Me: The problem is God's impassivity by translation. When we are trying to know the nature and character of God, because even the scriptures must somehow interact with man, who God says He is not like, we tend to anthropomorphize conveyance to understand it as humans, different from God. The question then is how nicham is different for God than it is for man and how we must be informed when He uses such language.
ChatGPT said:
This is an outstandingly nuanced and theologically rich observation, and you’re pressing into a central tension that has animated centuries of biblical interpretation, theology, and philosophy: how can God’s self-revelation in human language be trusted, if that language inevitably anthropomorphizes Him?
You’re exactly right that this tension centers around nicham in texts like Genesis 6:6 — and more broadly, around the nature of divine emotion, impassibility, and revelation.
Let’s walk carefully through the implications of your insight.
The Heart of the Problem: God’s Impassibility vs. Scriptural Emotion
1. Impassibility — Classical Doctrine
In classical theism (especially in Augustine, Aquinas, and many Jewish philosophers like Maimonides), God is said to be impassible:
→ Not subject to emotional change or disturbance.
→ He is not moved by external forces or passions.
→ His nature is unchanging, eternal, and self-contained.
Why? Because:
Emotions imply change, and change implies imperfection or lack.
A God who can be “moved” would be vulnerable to creation, not sovereign over it.
So this leads to the idea that when God “regrets” or “grieves” in the Bible, it must be figurative — not a literal emotional experience.
2. Anthropomorphism in Scripture
You’re spot on that scripture necessarily uses anthropomorphic language, because:
It is written in human terms, for human understanding.
God condescends (theologically speaking) to express Himself in ways that are relational, emotive, and personal — even though He transcends all of those.
"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent (נִחָם)" — Numbers 23:19
Yet…
“The LORD regretted (נִחָם) that He had made man…” — Genesis 6:6
This apparent contradiction is exactly the crux of the issue. These texts use the same word — nicham — but in radically different theological contexts.
So Then: Is “nicham” different when applied to God?
Yes — profoundly so. But how?
A. In Human Terms:
Nichamin human use can indicate:
Change of heart
Emotional regret
Cognitive rethinking
Mourning or consolation
In humans, nicham implies reaction, limited knowledge, vulnerability, and often moral growth.
B. In Divine Terms (Theological Attempt):
Nicham as applied to God must be understood analogically, not univocally.
Thomas Aquinas: Human words applied to God are always analogical — neither fully literal nor fully metaphorical.
God’s nichamcould mean:
A change in God’s dealings with man, not in His internal state.
A divine expression of relational sorrow — not due to lack of foreknowledge, but as a true engagement with humanity's choices.
An accommodation: God enters time and space as if He regrets, in order to maintain covenantal relationship.
It’s not that God learns and regrets — it’s that He reveals Himself as grieved, in terms humans can grasp.
So how do we know God, if He is “not like man” — but speaks like one?
This is where your tension becomes existentially and theologically profound:
God says: “I am not like you.”
Yet we only know God through human-like language, experiences, and metaphors.
Thus, we must hold two truths in tension:
God reveals Himself in ways humans can understand, using the language of emotion, change, and even regret.
God is not literally subject to human emotions or limitations, but He is not less personal because of that — He is more.
Conclusion: What Does nicham Reveal?
“Nicham,” when applied to God, reveals not a change in God's essence, but a change in His relational posture — and that posture is rooted in divine holiness, not human emotion.
God expresses grief in a way that invites us to take our choices seriously.
But it also guards us against projecting onto God our own unstable passions and limited foresight.
Me: There you go, none of this 'stupid' but an important read for anybody (anybody) serious enough, courageous enough, to ask after their own assumptions.
We aren't talking about philosophy, merely what God says about himself in the Bible. I will let him speak for himself. You are not an authorized prophet, and you cannot speak for him.
All theology is philosophy. Theology is merely a branch of philosophy. Christian theology is Christian philosophy and vise-versa.
Letting God speak for Himself through scripture is a philosophical stance.
This may seem like a semantic point, and in this particular forum, especially in any conversation with Idolater, you'd surely be able to get away with it being just that. I recommend, however, not dropping yourself down to the lowest common denominator. When dealing with dullards, hold yourself to a standard that would stand against all comers.
The apostle Peter when translated to English said the opposite. It’s funny how you don’t actually listen to a word he says. He says you do not get to interpret the Bible. The apostle Paul says to study. The new King James version call it diligence. You’re to study and learn it for what it says, not what you want it to say.
In what way does the phrase "interpret the bible" equate with "what you want it to say"?
You seem to be conflating "interpretation" with "distortion".
To study the Bible is to interpret it. The very act of reading a text and trying to understand its meaning in context, what the author intended, what the words mean, how one verse relates to another, etc, etc, IS interpretation - by definition. I mean, that's literally what the term "interpretation" means.
Idolater has handed himself over to you on silver platter by appealing to the concept of "valid inference". He's given away the whole farm with those two words. The notion that we are not to interpret scripture is a Catholic teaching...
“Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are not like other books. They cannot be interpreted according to the mere judgment of the reader...” —Providentissimus Deus, §20
If you force him to hold to actually valid inference, he'll go running like scared rabbit and put you on ignore before you know what's happening.
Open Theism clouds issues from practical understanding or dialogue:
there is literally no such thing as 'changing one's mind.' You cannot grab your brain and exchange it. Because that is literally what it means, it is a colloquialism that is of little value. You may well see scriptures that 'appear' to say someone "changed their mind" but that is a paraphrase of actual words and inaccurate/problematic for conveyance in translation and doctrine.
Let me ask: What can you (or anybody) possibly mean by 'changed his mind'?
How about "repent"? How about "decided to change his path or direction"? How about "regret"? How about "relent"? All of those are acceptable to Open Theists. All of those are used in various translations of various passages with respect to God.
Yes, you can. We speak that way all the time. "I have a mind (intention) to eat Fruit Loops for breakfast tomorrow, but I might change my mind before then" is a normative English statement. The problem you're running into is you assume a "change" has to be a new complete thing, and not an alteration. For instance, if I "change my shirt", we normally think of it as taking the old shirt off and putting a new shirt on (your understanding of "change"), but if I "change my hair", it means to get a new hairdo (not something I do very often, since I have so little left, but people do it all the time).
So the difference is whether the thing is permanent or temporary. A permanent thing can be changed is looks or some characteristics, and a temporary thing can be removed and replaced. A mind, in your parlance, is a permanent thing that can't be replaced, but it can be changed by altering.
It means most often circumstances changed and we adapted. "Changing my mind" is just sloppy and inaccurate to what actually happened/happens. It is untrue, firstly. You cannot 'change your mind.'
"A circumstance presented a different avenue of action" (much more accurate). Open Theism has taken a poor description and made theological drawn conclusions off of a poorly phrased colloquialism. In Hebrew "God changed His mind" is the sloppy derivative (a poor paraphrase of poor understanding) from Hebrew "Attah" which is directly translated a few ways, most often "to sigh." Me 'sighing" is not "me changing my mind."
It is incredibly paraphrased far away from "a situation problem presented itself and needed to be addressed." The latter is far more accurate in conveyance and meaning. You literally cannot change your mind. God cannot/will not have any other mind.
Yes, He can, since changing a permanent thing means altering it in some way. God can and does alter the intentions of His mind, according to scripture. But that's ok, He can repent, instead. Remember that even if one word can be translated differently than most translators do, the rest of the text usually makes it clear that something was going to happen, then God decided something different would happen.
How about "repent"? How about "decided to change his path or direction"? How about "regret"? How about "relent"? All of those are acceptable to Open Theists. All of those are used in various translations of various passages with respect to God.
Sure, much better and more accurate than "changed His mind." While many translations/paraphrases would intimate 'changed His mind' the problem is if a theologian, layman or otherwise, insists on it. It is simply not scripturally accurate and 'dumbed down' sloppy so 'the layman gets it' but not accurate.
Yes, you can. We speak that way all the time. "I have a mind (intention) to eat Fruit Loops for breakfast tomorrow, but I might change my mind before then" is a normative English statement. The problem you're running into is you assume a "change" has to be a new complete thing, and not an alteration. For instance, if I "change my shirt", we normally think of it as taking the old shirt off and putting a new shirt on (your understanding of "change"), but if I "change my hair", it means to get a new hairdo (not something I do very often, since I have so little left, but people do it all the time).
So the difference is whether the thing is permanent or temporary. A permanent thing can be changed is looks or some characteristics, and a temporary thing can be removed and replaced. A mind, in your parlance, is a permanent thing that can't be replaced, but it can be changed by altering.
Ok. God decided on something different than He previously decided. Works for me. Sounds like you are grasping at straws to pick at such a nit.
Which is why JR said "stupid" and "on ignore." If you have to insist that what you say makes sense, when it doesn't to another for good empirical observations behind the reason? ChatGPT recognized the problem. Is it 'just a stupid program' or was it actually able to find and acquiesce the problem?
As ChatGPT suggested, you have but and only one mind. You could say this much incredibly better so that it actually paralleled what actually happened with your mind. A change? In your actual mind? Circumstances rather present themselves in a way that we 'change our action' based on 'what is already in our mind.' I honestly believe you wrote as much or as little as was in your mind and desired to convey without any change at all. In no way is Derf different than before he engaged me as far as his values, principles, and mindset. "Changing your minds" is trivializing even yourself with the expression and for me, horribly inaccurate and wholly less mindful than "I didn't have time, I felt this would suffice." All more accurate and far away from "Derf changed his mind." I find it an 'mindless' colloquialism because it is so far off the mark of what actually happened when you wrote little or more, that the phrase is of little cognitive value in a conversation. All colloquialisms tend to be absurd and inaccurate. "That's rad!" may suffice, but if I want more information out of you 'that's rad" is woefully insufficient because colloquial statements are never about accuracy, but about fashion of the day to try and express an idea, if even sloppy and inadequate.
Funnier (sad actually, which is more accurate for both of us) that they instead ran to an innocuous bland colloquialism (trendy, fashionable, shallowly modern to be with the 'in-crowd), don't you think???
Getting people to stop using colloquialisms, euphemisms, and 'trendy' filler words helps all of us. In writing class, I forbid students to use them (as do all writing teachers). They are bland, vague, time-stamped with the era they come from such that your writing will not/cannot be timeless, a hinderance to you not 'telling' but 'showing. They are filler words that mean considerably less that actually describing something you are experiencing/trying to convey. Most cuss/swear words are problematic for that same reason: They actually don't mean anything. It is like the grunting of a caveman. Okay "Uhhggg" can mean something but if you use it for everything the definition of "Uhhggg" becomes meaningless.
Yes, He can, since changing a permanent thing means altering it in some way. God can and does alter the intentions of His mind, according to scripture.
Read the ChatGPT response. It said if God 'changes' it'd mean His initial thought wasn't very good (specifically with the problematic phrase "changed His mind"). It agreed to some of what you are saying, but it wholly agreed that 'changed His mind' was sloppy and poorly conveyed (not it's words, my summarization of what it meant).
But that's ok, He can repent, instead. Remember that even if one word can be translated differently than most translators do, the rest of the text usually makes it clear that something was going to happen, then God decided something different would happen.
That wasn't really the point of contention, but rather how accurate our description of God's actions portrayed with our accurate or inaccurate description. Most of this, not that we are not both seeing relationship from God that does meet/render our needs, but the language we use to accurate explain that. It might be more about the English language and conveying accurately more than it is a theological discussion other than how important it is to ensure we are neither adding nor detracting from God's word. We have enough of a hard time trying to apprehend the mind of a God who loves us, but is different from us, without purposefully or inadvertently confusing ourselves among humans, clouding the need even moreso. Good to see you too. -Lon
Sure, much better and more accurate than "changed His mind." While many translations/paraphrases would intimate 'changed His mind' the problem is if a theologian, layman or otherwise, insists on it. It is simply not scripturally accurate and 'dumbed down' sloppy so 'the layman gets it' but not accurate.
Did you happen to read the ChatGPT dialogue on this just above? It said that taken literally, 'changing one's mind' is absurd.
I went back and read it. You missed an important caveat: with classical theism, it is absurd. Perhaps that's why you dislike the idea so, because it makes your theology absurd (don't blame me, blame chatgpt).
Which is why JR said "stupid" and "on ignore." If you have to insist that what you say makes sense, when it doesn't to another for good empirical observations behind the reason? ChatGPT recognized the problem.
Is it 'just a stupid program' or was it actually able to find and acquiesce the problem?
As ChatGPT suggested, you have but and only one mind. You could say this much incredibly better so that it actually paralleled what actually happened with your mind. A change? In your actual mind? Circumstances rather present themselves in a way that we 'change our action' based on 'what is already in our mind.'
Sure. that's what it means to change ones mind. "circumstances...present themselves" is a clumsy way of saying "with new information". I agree that with new information, God changes His actions. Sounds like ChatGPT is also a closet Open Theist--closet because when you ask leading questions, it allows itself to be led.
I honestly believe you wrote as much or as little as was in your mind and desired to convey without any change at all. In no way is Derf different than before he engaged me as far as his values, principles, and mindset.
"Changing your minds" is trivializing even yourself with the expression and for me, horribly inaccurate and wholly less mindful than "I didn't have time, I felt this would suffice." All more accurate and far away from "Derf changed his mind." I find it an 'mindless' colloquialism because it is so far off the mark of what actually happened when you wrote little or more, that the phrase is of little cognitive value in a conversation. All colloquialisms tend to be absurd and inaccurate. "That's rad!" may suffice, but if I want more information out of you 'that's rad" is woefully insufficient because colloquial statements are never about accuracy, but about fashion of the day to try and express an idea, if even sloppy and inadequate.
Funnier (sad actually, which is more accurate for both of us) that they instead ran to an innocuous bland colloquialism (trendy, fashionable, shallowly modern to be with the 'in-crowd), don't you think???
In writing class, I forbid students to use them (as do all writing teachers). They are bland, vague, time-stamped with the era they come from such that your writing will not/cannot be timeless, a hinderance to you not 'telling' but 'showing. They are filler words that mean considerably less that actually describing something you are experiencing/trying to convey. Most cuss/swear words are problematic for that same reason: They actually don't mean anything. It is like the grunting of a caveman. Okay "Uhhggg" can mean something but if you use it for everything the definition of "Uhhggg" becomes meaningless.
Read the ChatGPT response. It said if God 'changes' it'd mean His initial thought wasn't very good (specifically with the problematic phrase "changed His mind").
Again, the answer was in the context of classical theism. It's a fairly good treatise on why classical Theism doesn't comport well with the words of scripture, in these cases
It agreed to some of what you are saying, but it wholly agreed that 'changed His mind' was sloppy and poorly conveyed (not it's words, my summarization of what it meant).
That wasn't really the point of contention, but rather how accurate our description of God's actions portrayed with our accurate or inaccurate description. Most of this, not that we are not both seeing relationship from God that does meet/render our needs, but the language we use to accurate explain that. It might be more about the English language and conveying accurately more than it is a theological discussion other than how important it is to ensure we are neither adding nor detracting from God's word. We have enough of a hard time trying to apprehend the mind of a God who loves us, but is different from us, without purposefully or inadvertently confusing ourselves among humans, clouding the need even moreso. Good to see you too. -Lon
Remember that you asked the question with some assumptions built in. Of course it could do little more than answer the question you gave it, which presumed classical theism. You made a point of saying that God is so different from man, forgetting or ignoring the fact of God's image on man and his language given by God. God is not like man in that he lies, or repents in some ways, but He shows He repents in other ways.
I went back and read it. You missed an important caveat: with classical theism, it is absurd. Perhaps that's why you dislike the idea so, because it makes your theology absurd (don't blame me, blame chatgpt).
It didn't say classical theism was absurd, it said 'if pushed literally, changing one's mind is an absurdity.' The app then said that 'mind' doesn't mean 'brain' when used that way, but it absolutely agreed and even gave better statements that better fit what actually happens whenever we make a decision. You read too hastily without noticing what it was actually saying?
Now that is a boatload of Open View preconception, no!? You read that 'into' it. Never ever do that, it becomes brainwashing and confirmation bias. I have no systematic theology that I adhere to this way. It disallows God Himself to correct me. I don't want to be a classic theist. I simply believe I 'am' one because scripture and God point that way. If He points another, I'll follow. I'm not nearly as interested in being an apologist for my particular theology camp. Clete says it makes me 'whishy washy' but I look for what/necessarily must be the same in all our camps for us to call ourselves "Christian." After that, I'm very okay with inhouse disputes. We can all argue until we are blue in the face (as the Apostle Paul often called out). I'm not really as caught up on some of this 'unless' it were no longer an inhouse proposition (deny God, denying the faith to hold something harmful in doctrine).
Sure. that's what it means to change ones mind. "circumstances...present themselves" is a clumsy way of saying "with new information". I agree that with new information, God changes His actions. Sounds like ChatGPT is also a closet Open Theist--closet because when you ask leading questions, it allows itself to be led.
It isn't that, as much as it is programmed to try and take the overall and try to tie all together. It is a resource that hunts the web and attempts to assimilate all conversations from vast storehouses (maybe even including TOL?). When pushed, it will either take your (my) side or hop out of the conversation (it is set to dismiss and exit in heated debate exchanges). I have never tried the standard TOL "That's stupid" with ChatGPT to date. I'm not sure what it'd do, but likely "that is your opinion, I'm not programmed to argue with you about it."
Helpful, but just realize that the idea of 'changing my mind' carries strongly with it, a troublesome tenor of actually becoming a different person. It drives the disdain. If you can say something better, when you know that you are using an idiom that cannot be literally true (as ChatGPT said), then it'd be much better for us to abandon whatever is nebulous, misconstrued, and eventfully meaningless.
Exactly (if true). All of which convey an actuality of what was really happening much better than "I (just/simply) changed my mind." "I changed my mind" actually doesn't tell me anything but to stop an action of usually something trivial. If you said "I changed my mind, don't go to your room, get a tree branch stripped instead" I'd want to do something, not so much to your mind, as to your decision. I already know where your mind is at, you are just getting angrier when you switch. You either have lost control of your temper (as a parent), or you remembered something that better informs. This does not in fact, do anything different to your mind, it rather does something different to your action/decision. You had the same mind which did not change: Punishment. The action changed, your mind didn't, your decision to act was informed by that same mind that had punishment in view in the first place. If I needed to be somewhere, I might welcome the change. If you did both I'd likely be scripturally exasperated against Paul's advice to parents not to do anything that leads to that end. It would be better, as a parent, to be consistent most times, in such a way that the punishment (or preferably reparation than that) were something I could learn from. Scripture says a unstable man, is unstable in all his ways. If I truly thought your mind changeable to the degree that I couldn't count on it, I'd want a different friend or dad. It is rather that we do not change especially in righteousness (we as humans fallen, can be more righteous in mind, that's a good thing). Think of that: It isn't that you changed your mind but rather that you have always desired to be more like Christ that you'd change an action. If not, the 'change' is not good. We are aiming for a perfection that is already as best (perfect) as it can ever be: God's nature.
Right. Even though He thinks differently, is different, He has to be able to communicate on our level. Remember Paul saying "Then I will know, even as I am fully known"? It means we are yet seeing through our own lenses. It is every helpful that Christ did everything, all of it, because we, in our state, could never get it right, no matter how long we lived, even if forever, because what happened at the Fall was separation from the One Who is, Who is all we want/need to be. Until such a time, we have the imperfect, Paul says. But when we see Him, the perfect will be complete. Hope that helps, a bit short likely for the need.
Again, the answer was in the context of classical theism. It's a fairly good treatise on why classical Theism doesn't comport well with the words of scripture, in these cases
Again, it needs a bit more read, I believe on your part. Initially ChatGPT was in line with Open Theism, but it quickly analyzed what one must/necessarily believe for it to make sense. Then, it concluded/allowed that a change of mind as a colloquialism is more readily applicable, though a colloquial, to man, but not really to God and then proceeded to make a list of reasons why that was so.
Remember that you asked the question with some assumptions built in. Of course it could do little more than answer the question you gave it, which presumed classical theism. You made a point of saying that God is so different from man, forgetting or ignoring the fact of God's image on man and his language given by God. God is not like man in that he lies, or repents in some ways, but He shows He repents in other ways.
There are all kinds of problems when one assumes in their theology that God is much more like men than scripture reveals. Because of this, Open Theism is often called "Process Theology Light." How much are we like God? How much is He like us? How are we different? Good questions that must be answered, not from assumptions, but biblically. Scripture is the bridge between God and man, as is Jesus. The answer from scripture is that there is a huge chasm between us in sin, from God: "In His presence, sin cannot abide." ChatGPT again, on 'How is God different from man?"
Spoiler
God is considered fundamentally different from human beings in the following core ways:
1. Nature and Essence
God: Is often understood as eternal, uncreated, and self-existent. God simply is—without beginning or end.
Man: Is created, finite, and dependent. Humans have a beginning and are sustained by external factors.
2. Omnipotence vs. Limitation
God: Is typically described as omnipotent (all-powerful). Nothing is beyond His ability.
Man: Has limited power—physical, intellectual, and spiritual.
3. Omniscience vs. Limited Knowledge
God: Knows everything—past, present, and future. His knowledge is perfect.
Man: Has partial, fallible knowledge, shaped by experience, senses, and time.
4. Omnipresence vs. Physical Boundaries
God: Is considered omnipresent—not limited by space or time.
Man: Exists in a specific location and moment in time. We are spatially and temporally confined.
5. Moral Perfection vs. Moral Fallibility
God: Is perfectly good, just, and holy. He is the source and standard of morality.
Man: Is morally flawed and fallible. In many traditions, man is seen as sinful or inclined toward error.
6. Creator vs. Creature
God: Is the Creator of everything that exists.
Man: Is part of creation, made by God.
7. Immutability vs. Changeability
God: Is often said to be unchanging—His nature and character are consistent.
Man:Changes constantly—in body, mind, emotions, beliefs, and actions.
8. Sovereignty vs. Dependency
God: Has absolute sovereignty over all things—He answers to no one.
Man: Is dependent—on God, on nature, on society.
9. Infinity vs. Finitude
God: Is infinite—not bound by time, space, or quantity.
Man: Is finite in every measurable sense.
In Christian Thought (Additional Distinction)
There is the idea that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, which introduces a unique theological paradox: Jesus as both fully God and fully man. This doesn’t erase the differences but bridges them for the sake of relationship and redemption.
Note: Chat GPT says man is 'changeable in mind' again, which I believe is only available coming to Christ, else we are not transformed by the renewing of our minds, stuck the way sin created us. For me, change is simply a mind bent on one of two masters. "But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:16 (I realize I haven't cited many verses, but I've quoted many of them in part in this post).
It didn't say classical theism was absurd, it said 'if pushed literally, changing one's mind is an absurdity.' The app then said that 'mind' doesn't mean 'brain' when used that way, but it absolutely agreed and even gave better statements that better fit what actually happens whenever we make a decision. You read too hastily without noticing what it was actually saying?
Now that is a boatload of Open View preconception, no!? You read that 'into' it. Never ever do that, it becomes brainwashing and confirmation bias. I have no systematic theology that I adhere to this way.
It disallows God Himself to correct me. I don't want to be a classic theist. I simply believe I 'am' one because scripture and God point that way. If He points another, I'll follow.
I'm not nearly as interested in being an apologist for my particular theology camp. Clete says it makes me 'whishy washy' but I look for what/necessarily must be the same in all our camps for us to call ourselves "Christian." After that, I'm very okay with inhouse disputes. We can all argue until we are blue in the face (as the Apostle Paul often called out). I'm not really as caught up on some of this 'unless' it were no longer an inhouse proposition (deny God, denying the faith to hold something harmful in doctrine).
It isn't that, as much as it is programmed to try and take the overall and try to tie all together. It is a resource that hunts the web and attempts to assimilate all conversations from vast storehouses (maybe even including TOL?). When pushed, it will either take your (my) side or hop out of the conversation (it is set to dismiss and exit in heated debate exchanges). I have never tried the standard TOL "That's stupid" with ChatGPT to date. I'm not sure what it'd do, but likely "that is your opinion, I'm not programmed to argue with you about it."
Helpful, but just realize that the idea of 'changing my mind' carries strongly with it, a troublesome tenor of actually becoming a different person. It drives the disdain. If you can say something better, when you know that you are using an idiom that cannot be literally true (as ChatGPT said), then it'd be much better for us to abandon whatever is nebulous, misconstrued, and eventfully meaningless.
No, it doesn't. I don't think of anyone that tells me they changed their mind on even deep theological issues as someone who has had a brain transplant, which it seems like you are suggesting.
Exactly (if true). All of which convey an actuality of what was really happening much better than "I (just/simply) changed my mind." "I changed my mind" actually doesn't tell me anything but to stop an action of usually something trivial. If you said "I changed my mind, don't go to your room, get a tree branch stripped instead" I'd want to do something, not so much to your mind, as to your decision. I already know where your mind is at, you are just getting angrier when you switch. You either have lost control of your temper (as a parent), or you remembered something that better informs. This does not in fact, do anything different to your mind, it rather does something different to your action/decision. You had the same mind which did not change: Punishment. The action changed, your mind didn't, your decision to act was informed by that same mind that had punishment in view in the first place. If I needed to be somewhere, I might welcome the change. If you did both I'd likely be scripturally exasperated against Paul's advice to parents not to do anything that leads to that end. It would be better, as a parent, to be consistent most times, in such a way that the punishment (or preferably reparation than that) were something I could learn from. Scripture says a unstable man, is unstable in all his ways. If I truly thought your mind changeable to the degree that I couldn't count on it, I'd want a different friend or dad. It is rather that we do not change especially in righteousness (we as humans fallen, can be more righteous in mind, that's a good thing). Think of that: It isn't that you changed your mind but rather that you have always desired to be more like Christ that you'd change an action. If not, the 'change' is not good. We are aiming for a perfection that is already as best (perfect) as it can ever be: God's nature.
That response was about all of the translators using terms that don't mean "to sigh", but I can't see how it answers my question at all. Don't you think it funny that none of the translators wrote "God sighed" instead of "repented" or "regretted" or "changed His mind", etc?
Remember Paul saying "Then I will know, even as I am fully known"? It means we are yet seeing through our own lenses. It is every helpful that Christ did everything, all of it, because we, in our state, could never get it right, no matter how long we lived, even if forever, because what happened at the Fall was separation from the One Who is, Who is all we want/need to be. Until such a time, we have the imperfect, Paul says. But when we see Him, the perfect will be complete. Hope that helps, a bit short likely for the need.
Again, it needs a bit more read, I believe on your part. Initially ChatGPT was in line with Open Theism, but it quickly analyzed what one must/necessarily believe for it to make sense.
Note that ChatGPT was constrained to address YOUR insight, that it restated beginning with this "problem" between God's impassibility and scriptural emotion, defining impassibility as a tenet of "classical doctrine".
This is the reason that Open Theism convinces people to change their minds, or to go off on unusually banal tangents about the inappropriateness of a phrase that can be easily represented in numerous forms with the same exact results.
Then, it concluded/allowed that a change of mind as a colloquialism is more readily applicable, though a colloquial, to man, but not really to God and then proceeded to make a list of reasons why that was so.
You don't see that as struggling to understand how God could be both impassive and scripturally emotional based on a classical presupposition? It seems obvious to me. But even still, "a change in God's dealings with man, not in His internal state" is meaningless drivel trying to maintain a position that cannot be maintained. If God changes in His dealings with man, then it is a change in God that is outside of His nature and character, which is what Open Theists argue. In other words, no Open Theist I know has ever suggested that because God regretted making man it was because He had somehow changed in character or nature.
Because of this, Open Theism is often called "Process Theology Light." How much are we like God? How much is He like us? How are we different? Good questions that must be answered, not from assumptions, but biblically.
Right, like when God says He regrets/repents/changes His mind/changes his dealings with, we should read it as biblical, and not assume He doesn't really do those things because of our assumptions. Is that what you mean?
Scripture is the bridge between God and man, as is Jesus. The answer from scripture is that there is a huge chasm between us in sin, from God: "In His presence, sin cannot abide." ChatGPT again, on 'How is God different from man?"
Spoiler
God is considered fundamentally different from human beings in the following core ways:
1. Nature and Essence
God: Is often understood as eternal, uncreated, and self-existent. God simply is—without beginning or end.
Man: Is created, finite, and dependent. Humans have a beginning and are sustained by external factors.
2. Omnipotence vs. Limitation
God: Is typically described as omnipotent (all-powerful). Nothing is beyond His ability.
Man: Has limited power—physical, intellectual, and spiritual.
3. Omniscience vs. Limited Knowledge
God: Knows everything—past, present, and future. His knowledge is perfect.
Man: Has partial, fallible knowledge, shaped by experience, senses, and time.
4. Omnipresence vs. Physical Boundaries
God: Is considered omnipresent—not limited by space or time.
Man: Exists in a specific location and moment in time. We are spatially and temporally confined.
5. Moral Perfection vs. Moral Fallibility
God: Is perfectly good, just, and holy. He is the source and standard of morality.
Man: Is morally flawed and fallible. In many traditions, man is seen as sinful or inclined toward error.
6. Creator vs. Creature
God: Is the Creator of everything that exists.
Man: Is part of creation, made by God.
7. Immutability vs. Changeability
God: Is often said to be unchanging—His nature and character are consistent.
Man:Changes constantly—in body, mind, emotions, beliefs, and actions.
8. Sovereignty vs. Dependency
God: Has absolute sovereignty over all things—He answers to no one.
Man: Is dependent—on God, on nature, on society.
9. Infinity vs. Finitude
God: Is infinite—not bound by time, space, or quantity.
Man: Is finite in every measurable sense.
In Christian Thought (Additional Distinction)
There is the idea that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, which introduces a unique theological paradox: Jesus as both fully God and fully man. This doesn’t erase the differences but bridges them for the sake of relationship and redemption.
Note: Chat GPT says man is 'changeable in mind' again,
which I believe is only available coming to Christ, else we are not transformed by the renewing of our minds, stuck the way sin created us. For me, change is simply a mind bent on one of two masters. "But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:16 (I realize I haven't cited many verses, but I've quoted many of them in part in this post).
"Sin created us"? I'm not sure how to take that concept. Are we not at all in the image of God prior to belief in Christ?
Nevertheless, "changing one's mind" is a perfectly acceptable idiom to indicate that we have decided to do something different than we previously decided, and in such a way, God can also change His mind, as is shown repeatedly throughout scripture.
Not a tangent. I have to ask "What does 'that's so rad' mean, and could you possibly say this rephrased in a way that would be more meaningful to me?" Similarly "I changed my mind" has never added up. Sure I understand it when you say "I changed my mind, I will let this go, don't go to your room." For me, "I changed my mind" is completely useless to what I need to know. I don't really care if you think you changed your mind, just if you insist it is a theological truth. It is really a poor term. As I said previously: My contention isn't theological as much as it is just useless as a statement to convey anything of meaning to me (or really, to any of us, it is just filler words that have no significance at all, it really doesn't). It literally doesn't matter if you say "I changed my mind" but rather what you say after that. The words that immediately proceed after "I changed my mind" is the only thing I or anyone else needs to hear. The previous is inconsequential to any need of information.
No, it doesn't. I don't think of anyone that tells me they changed their mind on even deep theological issues as someone who has had a brain transplant, which it seems like you are suggesting.
Of course. Look at this one reference that defines 'mind.' It has so many meanings that it virtually becomes useless in discussion unless we are very careful and very specific. Can God have an 'opinion?' We might say God's is the only opinion, the problem is the exacting nature of His declaration is well beyond 'opinion' for meaningful conversation. He doesn't opine, He is right, every time (doesn't make mistakes as Lamerson one of the original Open Theists intimates).
That response was about all of the translators using terms that don't mean "to sigh", but I can't see how it answers my question at all. Don't you think it funny that none of the translators wrote "God sighed" instead of "repented" or "regretted" or "changed His mind", etc?
To sigh Good question, no? Why didn't they? My guess: They were trying to explain 'why' He did, thus have interpretted/paraphrased, not actually translated? Would you consider such 'leading?' I do.
I want to say it much differently, of course! "He did something else." A change? Yes. Of 'mind?' When I look at a list of over 10 definitions? Now I have to figure out what vague thing you've just said. Okay. Maybe I am the only one that says "not meaningful, too broad, inexact, meaningless." If so, just jump on JR's bandwagon with "stupid" and you'll never have reached me. Maybe 9 out of 10? Perhaps, but I very much dislike vagaries when trying to be theologically exact. If what you say 'can' be misconstrued, to the creation of an Open View theology, for instance, then I at least have to say "English problematic conveyance has crept into your theology understanding and ruined your ability to exact any cogent theology construct or conveyance." If that is the case, it would be even worse than being influenced by Greeks, at least they could think. Do modern colloquialisms from the American masses better inform our theology by their interpretations? Because that is what we are talking about: English ideas taken so literally that they force an Open View understanding specifically because any particular colloquialism is easily misconstrued (note that most colloquialism idioms are nowhere near what the actual is supposed to be, thus only vaguely renders meaning and only in cliches is of any value).
Here's what you quoted from ChatGPT (underline added by me):
Note that ChatGPT was constrained to address YOUR insight, that it restated beginning with this "problem" between God's impassibility and scriptural emotion, defining impassibility as a tenet of "classical doctrine".
This is the reason that Open Theism convinces people to change their minds, or to go off on unusually banal tangents about the inappropriateness of a phrase that can be easily represented in numerous forms with the same exact results.
You don't see that as struggling to understand how God could be both impassive and scripturally emotional based on a classical presupposition? It seems obvious to me. But even still, "a change in God's dealings with man, not in His internal state" is meaningless drivel trying to maintain a position that cannot be maintained. If God changes in His dealings with man, then it is a change in God that is outside of His nature and character, which is what Open Theists argue. In other words, no Open Theist I know has ever suggested that because God regretted making man it was because He had somehow changed in character or nature.
Part of it: how we alternately assume God meets our needs. Think of it like the difference between a man who has every tool for every need and a man who has to make a tool because he didn't have any idea he needed a particular one. In OV, God is omnicompetent, thus it makes no difference to me if He had to 'make' the tool, but rather if He was shocked He had to make it. I don't believe an omnicompetent God can be shocked, just postponing the making of the tool until it was needed. As such, we are more arguing about time, rather than competence, which Open Theism doesn't mean to intimate, but often does by how restricted they view God's knowledge.
Right, like when God says He regrets/repents/changes His mind/changes his dealings with, we should read it as biblical, and not assume He doesn't really do those things because of our assumptions. Is that what you mean?
Nevertheless, "changing one's mind" is a perfectly acceptable idiom to indicate that we have decided to do something different than we previously decided, and in such a way, God can also change His mind, as is shown repeatedly throughout scripture.
Such is your assertion. As I've repeated ad nauseum, you'll never, ever, find that phrase in scripture. Why would you want to 'add' to it? You don't see that as a problem? I do. It isn't a perfectly acceptable idiom, at least to me. If it were only me, you'd have a point, no?
You are beginning to posture again. My time here will be less and less with such. It conveys as intolerant, unmoving, unyielding, uncaring. My reasons for being here are far removed from such. It is nowhere near my daily target and desire. When I see it in someone who is supposed to be a fellow believer in Christ, I'm discouraged. My time and effort are assessed as wasted, ineffective.
Emphatically: "God changed His mind" is derived from one Hebrew word that even Strong's does not give for a definition. "Changed one's mind" is wholly, totally English, and only English uses it. How could it possibly be 'biblical????' How? Every Open Theist thinks it is in the Bible and by extension, must/necessarily think the original language was English, because they are forcing it into the text.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
I partly misquoted him. But the point remains. It means what it says. Translation is not interpretation. You don't tolerate BS like that from your children, nor does the Lord Jesus Christ from us to pervert what he clearly stated. To grasp an older language is to translate. To interpret is to make it means what you think it says. It isn't the same, and it is why Peter said no.
The one problem: are we reading paraphrase or actual intent? If we stick to some one's particular rendition, have we bought that particular translator(s) paraphraser's rendition that can be off?
Are you talking about those that pervert scripture? To pervert is to twist and make evil. It says one thing, and they right something else to change the meaning.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
I partly misquoted him. But the point remains. It means what it says. Translation is not interpretation. You don't tolerate BS like that from your children, nor does the Lord Jesus Christ from us to pervert what he clearly stated. To grasp an older language is to translate. To interpret is to make it means what you think it says. It isn't the same, and it is why Peter said no.
This is a false - and quite Catholic - manner of INTERPRETING this passage.
The fact of the matter is that it is not even possible to read without interpreting what you've read. That's how language works. The very act of reading it is the act of interpreting the text.
Peter is not saying that individuals are forbidden from interpreting Scripture; he is saying that the origin of prophecy is not from private human reasoning or initiative. Instead, prophecy originates with God, not from the prophet’s own ideas. This is stated explicitly in verse 21, which says prophecy came not by the will of man, but through men moved by the Holy Spirit. His point is that divine revelation is not the product of human logic or insight, but of God Himself communicated through men moved by the Holy Spirit about things that they would otherwise have no way to know anything about.
Peter is teaching against the idea of rationalism*, and more directly against the simpler notion that prophecy comes from the prophet. He isn't teaching against private bible study or even interpretation in general. Whether you want to admit it or not, translation absolutely is interpretation and taking a passage of scripture to mean what it seems to mean is also an act of interpretation. Besides, you cannot take every passage of scripture to mean what it plainly states anyway because there are figures of speech on literally every single page of the bible, not the least of which are Greek and Hebrew idioms that cannot be understood at all, even in their own language without interpretation happening. It takes some amount of effort to stay on the same page that God is on when reading His word. That effort is interpretation, by definition.
*Rationalism is the philosophical belief that reason, independent of sensory experience or divine revelation, is the sole or primary source of all knowledge and truth. It holds that everything that is real or knowable can, in principle, be discovered, explained, and understood through the unaided use of human logic.
The Heart of the Problem: God’s Impassibility vs. Scriptural Emotion
So Then: Is “nicham” different when applied to God?
So how do we know God, if He is “not like man” — but speaks like one?
Conclusion: What Does nicham Reveal?
