And why can’t one say that He knows you and your natural traits so well that He knows what you will do? For example, like when He says about Aaron that he will see Moses and rejoice in his heart? Or about Pharaoh, that he will refuse to let the Jewish people go?

Because if acquaintance is enough to predict what I will do, that means the current data determine what will happen. You’ve got determinism.

Umm… okay. By the way, several times in the chapter Nachmanides is mentioned, that everything is miracles, etc. There is another passage from Nachmanides at the end of Sha’ar HaGemul, where he quotes the words of Maimonides, from which it emerges that almost nothing involves divine intervention. I’m copying the passage for you:

And I further caution anyone who wishes to be among those of whom it is said, “but the righteous shall live by his faith,” and does not wish to be counted among those of whom it is said, “children in whom there is no faith,” that he should not strive in this inquiry on the basis of books and the words of most speakers on this matter. Rather, he should understand and know that this doubt is not very great in human affairs, and it is not needed like most matters that are difficult at the beginning of investigation. Much of this inquiry was already nullified by the great rabbi of blessed memory in his arguments in chapter twelve of the Guide for the Perplexed. He, of blessed memory, said that the masses imagine that the evils of the world are greater than its goods, and when one compares a person’s periods of rest and pleasure with the anxieties, severe pains, mishaps, illnesses, and obstacles, it appears to them that human existence is for his harm. But he, of blessed memory, explained that most evils affecting individual human beings come from their lack of knowledge; and because of our foolishness we cry out and complain, and we grieve and suffer from the evils that we ourselves bring upon our souls by our own will. As Solomon said: “A man’s folly perverts his way, and his heart rages against the Lord.” He elaborated on this and explained that most evils occurring among human beings come from human beings harming one another, such as quarrels and wars, or from a person harming himself through excessive desire for food and sexual relations and the like. One who enters a war and is struck by arrows should cry out only against himself; one who eats bad foods and becomes afflicted, or one who indulges excessively in sexual relations and becomes blind, should cry out only against his own foolishness. And so too you will see among them that one who enters the dangers of deserts and seas in order to become richer than his neighbors and to abase himself in pursuit of silver and gold, and then troubles befall him—he goes and cries out and complains about the times and wonders at his bad luck. But the Holy One, blessed be He, does not produce a wonder or miracle in the world to help madmen because of their deficient character traits. And you will further see among them that one who has gathered enough money for his needs sees himself as lower and less fortunate than one who has gathered pearls in his treasure houses, and he complains about his luck. This too comes from deficient character traits, for one who attains these extras has attained nothing additional in himself or in his power, but only vain illusions, or even harm to himself. And one who lacks these extras lacks nothing at all. “He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack”; each person gathered according to what he could eat. And these cases are many in every time and in every place.

I mentioned there that there are contradictions in Nachmanides’ doctrine on this issue, and several articles have already been written about it. I cited his words not in order to discuss Nachmanides’ own view, but to give a name to this common approach.