Whenever you hear a typically-teenaged women or even older utter the word: "Whatever!" in response to some statement or question, what generally comes to mind concerning (and not regarding) her?

A pompous twit and/or ignoramus -- too impatient to take the time to delve into intellectual or knowledgeable particulars about something?

A cowardly person who does not want to take sides lest she, in her belligerent dogmatic timidity, is pathetically afraid of offending someone or some group probably having differing opinions among themselves?

Such impudent display of deliberate dullness of mind evidenced by her remark of: "Whatever" is certainly not the characteristic of a disciplined and thoughtful scientific mind requiring vital detailing in whatever specialization is involved.

Close behind such blurblization are the terms: "Whatchamicallit" and "Thingy" and similar variant aberrants of the same ilk.

Not only that, but such noxious exhibitionism of indiscretion and non-acceptable vague inclusiveness can be (and sometimes actually is) downright dangerous -- as, for example, when conveying the exact speed limit posted on a road or highway with police watching in squad cars with radar, when describing or filling a potentially-lethal dosage of correct or incorrect prescription medication at a pharmacy, when mixing carefully-controlled industrial or military chemicals at precisely-required conditions which could potentially be explosive, and many many more examples.

A similar immentality of conceptual indolence is reflected by the accusatory, condemnatory, and judgmental retort: "Don't be so nitpicky." Or: "Don't get hung up on details." Or: "It doesn't matter."

Consider the case of crucially-different Bible translations, in this case one verse of the New-Testament epistle of Titus:

Titus 1:2 (RSV) in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago
2 (ASV) in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago
2 (BBE) In the hope of eternal life, which was made certain before eternal time, by the word of God who is ever true;
2 (Darby) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the ages of time,
2 (Douay) Unto the hope of life everlasting, which God, who lieth not, hath promised before the times of the world:
2 (ERV) in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal;
2 (ESV) in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before times eternal
2 (GWV) My message is based on the confidence of eternal life. God, who never lies, promised this eternal life before the world began.
2 (JB2000) for the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the times of the ages
2 (KJ21) in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began,
2 (NKJV) in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,
2 (Philips) in the hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before the beginning of time.
2 (WEY) in hope of the Life of the Ages which God, who is never false to His word, promised before the commencement of the Ages.
2 (Williams) in the hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago

Amidst the muddled deplorable-diversity sea of so many contrasting words and despicable variety of semantical terms within the different translations portrayed above, the one of interest at this time is:

So, WHICH is it: "cannot lie" -- or instead (and I do mean: INSTEAD): never lies?

Such a difference is a "big deal!" A crucial difference . . . NOT to be taken lightly!

The phrase: "cannot lie" obviously implies an inability, an incapacity - as to whether the Lord (with His free will - and He, like us, does indeed have a free will) would want to lie OR want to not lie (whatever He chooses of the two totally-opposite choices).

In stark contrast, the phrase: "never lies" (or: "does not lie") has nothing necessarily whatsoever to do with capacity or ability . . . but instead is a statement of historical record and present analysis of what He already has done in the past and what He is and continues to do presently.

With that in mind, it clearly become plain that the phrase: "never lies" or "does not lie" is preferable, because that assures us who believe that that He has and continues to use the capacity and the ability of His own free-will choice to choose whatever He wants to choose correctly, justly, and consistent with His already-stated Word (rather than wrongly and injustly and capriciously inconsistent or contradicatory against His previously-stated Word), and thus the always-rightly-deciding-with-His-free-will God is not an inanimate object (like a rock or a wall) without choice, nor an animal driven only by pre-programmed instinct predictably operating and responding in finite stimulus-response environment of myriad-but-limited random encounters.

Consider another instance of non-acceptably-discrepant or non-allowably disparate Bible translations, found in the New-Testament book of James:

James 1:13 (RSV) Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one;
13 (ASV) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man
13 (BBE) Let no man say when he is tested, I am tested by God; for it is not possible for God to be tested by evil, and he himself puts no man to such a test:
13 (Darby) Let no man, being tempted, say, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted by evil things, and himself tempts no one.
13 (Douay) Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.
13 (ERV) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man:
13 (ESV) Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
13 (GWV) When someone is tempted, he shouldn’t say that God is tempting him. God can’t be tempted by evil, and God doesn’t tempt anyone.
13 (JB2000) Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt anyone:
13 (KJ21) Let no man say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.
13 (Message) Don’t let anyone under pressure to give in to evil say, "God is trying to trip me up." God is impervious to evil, and puts evil in no one’s way.
13 (NKJV) Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
13 (Philips) A man must not say when he is tempted, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, and does not himself tempt anyone.
13 (WEY) Let no one say when passing through trial, "My temptation is from God;" for God is incapable of being tempted to do evil, and He Himself tempts no one.
13 (Williams) No one must say, when he is tempted to do evil, "I have a temptation from God to do evil," for God cannot be tempted to do evil, and He never tempts anyone to do so.
13 (WTNT) Let no man say when he is tempted that he is tempted of God: for God tempteth not unto evil: he tempteth no man:
13 (YLT) Let no one say, being tempted—‘From God I am tempted,’ for God is not tempted of evil, and Himself doth tempt no one

In this case, the phrase: "cannot be tempted" (and its perplexing varieties in discrepant-against-each-other various "bible" translations) and the questionable alternatives: "is not a tempter" and "impervious to evil" and "incapable of being tempted" and "tempteth not" and "is not tempted" . . . again imposes the irreconcilable difference of capacity in contrast to performance (historically, currently, and predictively in the future).

A careful study of the precise Greek-Text words used in the Scrivener-Trinitarian Greek New Testament will reveal which of the two options should be the only and only acceptable and valid one relating to the discrepancies mentioned above.

It is interesting to consider why God is not tempted by evil, and that is the simple fact that God, as God, is in no way inadequate and needs nothing to satisfy Him which He has not obtained, is not obtaining, and will or could not obtain if He wanted it.

Admittedly, the LORD does not force us to love and desire Him if we so choose (with our made-in-the-image-of-God free will), although He could (and frequently does) force us (as He does concerning both Satan and demons) to obey Him against our and their wills -- in the sense that He can (and does) force our body parts to involuntarily move or not move, function or dysfunction, however and whenever He wants, plus non-accommodating on the part of us physical or spiritual entities has non-escapable consequences which free wills of those sentient entities have absolutely no countermanding effect upon.

But because God forces no one to love and desire Him, such non-forcing cannot be considered an "inability" nor an "inadequacy," because God is under not under any obligation nor requirement from any alleged supervisor above Him to choose to do anything as a prerequisite. Not only that, but there already are those of us who (by proper use of our free-will choice) automatically have often chosen, do choose, and likely will continue to choose, to love and desire Him - thus bypassing and neutralizing any presumed or postulated "inability" or "incapacity" or "inadequacy" supposedly categorizing Him as "deficient."

Such non-necessity-to-crave and completeness of the Almighty is in stark contrast to us humans who, because of sinful duressers surrounding us, have deprived us of what we both need and want, and impose temptations relating to us pleasurably acquiring and contentedly possessing and enjoyably utilizing whatever they have deprived us of.

It should be pointed out that capacity or ability to do something or to not do something is of greater importance that the intention or desire (or lack of intention or desire) to do something.

If one is not capable of doing something, it is irrelevant whether or not he or she intends to do (or not do) something. In that case, free will missing in that incapacitated sentient lifeform is moot and does not even apply nor "come into the picture" as to what has been decided upon (or chosen), what is being decided upon (or chosen) or what will or could be decided upon (or chosen) . . . IF, again, the sentient lifeform is not intrinsically capable of so decided or choosing.

If God was incapable of choosing to be completely consistent with His Word by not having a free will Himself to choose with, He would obviously not choose to do anything at all, whether pro or con, positively or negatively.

That is why a response to a query of: "Why did you do that?" of: "Because I can" (or "Because I could") is basic and initially of greater importance than a follow-up response of: "Because I wanted to" or "Because I wanted to do what I could."