Kosta: Strong's (#05162) definition of "nacham" as 1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion, 2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, 3) to comfort oneself, be comforted, 4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself.
That's interesting, both my 2006 software version and my hardcopy 1995 version say the same thing for 5162:
OT:5162 nacham (naw-kham'); a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):
KJV - comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er-ing-self,-,).
I even did a brief Google search and could not find your definition. I guess we have different versions of Strong's. I imagine that could be a great source of disagreement. :)
WAIT A MINUTE, I just figured it out! :) I just found your definition on Crosswalk. The problem is that it uses Strong's number, but it is NOT a Strong's definition. The definition is from some other source I am not familiar with (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon?) Does that square?
Nevertheless, following Reformed theology, the wickedness of mankind was there by His "plan" and according to His will, and regret or even "compassionate" killing (drowning compassionate? Try not breathing for a minute or so....) does not fit God who is always in control.
No, it makes perfect sense. God is always in control, and everything that happens does not necessarily match with the HUMAN idea of pleasure or happiness. While in full control, for example, on one level God was grieved (or regretted or was sorry, etc.) to watch His Son die on a cross, while on another level it pleased Him that His beloved children were saved. He was in full control.
[The Septuagint for Gen. 6:6] says God "took it to heart" (the Greeks don't use "regret" as "nacham" but "enthumemoai," to ponder, to deliberate"). But if this is all part of God's perfect "plan," what is there to "ponder?"
I don't know. While I do not defend the Septuagint, the word here does not particularly "offend" me. "Ponder" or "deliberate" means "think about". When is God ever not doing that? It does not mean to change one's mind.
"Atsab" (Strong's #06087) definition is 1) to hurt, pain, grieve, displease, vex, wrest, a) (Qal) to hurt, pain, b) (Niphal) to be in pain, be pained, be grieved, c) (Piel) to vex, torture, d) (Hiphil) to cause pain, e) (Hithpael) to feel grieved, be vexed.
I don't see your point here. Atsab is clearly associated with hurt or pain, as in when realizing one's mistake.
I checked and it is the same situation as before. The actual Strong's definition is this:
OT:6087 bx^u* `atsab (aw-tsab'); a primitive root; properly, to carve, i.e. fabricate or fashion; hence (in a bad sense) to worry, pain or anger:
KJV - displease, grieve, hurt, make, be sorry, vex, worship, wrest.
So, I hope that my statements make a little more sense now. Strong's says nothing about making any mistake.
Besides, what does the wickedness of man have to do with birds? And how does one "drown" birds? The whole story is ridiculous, FK, if taken literally as a matter of fact, for the implication is that the entire earth (including Mt. Everest!) was covered with water so that the even the birds eventually became exhausted and fell into the ocean and drowned!
I thought that all sides agreed that man's sin had a profound affect on the whole of "the world". But even if you don't agree, all of God's creation is still His to do with as He pleases.
It is not difficult at all to drown a bird if there is no where to land. :) I have no idea at all if the Flood actually covered the tippy-top of Mt. Everest. Since I can't imagine anything living up there it wouldn't seem like there was a need to (although need is irrelevant), but in any event, just the THOUGHT of Everest being completely covered does not bother or challenge my sensibilities in the LEAST. :)
Actually, I use the Blue Letter Bible.
The definition is from some other source I am not familiar with (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon?) Does that square?
What makes Strong (a 19th century Protestant Englishman) alone the sole authority?
While in full control, for example, on one level God was grieved (or regretted or was sorry, etc.) to watch His Son die on a cross, while on another level it pleased Him that His beloved children were saved.
So, the Reformed God is a multi-leveled complex being, constantly changing and possibly having multiple personalities? On what "level" did God grieve for His Son? Human level? That all sound very pagan to me, no offense, please.
"Ponder" or "deliberate" means "think about". When is God ever not doing that? What is God thinking about, pray tell! Or do you not think that He had already thought everything ther was to think, and know everything there is to know?
Strong's says nothing about making any mistake.
You still didn't explain why was God "grieved" that mankind on His watch turned out to be wicked if He was in full control, FK. And if this was what He willed, then why was He "grieved?"
I thought that all sides agreed that man's sin had a profound affect on the whole of "the world".
Yes it does, as sinful man destroys what God gave us.
But even if you don't agree, all of God's creation is still His to do with as He pleases
Yes it is, and what can Love do?
I have no idea at all if the Flood actually covered the tippy-top of Mt. Everest. Since I can't imagine anything living up there it wouldn't seem like there was a need to
I guess it wouldn't be "up there" if the water level was "up there." :)