I disagree that's what it is).

Were two options there for the people of Ninevah (repent or die)?

If so did both of those options ACTUALLY exist, or was one of them not a real option?

Interesting you claim to know what she "means" but argue she doesn't use language in the same way.  So God is from Venus and humankind is from Mars?

Yes, both of the options existed, but God put it like "I'm going to kill you WHEN you don't repent". Rather than "If" you don't. If I remember correctly.

I'm about to leave for the day to drive home after Thanksgiving but if both options are available then the future is not settled and God does not know which option the people will choose.

It's a clear reading of the text and does not involve and linguistic gymnastics.

Even if I've given a poor or illogical conclusion based on my interperatation of this passage, there's plenty of room throughout the Bible to suggest God does know the future. There's a reason why Prophets speak it, after all, and according to the Bible, God directly speaks through them so they can do it.

You're avoiding the text we are dealing with here though.

God gives two options to the Ninevites.

If both options exist then the future consists of possibilities that are open.

If only one option exists then saying two options exist is a lie.

Where have I erred?

Where you're erring is that God knows what they're going to say, but he has to issue the conditions of their refusal to do so before hand.

No, I reject the premise that God speaks directly through people.  What's wrong with that statement is in the very statement itself.  God isn't speaking directly if he's speaking through people.

And please consider before you say "English Grammar doesn't apply", because it isn't English Grammar; the same objection applies in French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Esperanto, etc.  Because it's not a grammatical error, it's Logical one.

Disregarding the rules of logic is not an option when it comes to a true statement.
---------

This is completely independent of the fact that I believe that people who claim god has told them the future are frikken nuts.

There's only one way man has ever made prophecies that came true; by studying creation.  Meteorologists make more accurate prophecies than anyone who claims to hear the voice of God.  Psychologists have an answer for the latter.

Right. If I tell my kids, "go get your backpack or I will spank you," I know they're going to get their backpacks. That I say "this or that" doesn't mean I don't know which they'll choose, it's just making the situation clear to all participants.

If you know, why bother with the ultimatum.

If I knew my kids were going to get their backpacks, the threat of punishment is more than unnecessary.

Likewise, if I knew they weren't going to get their backpacks no matter what I say, I wouldn't bother saying it.  I also wouldn't bother punishing them because it wouldn't serve any purpose.

You'd only make such an ultimatum if you didn't know, and wanted to influence the outcome.

Prophecy's one of those things that has a logic that those without a spiritual sense can't grasp at.

There's only one Logic, and it's either demonstrable or it isn't Logic.

Seems like another options is if you DO know, but want to influence the outcome.  For example, you know that IF you say "go get your backpack" they won't do it, and you know that IF you say "go get your backpack or I'll spank you" then they will do it.  You pick to say the later because you know it will lead to the result you want, while the former wouldn't.