Thank you for the response to my earlier question on the Flood. Following on from that, I am still struggling with how it can be said that God was sorry at what he saw happen, and repented that he had ever made the world. Assuming that God is omnipotent, and exists 'outside' of time, then even if free will is real God knew the entire future of the world at the moment that he created it. He therefore knew that world v.1 was going to end up almost entirely corrupt, and that he would end up all but destroying it. Why did he allow these people to exist in the first place, knowing as he did that he would end up destroying them? I can only assume that it was to hold them up as an example to future generations of what God was capable of doing to people who were evil - a rather terrible threat to echo throughout the rest of history. If this is the case it can hardly be correct to say that God was sorry, or that he repented, or even that he felt anger. Surely these emotional responses are based upon an element of surprise that things have taken the course they have, accompanied by a strong desire that things could have turned out differently? If you are aware before you create Mankind exactly what it is going to do, how can you be said to regret it when the inevitable happens? The closest analogy I can think of is that it is rather like me deliberately dropping an egg on my kitchen floor and then regretting that I have to go to the cupboard for a bucket and my Vileda Supermop. With an infinite number of options available to you, if you choose to embark on a particular course of action (dropping and egg; creating Mankind) knowing the consequences (you end up with sticky lino; that at a given point you are going to obliterate all but one family) I do not see how these emotional responses of regret or anger can have any real meaning. At best it seeems you can say that God created Mankind knowing that he would kill almost the entire population in order to serve as a lesson to future generations that people must obey God. In other words he sacrificed v.1 for the sake of v.2. I appreciate that this is a touchy subject, and I hope this doesn't come across as if I am trying to be deliberately controversial or agumentative. If anyone would like to point out any flaws in my interpretation I'm all ears.