> Oh one of those examples where Christians can’t step out of their definition of God even for a hypothetical.

We can't step out of definitions, or we forsake communication. Definitions define essential nature, and to ignore that is to lose any reliable reference point. It would be like asking, "If red were no longer red, what color would it be?" First of all, the hypothetical is pure nonsense, and to entertain the possibility is absurd. Second, to speculate on an answer is pure fabrication.

> It makes the bible a contradict what God is

The Bible can't contradict what God is. The Bible is the source of our knowledge of God.

> It doesn’t make him not God, it makes him not the perfect Christian definition of God.

This is mistaken. If it makes God imperfect, then it certain does make Him not God, by very definition. "If you were not you, would you still be the same you?" Ridiculous.

> all Christians will answer with “who are you to question Gods will?

I never answered with that. We weren't talking about God's will. Is this some hobby horse soap box of yours? If so, we should discuss it.

> He only has to wipe us out one more time to achieve perfection, by his book right?

God doesn't have to achieve perfection; it is part of his essential nature. I presume by "wipe us out" you're climbing onto a hobby horse of Noah's flood. What is it about the exercise of justice that you object to? Are you of the opinion that people should not be treated fairly and justly? We could discuss that, too, if you want.

> If god were perfect surely he wouldn’t have intervene with his own hand to kill so many just so a few may be saved.

Are you still talking about Noah's flood? The Flood wasn't global, but regional. The ones being killed were the guilty ones. The few who were saved were not the guilty ones. Do you have a problem with a concept of justice where the guilty are judged and the innocent are spared?

> The fact God only saves a few souls at the end, by his own word, is a testament to his imperfection.

Are you now talking about the end of time, or still about the Flood? We could discuss them if you want. I have no problem with justice being "people getting what they deserve." If you do, we should talk about it.

Oh one of those examples where Christians can’t step out of their definition of God even for a hypothetical.

It’s not a logical contradiction, it makes the bible a contradict what God is, but there is no contradiction in God himself, no absurdity.

The absurdity is claiming that only one definition of God is possible, while as a religion pointing to how little we can comprehend.
It doesn’t make him not God, it makes him not the perfect Christian definition of God.

What if gods mistake was having his prophets explain him as too perfectly flawless.

It’s pretty hard to make a several billion egg omelette without breaking any eggs, Christian God has to break the eggs with a reason to maintain perfection, the perfection of the Christian God requires a perfect end goal to explain the imperfection of the present. As long as eventually someone has freewill and lives in a perfect world then God can still be perfect. God only had to ensure the suffering of billions to get the few souls perfection, but he did it and is perfection by definition.

Until then, all Christians will answer with “who are you to question Gods will? you couldn’t understand his perfection and his perfect plan anyway!”

He only has to wipe us out one more time to achieve perfection, by his book right?

If god were perfect surely he wouldn’t have intervene with his own hand to kill so many just so a few may be saved.

The fact God only saves a few souls at the end, by his own word, is a testament to his imperfection.

No, it's not possible. For that to be possible, we would have to change the definition of God, which means we'd be making God not God. A = non-A? A logical contradiction and an absurdity. God cannot be simultaneously God and not God.

Would it possible for God to have made a mistake somewhere down the line? I'm just wondering.