If you think that God is omnipotent, then do not deny evil from it!

reply to post by Bombeni


I totally respect your view. I am not expecting many to agree with me. In fact I was expecting more flames and bashing, but instead I was tapped to head like a little child who is asking stupid questions

Well, at least I can have good conscience because I've expressed my views. It is up to people whether they want to react on it or not.

This is I, and I don't deny anything from my God.

Respectfully yours,

-v

reply to post by sir_chancealot



No evil in the world? Boy that would be borrring... You have to have balance in the world. A balance of good and evil... With out evil, there is no standard on what is good. You have to have evil to determine what good is. if the world had no "evil" and only good. eventually good would be devided into what is GREAT and wat is LESS GOOD. haha that is logic... the bible isnt logic buddy, the bible is what people want to hear... perfection... perfection is impossible.

How can God be evil? When all is created from Love? Hell doesn't exist.. God wont create a place of suffering for eternity for that would be irrational (put a person to eternal damnation even though the person is limited in knowledge? no!). Hell was miss translated, the original translation means a place of burial. Then you ask, well why does it say people will suffer? Judgement day IMO is when a person scans threw all his life and has to understand his mistakes.. if for example you stole something from somebody you would have to feel the negative feeling the other person got back to you.. and all the good you did will be back to you.. judgement is like the greatest learning lesson ... hard yes but its a must..

For God sustains the universe and all beings, God does not manipulate or try and control people. We have free will which we can decide to do good or bad with. God wants us to choose Love and Happyness. God created free will beings so we can interact and share the highest form of Love and Bliss possible with each other and the Creator. It's the most satisfying and best way to live life, full of Unconditional Selfless Love. God wants US to choose for ourselves and not be robots. Golden Rule = Love your neighbor as yourself. Why? Because you are another one of me. There's no difference between you and I. We come from the same source of life, and share the same life force. Our consciousness are linked and are similar (just perception is different due to Duality and Identity). We are even linked in the material plain. All physical creation is technically not separated. We just have a separate identity so we can interact and love one another, but we are the same. If you hurt another person you are also hurting yourself since we are all connected. There's a global consciousness which we contribute to everyday.

Yes God sustains Evil beings, but does not mean God is evil.. That's the beauty in creation.. being able to choose what you want.. you are a creator of your destiny.. in the now.. not the past or the future..

peace - nikko

reply to post by v01i0


I read thru about 3 pages of replies. Scripture answers this, but I didn't see it mentioned. So it probably wasn't mentioned. Just peoples opinions, which mean nothing when it comes to this.

Here it is:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

That is perfectly consistent with the rest of the scriptures.

But this is yet another one you will never hear taught by the "church".

reply to post by PSUSA


Hi. You make a significant point about the role of Scripture. I'd like to raise the question of whether the portion you quoted settles the issue in the way some might think. I hold a high view of Scripture yet I do not believe it teaches that God is the author of evil. Quite the contrary. I laid out the case for this view on page 6 (here, and in subsequent posts.)

reply to post by pause4thought


You make some good points in that post. Translating is a tricky thing, especially when one tries to remain unbiased. The KJV is good, but there remain some big mistakes that denominations build entire doctrines on. Fix those errors and that would help. But then again, the "KJV only" crowd would call it "the work of the devil" and disregard it. Never mind that the 1611 KJV has gone through many revisions already.

But I believe you erred in the following area, keeping the post on topic regarding "evil":

... This is what has happened where older translations insisted on keeping the word 'evil' when translating a particular Hebrew word (ra') throughout the OT.

Later translations show greater sensitivity to context, using words such as 'calamity', 'catastrophe', 'disaster', etc., as what is being referred to is how God is dealing with outright rebellion against Him and His ways. If you now substitute 'evil' with these English words in the verses you quoted you will find that they make more sense. ...

This shows how that word "ra' " is translated in Isaiah. It is in 19 verses.

Try substituting "'calamity', 'catastrophe', 'disaster', etc." for "evil" in those verses. It doesn't fit.

Does this mean that I believe God is evil? No. Are parents evil for smacking a kids butt when they misbehave? There's a reason for it.

Originally posted by PSUSA
reply to post by pause4thought

 

This shows how that word "ra' " is translated in Isaiah. It is in 19 verses.

Try substituting "'calamity', 'catastrophe', 'disaster', etc." for "evil" in those verses. It doesn't fit.

I don't mind having mistakes pointed out, but in this case I have not erred, as you suggest. My point was not that 'calamity', 'catastrophe', 'disaster', etc., can always be used to translate the Hebrew term, but that in certain contexts such words reflect the meaning more accurately.

Taking the list you provide, we could for example look at the second half of Isaiah 45:7 -

I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things

(KJV)

Modern translations, instead of slavishly translating ra' as 'evil' (or in some cases using a synonym such as 'wicked'), bring out the intended meaning more accurately:

I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’

(NKJV)

I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

(NIV)

Although the teaching of all of Scripture is that the true and living God is a being of perfect moral purity, the immediate contextual evidence alone sometimes provides a strong indication that 'evil'/'wicked' would constitute an inaccurate English translation. The verse in question is a case in point. Looking at the first half of the verse, the KJV reads:

I form the light, and create darkness

(-and this translation is consistent with modern translations.)

Opposites are in view. Correspondingly, the opposite of 'peace'/'prosperity' is not 'evil', but 'calamity'/'disaster'.

The Bible in the original never teaches that evil emanates from God. What it does teach is that He has permitted things that He made good to become subject to corruption, in every sense of the word. At the same time, the supreme message of the Bible is that by permitting the ultimate wickedness, the crucifixion of His own dear Son, He has achieved His supreme purpose: to turn condemned sinners into forgiven sinners.

reply to post by pause4thought

Opposites are in view. Correspondingly, the opposite of 'peace'/'prosperity' is not 'evil', but 'calamity'/'disaster'.

You make a good point and I understand what you are saying.

However, the opposite of "peace" is not "calamity", it's war, although war is a kind of calamity I suppose.

I don't see how "peace" can be translated from "Shalowm" consistently through all 25 instances it's used in Isaiah but change it to something else entirely in that one verse. This seems to be dangerously close to adding to or taking away from scripture. And it is the same thing to translate "ra'" into anything but "evil" in Isaiah. It doesn't fit in "context". I have some problems with the KJV when it comes to translating some words, but not in this instance.

I limited this to this particular verse in Isaiah, but it is not the only verse that shows this. Again, not that I am saying that God is evil but that evil is used to teach us. God does know evil, right?

I'd like to add more, but dinner needs cooking. It's refreshing to have a discussion like this. They don't always go so well and I appreciate it.

reply to post by PSUSA


Thanks. I had the feeling you wanted a constructive discussion.

The OP certainly opened a can of worms with this one - the question of how God, being perfectly pure, allows and even uses the evil designs of others to his own ends is a challenge. Although I entered the debate with some trepidation, aware that there are depths to such issues that will always remain beyond me, I felt it important to make a contribution in order to uphold, as it were, the good name of my Father in Heaven, whom I love dearly, and who loves me immeasurably more.

Shalom to you, my friend. And what a word it is! It encompasses so much that it really can't be pinned down to 'peace' alone, (especially in the basic meaning of the antithesis of war, as I'm sure you'll agree). No, rather in many ways it signifies all that man has lost through alienation from 'his' (women included!) Maker. A blissful awareness of living in the shadow of one's loving creator. Blessedness, peace, rest for the soul...

Another good modern translation, puts the verse in question this way:

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and(A) create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.

I understand your (truly commendable) concern that translations should not change what the original says. But, in a nutshell, using only one equivalent (or indeed a synonym) for a particular word in another language leads to clumsy and inaccurate translation. Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is to consider what happens when you look up a word in a dictionary: you find virtually every word in a language has multiple meanings - not to mention nuances. An accurate translation is only achievable when the multifarious meanings and connotations of a word in the source language are given due consideration and weight when selecting an equivalent in the target language. The main consideration in selecting the appropriate term is then the context. (Other considerations, such as ancient translations and commentaries, etc., are helpful, but nevertheless secondary to the issue of context.) The preeminent place given to understanding meaning via context is the bedrock of much of the science of linguistics. It is the key to accuracy - not, as may at first appear, a license to make changes. That has more to do with the integrity of the translator. In fact a translator with an agenda can actually promote a crass interpretation by refusing to reflect the full range of meanings of a word in his translation, whether through ignorance or a failure (to whatever degree) to appreciate the nature of language itself.

It has to be said that attempts to produce translations of the Bible that were overly concerned with finding word-for-word equivalence (a virtual impossibility between different languages, though admittedly this varies in degree) inevitably led to overt errors and caused confusion for the readers. An early and prime example is the LXX (Septuagint) translation from Hebrew into Greek, which often retains the structure of the Hebrew sentences, but using Greek words - not to mention frequent oversimplistic 'this word = that word' throughout given books of the OT. To a lesser degree the KJV adhered to the latter policy, as with the word generally translated 'evil'/'wicked'. This arose from a supreme respect for the original, but left much room for improvement.

That said, it was a monument to the dedication and diligence of the translators, who achieved something extraordinary (within the confines of the state of linguistic and translation theory of the day). So hats off to them!

Again, not that I am saying that God is evil but that evil is used to teach us. God does know evil, right?

Nothing escapes God's understanding. Nothing. And He certainly uses bad things to teach us, primarily by setting their bounds (-though, as I say, it gets deep.)

The Scriptures definitely do not teach that evil actually does, or ever can, emanate from Him.

As Judge of all, He is flawless in moral perfection. Even that is an understatement. His purity is so unbounded that His immediate presence is perceived as an all-penetrating light that illuminates the imperfections of all around it. That is why we sinners must be cleansed before we can cope with His Kingdom in Heaven, and why both before and after death we flee in sheer terror when we realize He sees and exposes our every flaw - unless we have been cleansed by the only thing that can cleanse the very soul itself, and which He has Himself provided, in love: the blood of Christ.

But, in a nutshell, using only one equivalent (or indeed a synonym) for a particular word in another language leads to clumsy and inaccurate translation.

This is true. And it is the source of a lot of heated arguments, and it really shouldn't be that way. It's hard to be at peace when trying to verbally bash someones head against a wall to "make" them understand.

It took some time to get there, but I came to the conclusion that I believe I am right, others believe they are right, God really is sovereign, so it's not up to me to set anyone "right", even though I don't shrink from making my case. I tried the head bashing routine, I'm embarrassed to say. And I didn't have a clue of what I was talking about.

This shortcoming in translating is why I use themes and other scriptures to make the picture more complete. I believe a perfect translation isn't really even needed to get to the truth of the matter, although an honest translation done apart from the translators biases would definitely help. I don't like it when they play word games; for example translating aeon into "world" instead of "age", when "world" should have been translated from "kosmos", "damnation" now means the state of having been chucked into "hell" (another word that doesn't belong) when it's just another word they substituted for judgment etc.

The main consideration in selecting the appropriate term is then the context. (Other considerations, such as ancient translations and commentaries, etc., are helpful, but nevertheless secondary to the issue of context.)

Agreed. But I've found that some misuse "context" to the point that it nullifies other scriptures.

[edit on 19/10/09 by PSUSA]

reply to post by PSUSA


Thanks. You've given me plenty to mull over - though I won't follow up on the tangental themes as we'll go off topic.

But I've found that some misuse "context" to the point that it nullifies other scriptures.

I believe this generally only happens when a translation is the product of a particular group/sect/organization or individual, in order to promote their own particular doctrine, and thankfully such 'translations' are few and far between.

Anyway, good to be able to end on a note of agreement. And good to engage with someone who sees themselves as a learner. I too have had to come a long way, and still feel like I've only climbed the first few rungs - truly, despite thirty-odd years of Bible study.

But being reconciled to God is infinitely more important than knowing about Him. I truly know His 'shalom', despite my flaws and shortcomings, and long that others might experience it.

Yet understanding Him is important. And trying to grasp His nature is one of the highest endeavors of man. And woman.

Hope you enjoyed your meal. Looking forward to future discussions.

Signing off now.

I truly know His 'shalom', despite my flaws and shortcomings, and long that others might experience it.

Same here my friend.
That does pass all understanding.

And you're right about the translators. The 1611 KJV translators had a hard job and they did it remarkably well, and I think that a good portion of that preface could apply to all other translators.



[edit on 20/10/09 by PSUSA]

A sincere apologize PSUSA, pause4thought and Nikko for not replying! I thought that this thread was long dead, so I didn't notice at once it had received replies. I shall look through the information you have posted, it seems pretty intriguing! Thanks! And nice of you guys that you kept it civil, it really is a demonstration of maturity, and in a positive way! Not everyone can discuss this matter in such constructive manner.

Sincerely,

-v