How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

Lon

Well-known member
It isn't literal in the sense that you swap out one mind for a different mind but that stupidity isn't even worth the time it takes to say it. To change your mind simply means to alter your way of thinking, your intention, your goal. If you think "A" and now think "not A", you've changed your mind. This is as true of God and anyone else.
I'm likely in the wrong thread anyway. This is supposed to be a 'how' thread, I just couldn't help but weigh in that some 'how's' aren't quite connecting.
Your mind and your brain have next to nothing to do with one another in this context. Your brain is where YOU interfaces with your physical body. Beyond that, the protein between your ears is irrelevant.

(The physical brain can and does effect the function of the mind, but that really is genuinely an entirely different topic.)

Ridiculous.

Your mind isn't your alter ego, it is your ego! Your mind is you!
Which is always my argument as well. You'd probably intimate that I can change 'me' but I'm wondering why this is a point to connect with a classical theist, or argue a point with them. What we are talking about, ultimately, is whether God can be surprised or whether 'to sigh' means He changed His mind (again, it is a nonstarter out of the gate for me, because it is so problematic for conveying anything with clarity). Point: If you are talking amongst yourselves how to address other theists, it might be a problem on the table. It is for me, not just because I believe God isn't caught surprised, knows exactly what He is doing, but also because I believe 'changed one's mind' a modern and problematic colloquialism that just makes theology discussion so much more complicated and problematic, especially if one is trying to make a cogent point.

Thus my entrance into thread, is simply to say so. If no points, well, the thread can move along. I'm just saying it is a stop-conversation for quite a few of us who aren't Open Theists (called classical theists by Open Theism).
Lon, you over think things more than any one else I know of.
It can have good points but I also try to get the heart of a discussion, which isn't always the straightforward. I do believe, "Changed one's mind" is the starting place, because one either has to backtrack, or get lost down the trail a ways.
How is it not completely intuitive that people aren't talking about swapping out one mind for an entirely different mind. It isn't the mind itself that changes, but it's content. I mean, how is it that you cannot remember having ever changed your own mind and thereby know intuitively what it being talked about? How many millions of times have you changed your own mind through the course of your life? Is there nothing you believed in your childhood that you haven't discovered was false? Have you not ever gone to the grocery store intending to buy Tostitos and walked out with Cheetos instead?
This will be the problem because I analyze what one is trying to 'intimate' by the sloppy, if you will. I simply think 'changing one's mind' is a sloppy colloquialism, and further, that most people don't actually know what they really mean when they say it. There are quite a few much better ways to describe what is going on in scripture, like simply taking it at face value "to sigh." The further we get away from exact meaning, the further we start interpreting, where we can get it wrong. We aren't going to agree on everything. We'd have to have the exact same minds for that to happen. When we come to a divergence, we discuss, often debate, over the difference. I believe it good. Even if I walk away fully believing as I always have, I've a rounder/fuller appreciation over the subject matter.
As always, words have a range of meaning. The particular meaning is determined by the context in which it is used. There are many times throughout the bible where it definitely means that God changed His mind.
Okay, for thread's sake (obviously we strongly disagree), what is the instruction (per thread) on how to answer a 'classic' theist? For me, unconvinced for both reasons stated: Attah "to sigh" and 'changed one's mind' not a very good alternative for 'to sigh.' So bringing it back to the thread, how is the classic theist addressed/answered?
No! Absolutely not! These passages are not interpreted after the fact as you are here implying. There is no Open Theist anywhere who decided that the future was open and then set about figuring out how to make certain passages say that God changes His mind. Indeed, it was quite the opposite.
It seems to me, it is a problem wholly created by English translation. "Attah" to sigh, seems very straightforward to me. I'd not even have met an Open Theist ( I don't think) without a problem of English conveyance on point. We cannot get 'changed his mind' from Attah if we were doing a word for word translation instead of a paraphrase/transliteration. I'm saying the problem is 'created' by transliteration against translation.
There are several passages that plainly teach that God has changed His mind.
Can't. There is literally no "Άλλαξε γνώμη" (Greek) nor "שינה את דעתו" (Hebrew 'changed His mind') in the Bible. Rather is 'Attah' over and against the cited 'need' for exact language, in either language to say precisely "God changed His mind." In a word, the 'best' you can do is paraphrase it! Literally.
This is a plain fact and stands as evidence that the future is open. In other words, the fact that God changes His mind is a premise of Open Theism, not a conclusion. In fact, the idea that God changes His mind is not even a necessary condition of Open Theism.
See, you said something, but it wasn't correct thus must be built off of paraphrase. Has to be.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Language expresses a thought/idea from one being to another.
That's right and words are the symbols we use to name concepts. It's more complicated than just that though because the concept a word names changes depending on how the word it used.

You’re making a mistake about what language is and what words are for and I suspect that you're doing so on purpose.

Language is not a collection of historical artifacts. It is a living, rational system of symbols used to convey thought. Words are the building blocks of that system, and their function is to carry meaning from one mind to another. That’s it. That’s the whole point. Whether we’re talking about English, Hebrew, or DNA, the essential nature of language is communicative. It exists so that rational beings can express, receive, and understand ideas.

A word, then, is not defined by its root sound or its physiological origin, but by how it functions in use. Meaning is not found in the syllables themselves. It is found in what the word represents in a given context, in a given language, to a given audience. That’s how language works.

So when you say that nacham doesn’t mean “change your mind” because that’s a modern colloquialism, and that it really means “to sigh,” you’re not actually engaging with how language operates. You’re confusing the root of a word with the function of that word. You’re reducing the meaning of the word to a physical action rather than considering what idea it’s conveying. As if the entire communicative function of Genesis 6:6 is just a divine sigh. That strips the word of its meaning and replaces it with anatomy. It’s like pointing to a man and saying, “He’s just a bag of organs and calcium.” It misses the point entirely.

A modern example is the English phrase “I feel you.” The literal words refer to physical sensation, but when someone says it today, they mean “I understand you,” or “I empathize.” Imagine someone arguing that it can’t mean empathy because the word feel comes from an old Germanic root meaning to grope. That’s the same kind of error you’re making.

Even if the root of nacham once had connotations of sighing or grieving, that is not the core meaning of the word when it is used to describe God's change of course or reversal of intent. In Genesis 6:6, (and elsewhere) the message is clear: God was grieved, yes, but that grief resulted in a reconsideration, a change of mind, a different course of action. That is what the word is doing. That is the meaning it is carrying. You do not get to override that meaning just because you found an etymological footnote. That’s just not how language works.

Words are servants of meaning. When you elevate the root of a word over its use, you’re no longer interpreting language, you’re dissecting it. You’re not listening to what God is saying, you’re cataloging His syllables. And in doing so, you lose the message while obsessing over the mechanism.

Language is meant to communicate thought. The word nacham, in context, communicates what we would call a change of mind. That’s what the word does. That the concept the word names. Denying that is not a defense of Scripture. It’s a denial of how language works altogether.
 
Last edited:

Nick M

Reconciled by the Cross
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I like to show how others think that are public figures. I think he takes a swing and a miss. You can't know the outcome unless it is determined. He knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows the DNA. That isn't what he is saying. And I like his work. He is just another that absolutely refuses to divide or acknowledge the order to divide the gospel. And he does not respond. I have read this argument here, and those of you ( long gone) that use it are wrong and grossly illogical.

 

Lon

Well-known member
So when you say that nacham doesn’t mean “change your mind” because that’s a modern colloquialism, and that it really means “to sigh,” you’re not actually engaging with how language operates. You’re confusing the root of a word with the function of that word. You’re reducing the meaning of the word to a physical action rather than considering what idea it’s conveying. As if the entire communicative function of Genesis 6:6 is just a divine sigh. That strips the word of its meaning and replaces it with anatomy. It’s like pointing to a man and saying, “He’s just a bag of organs and calcium.” It misses the point entirely.
But plugging in a modern colloquialism isn't best either. We'd instead follow: Nacham means to sigh. When we think of circumstances that cause One to sigh, we see that it can be from frustration, from a forseen perhaps inevitable outcome. "Sighing" is a legitimate word. We don't have to 'guess' what One sighs for, just note that the word is "God sighed." That works. The 'why' is where English nearly shoves an Open narrative. If our theology is pushed by translation, we might not be blamed, not our fault, really, for believing what an English translator thought Such is why I love Open Theists, I believe I see the mistake, but I think it an honest one. The consistency, if obvious, is seen down the road and it most often has to do with what a translator wrote. Forgive me for audacity, but let me explain it: When I was taking Greek, I had to translate passages. I'm a literalist so go for minimum interference when writing from Greek to English. There were times I thought I translated much better. I asked my prof, Dr. Koivisto, and he said that the reason for translation difference is explained by committee. Thomas Nelson took 200 scholars, some language experts, some English, and had them work on a passage until there was consensus, or the English scholars won, based on 'best English conveyance.' What it meant, was, that Dr. Koivisto would have (did) translate exactly (better) than I had, but publishers went with what they wanted over that. If the NIV says "Changed His mind" it is not because of Greek, nor Greek translation.
A modern example is the English phrase “I feel you.” The literal words refer to physical sensation, but when someone says it today, they mean “I understand you,” or “I empathize.” Imagine someone arguing that it can’t mean empathy because the word feel comes from an old Germanic root meaning to grope. That’s the same kind of error you’re making.
For me, the colloquial is the error. While I understand "I feel you" it is, in fact, much clearer to say "I empathize, I understand sympathetically what you are saying." If an idea conveys a problem, like touching another person, we want to clear that up before we translate to another language empathy, sympathy, and mutuality before 'feel' pushes the narrative too far removed from intent. Such is where 'to sigh' is important.
Even if the root of nacham once had connotations of sighing or grieving, that is not the core meaning of the word when it is used to describe God's change of course or reversal of intent.
Which is absolutely an issue with 'translation.' Hebrew simply means 'to sigh.' Rather, context tells us 'why.' If we translated consistently, we'd leave it to the reader to infer/figure out, why God sighed. It is 'translated' as 'comforted, stopped, or quit' (Hebrew concordance).
Sigh (English) can mean regret, grief, chose differently, etc., but these are derived from the idea of 'sighing/why did He sigh?'
In Genesis 6:6, (and elsewhere) the message is clear: God was grieved, yes, but that grief resulted in a reconsideration, a change of mind, a different course of action. That is what the word is doing. That is the meaning it is carrying. You do not get to override that meaning just because you found an etymological footnote. That’s just not how language works.

Words are servants of meaning. When you elevate the root of a word over its use, you’re no longer interpreting language, you’re dissecting it.
Which we have done together, to a fruitful affect.

You’re not listening to what God is saying, you’re cataloging His syllables. And in doing so, you lose the message while obsessing over the mechanism.
We have to interpret, but we must always evaluate if we have done so correctly. You and I have done this, in discussion, to a good effect. We may not agree, but the fact that we've done it is a very good process and forces us to ensure we are understanding a passage correctly. It is a good thing. For me, the most basic is bankable. We can count on it. What is derivative isn't as secure. Bad? Sometimes, but if we really work on how well we understand conveyance in its most basic form, we do very well. Honestly, I'd not have many people do this with me (not bragging, just saying most don't 'like' to dig into language and minutia). I know you are up to, and desirous of this kind of analysis.
Language is meant to communicate thought. The word nacham, in context, communicates what we would call a change of mind. That’s what the word does. That the concept the word names. Denying that is not a defense of Scripture. It’s a denial of how language works altogether.
If you followed (and I believe you have), I'd like to revisit this closing statement. For me, it is yet premature to a consensus of accepted terms on point. I want to say, once again, I agree with you I'm analytical ad nauseum, appreciate when you walk down that road, but it may be a bit too off-topic here. I was rereading and realize this is a 'how to answer' thread where I'm possibly out of place, other than being one of the ones where it is ultimately directed. In Him -Lon
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
That's right and words are the symbols we use to name concepts. It's more complicated than just that though because the concept a word names changes depending on how the word it used.

You’re making a mistake about what language is and what words are for and I suspect that you're doing so on purpose.

Language is not a collection of historical artifacts. It is a living, rational system of symbols used to convey thought. Words are the building blocks of that system, and their function is to carry meaning from one mind to another. That’s it. That’s the whole point. Whether we’re talking about English, Hebrew, or DNA, the essential nature of language is communicative. It exists so that rational beings can express, receive, and understand ideas.

A word, then, is not defined by its root sound or its physiological origin, but by how it functions in use. Meaning is not found in the syllables themselves. It is found in what the word represents in a given context, in a given language, to a given audience. That’s how language works.

So when you say that nacham doesn’t mean “change your mind” because that’s a modern colloquialism, and that it really means “to sigh,” you’re not actually engaging with how language operates. You’re confusing the root of a word with the function of that word. You’re reducing the meaning of the word to a physical action rather than considering what idea it’s conveying. As if the entire communicative function of Genesis 6:6 is just a divine sigh. That strips the word of its meaning and replaces it with anatomy. It’s like pointing to a man and saying, “He’s just a bag of organs and calcium.” It misses the point entirely.

A modern example is the English phrase “I feel you.” The literal words refer to physical sensation, but when someone says it today, they mean “I understand you,” or “I empathize.” Imagine someone arguing that it can’t mean empathy because the word feel comes from an old Germanic root meaning to grope. That’s the same kind of error you’re making.

Even if the root of nacham once had connotations of sighing or grieving, that is not the core meaning of the word when it is used to describe God's change of course or reversal of intent. In Genesis 6:6, (and elsewhere) the message is clear: God was grieved, yes, but that grief resulted in a reconsideration, a change of mind, a different course of action. That is what the word is doing. That is the meaning it is carrying. You do not get to override that meaning just because you found an etymological footnote. That’s just not how language works.

Words are servants of meaning. When you elevate the root of a word over its use, you’re no longer interpreting language, you’re dissecting it. You’re not listening to what God is saying, you’re cataloging His syllables. And in doing so, you lose the message while obsessing over the mechanism.

Language is meant to communicate thought. The word nacham, in context, communicates what we would call a change of mind. That’s what the word does. That the concept the word names. Denying that is not a defense of Scripture. It’s a denial of how language works altogether.

One more thing to point out: English is a very broad language, with over 170k words.

Hebrew, by comparison, has only a fraction of that, at only 8-10k words.

Needless to say, words in Hebrew had a much broader use than what we today realize.

NACHAM "to sigh" doesn't just mean "the exhaling of one's breath." It includes so much more.

And one of those things that it includes is "giving in" or "repenting."

In other words, it's not so much that the colloquial is understood, but that we derive the meaning from the context. If God wants things done one way, and someone presents an argument against it, and He "nacham"'s and agrees, we can rightoy infer that it's a change of mind, not just God letting out breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
One more thing to point out: English is a very broad language, with over 170k words.

Hebrew, by comparison, has only a fraction of that, at only 8-10k words.
Just over 9k 🆙
Needless to say, words in Hebrew had a much broader use than what we today realize.

NACHAM "to sigh" doesn't just mean "the exhaling of one's breath." It includes so much more.

And one of those things that it includes is "giving in" or "repenting."

In other words, it's not so much that the colloquial is understood, but that we derive the meaning from the context. If God wants things done one way, and someone presents an argument against it, and He "nacham"'s and agrees, we can rightoy infer that it's a change of mind, not just God letting out breath.
Really at the heart of what I'm saying: translation pushes meaning further than Hebrew intent. I believe it best, on point, to recognize that "to sigh" is best. In a sense, God has no lungs, therefore we have to grasp a deeper concept, but we need to be careful how strongly we want to push our derivative idea. I do very much believe discussion/disagreement is much over English derivative language. We simply do not argue/disagree that a Hebrew word means what it means.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
But plugging in a modern colloquialism isn't best either.
Why?

What's the difference between a "modern colloquialism" and any other aspect of modern language?

The answer to that question is NOTHING! "Modern colloquialism" is just the term you're assigning a certain set of sounds we use to communicate a particular idea that you don't want for the bible to be communicating. I don't care at all whether or not the idea is communicated via a whole sentence, a modern figure of speech, a modern colloquialism, or a single word so long as the concept is being communicated accurately.

In short, there isn't anything about a "modern colloquialism" in and of itself that renders a translation invalid.

We'd instead follow: Nacham means to sigh.
Except that that isn't what it means, Lon!

When we think of circumstances that cause One to sigh, we see that it can be from frustration, from a forseen perhaps inevitable outcome.
Right and that isn't what is happening in any biblical example you care to discuss. The word means to change one's thinking, to alter one's state of mind.

Further, how would it help you even if it did mean to be frustrated? Can an immutable God be frustrated in your doctrine? How does that work exactly?

"Sighing" is a legitimate word.
Of course it is but it isn't what is being communicated in any of the 108 times it is used in scripture.

This is NOT my opinion. You don't get to show up here and try to tell us all that multiple millennia worth of bible translation has been done in error and that you've discovered the actual meaning of the word Nacham. You haven't. You ARE wrong.

There has never been a standard Bible translation in any language that renders any occurrence of the Hebrew נָחַם (nacham) simply as “to sigh.”

In all major English translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.):

Nacham is consistently translated as:
  • “repent”
  • “relent”
  • “be sorry”
  • “have compassion”
  • “be comforted”
Even in the most literal translations (like Young’s Literal Translation or the NASB), “sigh” never appears as the rendering of nacham in any verse.

In the Septuagint (LXX – Greek Translation of the OT), Nacham is generally rendered using words like:
  • μετανοέω (metanoeō – to repent/change mind)
  • παρακαλέω (parakaleō – to comfort or console)

Again, never as a Greek verb that corresponds simply to “sigh” (like στενάζω, which would mean to groan or sigh).

In other languages such as Latin, German, French, Spanish, etc.....
  • In the Vulgate (Latin): nacham is translated as paenitere (to repent) or consolari (to be comforted).
  • In Luther’s German Bible and most modern German translations: it’s rendered as “reuen” (to regret) or “trösten” (to comfort).
  • In Spanish, “arrepentirse” (to repent) or “consolar” (to comfort).
  • In French, “regretter” (to regret), “se repentir” (to repent), or “consoler” (to comfort).
None use the equivalent of “sigh” in any verse where nacham appears. EVER!

We don't have to 'guess' what One sighs for, just note that the word is "God sighed." That works. The 'why' is where English nearly shoves an Open narrative. If our theology is pushed by translation, we might not be blamed, not our fault, really, for believing what an English translator thought Such is why I love Open Theists, I believe I see the mistake, but I think it an honest one. The consistency, if obvious, is seen down the road and it most often has to do with what a translator wrote. Forgive me for audacity, but let me explain it: When I was taking Greek, I had to translate passages. I'm a literalist so go for minimum interference when writing from Greek to English. There were times I thought I translated much better. I asked my prof, Dr. Koivisto, and he said that the reason for translation difference is explained by committee. Thomas Nelson took 200 scholars, some language experts, some English, and had them work on a passage until there was consensus, or the English scholars won, based on 'best English conveyance.' What it meant, was, that Dr. Koivisto would have (did) translate exactly (better) than I had, but publishers went with what they wanted over that. If the NIV says "Changed His mind" it is not because of Greek, nor Greek translation.
The problem isn't that translators are inserting Open Theism into the Bible, Lon! The problem is that the text itself says what it says. Whether it's Hebrew nacham or Greek metanoeō, the consistent usage across Scripture conveys emotional movement, regret, sorrow, compassion, even reversal. That’s not an English committee problem. That’s what the original words actually mean in context. No translator came along and shoved "changed His mind" into the text because they were pushing Open Theism. On the contrary, virtually all modern English translations were translated by Calvinists and looked for reasons to soften the translation into English. That's why the NIV, says "relent" in Jeremiah 18, for example, instead of the more accurate "repent" that the KJV uses. It's the same tactic you are using just to a lesser degree.

The idea that we should translate nacham as merely "sighed" to avoid theological discomfort turns translation into theology by manipulation. It’s the exact thing being accused, just in reverse. You don't get to flatten the meaning of a word just because you don’t like where it leads. The Calvinists stepped on Nacham a bit to render it "relent", you want to flatten it entirely and make it mean something entirely unrelated to what the original intent was.

Translation must reflect language (i.e. grammar, syntax, usage, context), not doctrinal preference. If the text makes you uncomfortable, that’s a signal to reexamine your theology, not to rewrite the vocabulary. Let the text speak. Then do the hard work of building doctrine on what it actually says, not what you wish it said.

For me, the colloquial is the error.
No one cares what the error is "for you", Lon. The bible isn't your personal play thing. It isn't a set of Lego blocks where you're allowed to build your own version of the Millennium Falcon with extra gun turrets and half as much engine if you so desire.

While I understand "I feel you" it is, in fact, much clearer to say "I empathize, I understand sympathetically what you are saying." If an idea conveys a problem, like touching another person, we want to clear that up before we translate to another language empathy, sympathy, and mutuality before 'feel' pushes the narrative too far removed from intent. Such is where 'to sigh' is important.

Which is absolutely an issue with 'translation.' Hebrew simply means 'to sigh.' Rather, context tells us 'why.' If we translated consistently, we'd leave it to the reader to infer/figure out, why God sighed. It is 'translated' as 'comforted, stopped, or quit' (Hebrew concordance).

Sigh (English) can mean regret, grief, chose differently, etc., but these are derived from the idea of 'sighing/why did He sigh?'
Sorry, Lon! "Nacham" DOES NOT mean "to sigh". Never has, never will.

You are making reference to the words etymology, not it's meaning, not the concept that the word gives name to. It is common for words, especially Semitic languages to have a connection to physical actions associated with a particular concept. An emotional response is often accompanied by a deep breath, for example. And so a word associated with a particular action might have its origin in the sound people make when performing that action. Thus, "nacham" MIGHT have become a word because of some such thing.

There are two impotant points here...

1. Even if "nacham" was a sigh that, over time, turned into a word, it doesn't mean that the word means "to sigh". The word refers to whatever concept was associated with that sigh.

2. NO ONE KNOWS that this "to sigh" idea was the real origin of the word "nacham" It's a theory - at best!

Which we have done together, to a fruitful affect.

We have to interpret, but we must always evaluate if we have done so correctly. You and I have done this, in discussion, to a good effect. We may not agree, but the fact that we've done it is a very good process and forces us to ensure we are understanding a passage correctly. It is a good thing. For me, the most basic is bankable. We can count on it. What is derivative isn't as secure. Bad? Sometimes, but if we really work on how well we understand conveyance in its most basic form, we do very well. Honestly, I'd not have many people do this with me (not bragging, just saying most don't 'like' to dig into language and minutia). I know you are up to, and desirous of this kind of analysis.
It is true that translation is not purely mechanical. Language is not math. Translators must often weigh multiple meanings and choose the one that best fits the grammar, syntax, and context of the passage. Interpretation is, to some degree, unavoidable. No serious person denies that.

However, that is a far cry from saying that translators are free to massage a word’s meaning in order to protect a theological system. Interpretation becomes abuse the moment a translator filters the text through doctrinal preference rather than linguistic usage. The responsibility of the translator is to render what the author actually said, not what the translator wishes had been said.

In the case of "nacham", the idea that it “really just means to sigh” is not cautious interpretation, it's theological imposition. The word does not mean to sigh. It just doesn't. That is not how it is defined in any Hebrew lexicon, and it is not how it is used in Scripture - ever!. The word reflects emotional or volitional movement (i.e. regret, sorrow, compassion, comfort, or change of mind), depending on the context. That is not the translator’s opinion. That is how the word functions, these are the concepts that the word names in the Hebrew language.

Reducing nacham to “sigh” in order to sidestep the theological tension of God regretting or repenting is not honest translation. It is a deliberate retreat from the text. The translator who sees tension and preserves it is doing his job. The one who erases that tension in order to make God more palatable has left the work of translation behind and entered the realm of commentary or even outright revision.

Translation involves interpretation, yes, but it does not permit invention. The difference being one of motive. The proper sort of interpretation in translation is linguistic, not theological.

If you followed (and I believe you have), I'd like to revisit this closing statement. For me, it is yet premature to a consensus of accepted terms on point. I want to say, once again, I agree with you I'm analytical ad nauseum, appreciate when you walk down that road, but it may be a bit too off-topic here. I was rereading and realize this is a 'how to answer' thread where I'm possibly out of place, other than being one of the ones where it is ultimately directed. In Him -Lon
I'm not sure how much more of a concencus you think there can be on this point, Lon. Show me even one single translation of the bible in any language in all of the hundreds of Old Testament translations that have been done of the centuries where Nacham has ever been translated as "to sigh" or it's equivalent in some other language. Even if you somehow produced one, which you won't do because they it doesn't exist, that would be a weird outlier of a translation that was so oddly unique as to be flatly false and it would certainly be the absolute opposite of concencus!

This is really what you need to do, Lon. And I'm serious about this....

You need to put that analytical mind of yours to work on the question....

"What would motivate me (Lon) to look so hard for a reason to render a common, well understood, Hebrew word to mean something so obscure that I can make it mean anything at all?"​
That's what you're doing here, Lon. You grasping at straws that don't even qualify as actual straws. "Nacham" DOES NOT mean "sigh". No translator or lexicon has ever rendered it in that way. So why would you show up here trying to insist that this is what it means? Where's the motive? What would it cost you to simply accept that it means what it obviously does mean?

I mean, when the bible tells you to repent from sin, are you really going to sit there and tell me that you sighed about it and so God forgave you because you took a deep breath and felt an emotion related to it? Do you really believe that Job simply sighed in Job 42:6? Was Ezekiel calling on Israel to perform one big communal breathing exercise in Ezekiel 14:6? Come on now!
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
One more thing to point out: English is a very broad language, with over 170k words.

Hebrew, by comparison, has only a fraction of that, at only 8-10k words.

Needless to say, words in Hebrew had a much broader use than what we today realize.

NACHAM "to sigh" doesn't just mean "the exhaling of one's breath." It includes so much more.

And one of those things that it includes is "giving in" or "repenting."

In other words, it's not so much that the colloquial is understood, but that we derive the meaning from the context. If God wants things done one way, and someone presents an argument against it, and He "nacham"'s and agrees, we can rightoy infer that it's a change of mind, not just God letting out breath.
Your point here is quite valid except that I'm pretty certain that "nacham" does not mean, nor has it ever meant, "to sigh".



נָחַם (nacham) does not mean “to sigh.”

Here is the scholarly, linguistic, and historical basis for that conclusion:


📚 1. Lexical Consensus

All authoritative Hebrew lexicons agree on the meanings of nacham based on how it is used in the Hebrew Bible:

  • Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB):
    • Niphal: to be sorry, to regret, to be moved to pity, to have compassion, to be comforted
    • Piel: to comfort, console
    • Hithpael: to be comforted, to console oneself
  • HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament):
    • Gives meanings including “to regret,” “to change one’s mind,” “to have compassion,” “to be comforted”
  • TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament):
    • Describes nacham as implying emotional and volitional change — regret, sorrow, comfort — and often used in covenantal or relational contexts.
None define it as “to sigh.” Not even as a secondary or poetic meaning.


🧠 2. Etymology ≠ Definition

It is true that some scholars speculate that nacham may have originated from a root associated with breathing deeply, sighing, or groaning — possibly based on Akkadian or other Semitic cognates. This theory belongs to etymology, not usage.

Critical distinction:

Where a word comes from is not the same as what it means when it is used.
Even if nacham was historically linked to a physical sigh, it has never meant “to sigh” in the way that English speakers use that word today. In Hebrew, nacham names a concept: an inner change — of feeling, thought, intent, or emotional state — not a sound or breath.


🌍 3. Translation Evidence

Across centuries and across dozens of languages, translators have never rendered nacham as “to sigh” in any verse:

  • English: “repent,” “relent,” “regret,” “be comforted,” “change one’s mind”
  • Greek (Septuagint): metanoeō, parakaleō — change mind, comfort
  • Latin (Vulgate): paenitere, consolari — repent, console
  • German: reuen, trösten
  • French: se repentir, consoler
  • Spanish: arrepentirse, consolar
No mainstream or literal translation has ever used “sigh” to render nacham. If it actually meant that, someone, somewhere, would have done so.


🧾 4. Biblical Usage

Let’s take Genesis 6:6:

“And the Lord regretted (וַיִּנָּחֶם) that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”
To translate that as “God sighed that He had made man” would not only be foreign to the syntax, but also strip the sentence of the cognitive and emotional weight the verse clearly intends to convey. The next clause (“He was grieved in His heart”) interprets nacham for us — it’s about grief, regret, and emotional sorrow, not a simple exhalation.


✅ Conclusion​

“To sigh” is not a translation of nacham. It is an etymological guess about its distant root. The actual, biblical meaning — based on context, grammar, usage, and every serious lexicon and translation — has to do with regret, emotional change, comfort, or compassion.

If someone says “nacham means to sigh,” they are confusing origin with meaning, and importing theology into translation in order to avoid dealing with what the text actually says.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your point here is quite valid except that I'm pretty certain that "nacham" does not mean, nor has it ever meant, "to sigh".



נָחַם (nacham) does not mean “to sigh.”

Here is the scholarly, linguistic, and historical basis for that conclusion:


📚 1. Lexical Consensus

All authoritative Hebrew lexicons agree on the meanings of nacham based on how it is used in the Hebrew Bible:

  • Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB):
    • Niphal: to be sorry, to regret, to be moved to pity, to have compassion, to be comforted
    • Piel: to comfort, console
    • Hithpael: to be comforted, to console oneself
  • HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament):
    • Gives meanings including “to regret,” “to change one’s mind,” “to have compassion,” “to be comforted”
  • TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament):
    • Describes nacham as implying emotional and volitional change — regret, sorrow, comfort — and often used in covenantal or relational contexts.
None define it as “to sigh.” Not even as a secondary or poetic meaning.


🧠 2. Etymology ≠ Definition

It is true that some scholars speculate that nacham may have originated from a root associated with breathing deeply, sighing, or groaning — possibly based on Akkadian or other Semitic cognates. This theory belongs to etymology, not usage.

Critical distinction:


Even if nacham was historically linked to a physical sigh, it has never meant “to sigh” in the way that English speakers use that word today. In Hebrew, nacham names a concept: an inner change — of feeling, thought, intent, or emotional state — not a sound or breath.


🌍 3. Translation Evidence

Across centuries and across dozens of languages, translators have never rendered nacham as “to sigh” in any verse:

  • English: “repent,” “relent,” “regret,” “be comforted,” “change one’s mind”
  • Greek (Septuagint): metanoeō, parakaleō — change mind, comfort
  • Latin (Vulgate): paenitere, consolari — repent, console
  • German: reuen, trösten
  • French: se repentir, consoler
  • Spanish: arrepentirse, consolar
No mainstream or literal translation has ever used “sigh” to render nacham. If it actually meant that, someone, somewhere, would have done so.


🧾 4. Biblical Usage

Let’s take Genesis 6:6:


To translate that as “God sighed that He had made man” would not only be foreign to the syntax, but also strip the sentence of the cognitive and emotional weight the verse clearly intends to convey. The next clause (“He was grieved in His heart”) interprets nacham for us — it’s about grief, regret, and emotional sorrow, not a simple exhalation.


✅ Conclusion​

“To sigh” is not a translation of nacham. It is an etymological guess about its distant root. The actual, biblical meaning — based on context, grammar, usage, and every serious lexicon and translation — has to do with regret, emotional change, comfort, or compassion.

If someone says “nacham means to sigh,” they are confusing origin with meaning, and importing theology into translation in order to avoid dealing with what the text actually says.

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. :)
 
Top