Replies

I respectfully disagree that “none of these are describing a general characteristic of God”. One can only read “God is not man that He should repent” as part of the make up of God. This is a definitive statement by God of what He is not-man-and what He does not do-repent. The context is irrelevant since it will not alter what God said about Himself.

Certainly the other “I repented” verses are problematic but in every single case they denote action on the part of God, not God’s character. Many of these verse uses the same Hebrew word “repent” as mentioned above. Therefore you must interpret all action “I repented” verses in context of who God is and scripture.

One can only read "God is not man that He should repent" as part of the make up of God. This is a definitive statement by God of what He is not-man-and what He does not do-repent. The context is irrelevant since it will not alter what God said about Himself.
Have you ever considered whether you "can only read" this passage as describing "part of the make up of God," because your theology requires it?

Is there any possibility that you are reading more into the passage than is actually there? Wouldn't it be better, to take the verse at face value? That way, we could also take the twenty-one other verses at face value, too. Then, it would all fit.

Certainly the other "I repented" verses are problematic but in every single case they denote action on the part of God, not God's character.

If a characteristic of God is "what He does not do-repent," how is it possible for Him to DO something [ " action on the part of God "] ("repent") which " He does not do-?"

Many of these verse uses the same Hebrew word "repent" as mentioned above.

Exactly!

Therefore you must interpret all action "I repented" verses in context of who God is and scripture.

This is good. If I were to say (on the other hand) that my UNDERSTANDING of a particular verse nullifies twenty-one other verses, that would NOT be good.

Just food for thought.