Does God still regret us?

[Shem Ben Noah]

If God currently still regret making humans, therefor...? What message you wish to convey with the statement that if God currently still regret making humans?

Regret in the past was motivation for extermination. What's the result of regret now? Seems like abandonment to me.

Do you believe God is omniscience? Yes or no?

Please explain your complete definition for 'omniscience'.

Do you believe before God start create humans he already know that in the future he'll regret for creating humans? Yes or no?

Yes and no. Knowing all possible outcomes is not the same as knowing which particular path a being with free will takes. That would be the whole point of free will, right? If the path had no forks, then there's no free will. If the outcome of an experiment is fixed, why run it at all?

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

According to scripture God created humans in his own image.

Genesis 1:27 (kjv) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Since god has no body and is pure spirit, the image is talking about of our mind and soul. The body is merely the vehicle that lets that image manifest in the physical realm, where there is imperfection and fault possible.

I don't believe in a revolt in heaven and a rebellious angel. The angel in Job is not rebellious.
Angels can't sin because they live in the spirit plane, where the glory of God's throne is ever visible.
That's why humans were made physical and flawed, to be isolated from that overpowering sight.
Problem is, we're too flawed. The vehicle is too corrupting.

 

[Tumah]

The word that is being translated here as "regret" doesn't actually mean "regret". There's a number of instances where such a translation for this root would make no sense in context. What it means is to change from one type of thought or trait to its opposite. From there the word may be used in a context where regret is implied.

When used in context with the unchanging G-d, it means an impending nullification of a previous action. G-d created mankind, and it would be destroyed in the near future (Gen. 6). G-d gave Saul kingship and it would be revoked in the immediate future (1 Sam. 15).

Since we still exist and have existed for generations, the most we could say is that if mankind is destroyed in the near future, that it was those few generations before the destruction that G-d "regretted" and not every generation since Noah.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 6 (Parshah Berei**** and Noach)

(lol.... swear filter fail)

And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart.

ווַיִּנָּחֶם יְהֹוָה כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ:

 

[Pudding]

Regret in the past was motivation for extermination. What's the result of regret now? Seems like abandonment to me.

Thanks for explain. Seems like God is also capable of making mistakes. He wants to create humans with free will and order them to completely obey him. If humans don't obey him and/or don't believe in his existence then he will exterminate and abandon those humans. That is totalitarianism.

Yes and no.

Thanks for answer.

You believe God is omniscience.

You don't believe that before God start create humans he already know that in the future he'll regret for creating humans.

Please explain your complete definition for 'omniscience'.

Knowing all possible outcomes is not the same as knowing which particular path a being with free will takes.

I haven't say otherwise.

That would be the whole point of free will, right?

I understand that is what you believe. Please provide evidence to support your claim that "that would be the whole point of free will" if you want to convince me to believe you.

If the path had no forks, then there's no free will.

Please explain what do you mean by "the path had no forks".

If the outcome of an experiment is fixed, why run it at all?

I don't know what message you wish to convey with your statement.

 

[Pudding]

Since god has no body and is pure spirit, the image is talking about of our mind and soul. The body is merely the vehicle that lets that image manifest in the physical realm, where there is imperfection and fault possible.

I understand that is what you believe. Please provide evidence to support your statements if you want to convince me to believe you.

I don't believe in a revolt in heaven and a rebellious angel. The angel in Job is not rebellious.
Angels can't sin because they live in the spirit plane, where the glory of God's throne is ever visible.

I haven't ask you about that so i don't know why you need to say that.

That's why humans were made physical and flawed, to be isolated from that overpowering sight.

I cannot understand how your provided reasons explain "that's why humans were made physical and flawed".

Problem is, we're too flawed. The vehicle is too corrupting.

I understand that is what you believe. Please provide evidence to support your statements if you want to convince me to believe you.

 

[Skwim]

The word that is being translated here as "regret" doesn't actually mean "regret". There's a number of instances where such a translation for this root would make no sense in context. What it means is to change from one type of thought or trait to its opposite. From there the word may be used in a context where regret is implied.

When used in context with the unchanging G-d, it means an impending nullification of a previous action. G-d created mankind, and it would be destroyed in the near future (Gen. 6). G-d gave Saul kingship and it would be revoked in the immediate future (1 Sam. 15).

Since we still exist and have existed for generations, the most we could say is that if mankind is destroyed in the near future, that it was those few generations before the destruction that G-d "regretted" and not every generation since Noah.

I checked 50 translations of Gen. 6:6 and . . .

..1 said."very sad"
10 said "repented"
16 said "regretted"
23 said "sorry"

Obviously, none of the translators or scholars gives your notion any credence in regard to Gen. 6:6. So why did these 50 versions choose to use these particular English words, with their particular English meanings? Because it's what their scholars feel best conveys the intended meaning of the ancient writers. Had they felt נָחַם (nacham)---the Hebrew word from which the English words above were translated---meant something else they would have used that something else.

So, Nope! god did repent/regret/was sorry/or sad for what he had done. Which adds up to having committed a mistake.

.

 

[crowfeather]

And Lo: God made an online forum, and when He saw what it became, so did He regret having made it.
Can't say I blame Him.

 

[Tumah]

I checked 50 translations of Gen. 6:6 and . . .

..1 said."very sad"
10 said "repented"
16 said "regretted"
23 said "sorry"

Obviously, none of the translators or scholars gives your notion any credence in regard to Gen. 6:6. And why did these 50 versions choose to use these particular English words, with their particular English meanings? Because it's what their scholars feel best conveys the intended meaning of the ancient writers. Had they felt נָחַם (nacham)---the Hebrew word from which the English words above were translated---meant something else they would have used that something else.

So, Nope! god did repent/regret/was sorry/or sad for what he had done. Which adds up to having committed a mistake.

.

I don't know why you think this is my notion, or why those scholars should have more credence than mine. The translation that my scholars gives, provides a translation that explains this specific root in all its occurrences. The translation that your translators provided doesn't which is why you'll find a strikingly different translation for the same word in, say, Isaiah 40:1 (its the first word, repeated).

You would not be surprised if you found some Inuit book translated to English and 13 times where it says snow was actually 13 different words from this list. Snow is not something highly defined in English culture and language so we only have the one word. But you can understand that in the original, the author was giving a more defined explanation of the event.

Hebrew is a real language too, with its own culture and language. Its easy to see that English translators are simply attempting to give the idea behind the verses rather than the nuance and this can be seen from the very first verse in Tanach. To a Christian audience who doesn't really care about the language as much as the intent, that may be fine. But Jewish scholars may be a lot more particular, given that the grammatical differences are going to be apparent to their demographic.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know why you think this is my notion,

Because you didn't attribute it to anyone else.

or why those scholars should have more credence than mine.

For one thing, you haven't established any scholarly credentials here. For another, the mere number who are in agreement pretty much puts your singular notion out to pasture.

The translation

Wholly meaningless to people such as myself who don't read Hebrew.

that my scholars

Don't you mean scholar? (singular) I only see one cited, and in the linked article he doesn't even address the issue of נָחַם.

gives, provides a translation that explains this specific root in all its occurrences. The translation that your translators provided doesn't which is why you'll find a strikingly different translation for the same word in, say, Isaiah 40:1 (its the first word, repeated).

So why should I believe what your scholars say rather than what those behind 50 versions of the Bible have come to agree on?

You would not be surprised if you found some Inuit book translated to English and 13 times where it says snow was actually 13 different words from this list. Snow is not something highly defined in English culture and language so we only have the one word. But you can understand that in the original, the author was giving a more defined explanation of the event.

But I'm not relying on my knowledge or interpretation, but on scholars and trusted interpreters.

Hebrew is a real language too, with its own culture and language. Its easy to see that English translators are simply attempting to give the idea behind the verses rather than the nuance and this can be seen from the very first verse in Tanach.

And it's easy to see that your Jewish scholars would be simply trying to construct the meaning to suit their theology, just as you're trying to do here. To suggest that Jews aren't given to manipulating scripture whereas Christians are is an unwarranted and smug conceit.

To a Christian audience who doesn't really care about the language as much as the intent, that may be fine. But Jewish scholars may be a lot more particular, given that the grammatical differences are going to be apparent to their demographic.

Are you suggesting that just because a scholar is Jewish that by default he has a better understanding of these writings, AND that none of the scholars who contributed to the translation of Gen. 6:6 for the 50 versions were Jewish? Yeah, you probably are.

In any case, believe what you need to, while I, like millions of others, will continue to take "The Lord regretted that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" as written.........God screwed up.

.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If god is, well, god then he should not need the bible to quote his words. I mean, without the bible would got communicate this same information to you?
If yes, how?
If not, Id rethink how you view the bible?

Jesus said we are to pray for help through God's spirit at Luke 11:13 B.
So, by prayer and association with God's people we would have information about God.
Even creation itself speaks to us about our Creator how Earth is home for us.

I find in Scripture that Adam talked with God. God did Not have written letters (Scripture) for Adam.
Adam broke his communication with his God, Adam's acquired imperfection was passed down to us.
So, until the end of the coming 1,000-year governmental reign of Christ over Earth mankind will Not have that one-on-one communication as Adam originally did. Then, we will have that original one-on-one with our Heavenly Father as Adam originally had. Truly, to me, better times are ahead, the best of times.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Jesus said we are to pray for help through God's spirit at Luke 11:13 B.
So, by prayer and association with God's people we would have information about God.
Even creation itself speaks to us about our Creator how Earth is home for us.

I find in Scripture that Adam talked with God. God did Not have written letters (Scripture) for Adam.
Adam broke his communication with his God, Adam's acquired imperfection was passed down to us.
So, until the end of the coming 1,000-year governmental reign of Christ over Earth mankind will Not have that one-on-one communication as Adam originally did. Then, we will have that original one-on-one with our Heavenly Father as Adam originally had. Truly, to me, better times are ahead, the best of times.

It sounds like you depend on scripture to communicate with god?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Thanks for explain. Seems like God is also capable of making mistakes. He wants to create humans with free will and order them to completely obey him. If humans don't obey him and/or don't believe in his existence then he will exterminate and abandon those humans. That is totalitarianism.

I find that by creating us with free-will choices, then God is Not making us as robots or automatons.
If we did Not have free will then people would complain they had No choice in matters.
People would complain they are being forced to serve or obey God.
God does Not interfere with our choices. ( This is proven out by the daily news reports )
I find in Psalms 92:7 that it is only the wicked who will be destroyed forever.
The wicked do Not want to live by the Golden Rule.
Does a person feel safer living around people who apply the Golden Rule, or ones who refuse to apply it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It sounds like you depend on scripture to communicate with god?

What Christian in Scripture did Not depend ( mean use Scriptural knowledge ) when communicating with God.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written....." meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures, so Jesus based his beliefs and communication with his Heavenly Father on Scripture.
How else would we know the happy outcome for earth's nations going to be healed if Not for Revelation 22:2.
When Jesus taught us that humble meek people will inherit the Earth, Jesus was referring to Psalms 37:11.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What Christian in Scripture did Not depend ( mean use Scriptural knowledge ) when communicating with God.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written....." meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures, so Jesus based his beliefs and communication with his Heavenly Father on Scripture.
How else would we know the happy outcome for earth's nations going to be healed if Not for Revelation 22:2.
When Jesus taught us that humble meek people will inherit the Earth, Jesus was referring to Psalms 37:11.

That would mean jesus and god does not exist without scripture?

I can't see how scripture is needed to communicate with god if god is a personal relationship with the christian rather than scripture.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That would mean jesus and god does not exist without scripture?
I can't see how scripture is needed to communicate with god if god is a personal relationship with the christian rather than scripture.

To me, because Jesus used existing Scripture ( the old Hebrew Scriptures ) to communicate with his God, then for a Christians they would do the same. It is Not saying that God would Not exist without Scripture for even nature shows what God has made that Earth is the perfect home for mankind. Jesus built his personal relationship with his Heavenly Father through Scripture to the point that Jesus taught that Scripture is religious truth at John 17:17.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To me, because Jesus used existing Scripture ( the old Hebrew Scriptures ) to communicate with his God, then for a Christians they would do the same. It is Not saying that God would Not exist without Scripture for even nature shows what God has made that Earth is the perfect home for mankind. Jesus built his personal relationship with his Heavenly Father through Scripture to the point that Jesus taught that Scripture is religious truth at John 17:17.

Jesus didn't depend on scripture. He used scripture as an example and confirmation of what Moses said about the laws. All of scripture was his actions and his passion. Anything written just "testifies to his behalf." So, it all goes back to jesus.

I'd find it odd that jesus would tell a christian "if you want to know the creator you have to know written hebrew scriptures." It was more, if you want to know god, pray, be service to humanity, and follow me as I complete the laws in the OT and by my Passion I complete the two laws of the new.

Do we need scripture to understand jesus?

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

I understand that is what you believe. Please provide evidence to support your statements if you want to convince me to believe you.

Evidence is difficult, as my beliefs about why god made us grew slowly over some two decades of study of Torah and Kabbala. Quoting chapter & verse will be therefore problematic, as some things I simply will not remember where exactly the info came from.

However I believe that understanding the 'why' is fundamental to understanding our dysfunctional relationship to him, which resulted in the regret and following woes.

So I will compose a short explanation of this with a bit more thought and post later.

Actually, my goal is never really to convince others to believe me, but to clearly and completely present my views. If I cause confusion, I obviously failed at this, but alternate views and disagreement is not fail.

 

[Tumah]

Because you didn't attribute it to anyone else.

I guess its not obvious that as a Jew I would be representing Jewish commentators...

For one thing, you haven't established any scholarly credentials here.

Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser (Russian: Меир-Лейбуш бен Йехиэл-Михл) (March 7, 1809 – September 18, 1879), better known as The Malbim (Hebrew: מלבי"ם‎‎), was a rabbi, master of Hebrew grammar, and Bible commentator.
Malbim - Wikipedia​

For another, the mere number who are in agreement pretty much puts your singular notion out to pasture.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Wholly meaningless to people such as myself who don't read Hebrew.

Since you posted the Hebrew word נחם I expected that you'd at least be able to recognize the title of the paragraph bearing the same word as the source for my translation. My mistake.

Don't you mean scholar? (singular) I only see one cited, and in the linked article he doesn't even address the issue of נָחַם.

It was the Hebrew source.

So why should I believe what your scholars say rather than what those behind 50 versions of the Bible have come to agree on?

Because those scholars don't agree on a translation of the word, they interpret it in different ways.
In fact, if you want to appeal to popularity, then those 50 scholars are against the who-knows-how-many Jewish scholars who improvised the Hebrew word חרטה for regret, because they believed that no such word existed in Biblical Hebew.

But I'm not relying on my knowledge or interpretation, but on scholars and trusted interpreters.

With histories of demonstrably bad individual-word translation.

And it's easy to see that your Jewish scholars would be simply trying to construct the meaning to suit their theology, just as you're trying to do here. To suggest that Jews aren't given to manipulating scripture whereas Christians are is an unwarranted and smug conceit.

I don't think unifying root-meanings and harmonizing contradictions falls under the category of constructing meaning to suit theology. Even if you put your faith in the Documentary Hypothesis, its not illogical to suggest that the Redactor(s) would not have intended to contradict himself(/themselves).

Are you suggesting that just because a scholar is Jewish that by default he has a better understanding of these writings, AND that none of the scholars who contributed to the translation of Gen. 6:6 for the 50 versions were Jewish? Yeah, you probably are.

I am not suggesting that the ethnicity of a scholar lends them greater understanding. I am saying that Jewish scholars writing for an audience that reads the text in the original Hebrew have to provide explanations for grammatical irregularities and translations that won't be obvious to other readers who can only read the translation.

So a scholar who happens to be Jewish but is writing a translation for an English-only audience would generally fall into the latter category (unless otherwise writing a work analyzing such grammatical irregularities, in which case that would be true of any scholar).

Case in point. Here are 22 translations of the first verse of Genesis:

Spoiler: Lots of translations

New International Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

New Living Translation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

English Standard Version
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

King James Bible
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, God created the universe.

NET Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

New Heart English Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

JPS Tanakh 1917
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

New American Standard 1977
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Jubilee Bible 2000
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

American King James Version
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

American Standard Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

Darby Bible Translation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

English Revised Version
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

World English Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

Of the 22 translations, only one of them accurately identifies that the grammatical construct of the first word of Genesis should be "In the beginning of". To remedy that, they change the tense found in the Hebrew of the following word so that it conforms to the construction of the first word.

According to your reasoning, since only 1 translation out of 22, translated it that way, it is false. Meanwhile, just about all major Jewish commentators point this out, such that the first verse in the Rabbinic Bible is followed by pages of commentary.

In any case, believe what you need to, while I, like millions of others, will continue to take "The Lord regretted that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" as written.........God screwed up.

.

That was rather childish.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

...In any case, believe what you need to, while I, like millions of others, will continue to take "The Lord regretted that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" as written.........God screwed up.

.

Yes. He did.

But think about this. Imagine you are a perfect being, and your task is to create something that is imperfect. How? Not directly, surely. Anything you make will be perfect. You have to set up an environment where conditions are separate from you, isolated as much as possible from you. Act indirectly and through intermediaries and mechanisms ....

It's a wonder to me that he didn't screw up more.

Or maybe he did, a lot. Other worlds. Even other, failed universes.