i know my 2 cents is not needed his Love for us kept him on the cross the nails and all the physical abuse he took was for our Sins 2 corn 5:21
Who REALLY Crucified Jesus?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
one sided conversation
Absolutly what is said!....and sew your $1000 seed, even if you have to put it on your credit card....
MM
i was just reading this afternoon and came across:
Note that in Isaiah 45:7, God says that he creates “evil” (KJV). This word is translated “disaster” in the New International Version, and “calamity” in the English Standard Version, but the Hebrew word is the exact same word as “evil” elsewhere in the Old Testament. The translators of modern versions of the Bible (unlike the King James Version translators) avoid the word “evil” here because many theologians have argued that the “evil” which God claims to create here is “natural evil,” i.e., things in nature that cause death and suffering, not human sin. Yet the creation of “natural evil” is just as problematic as the creation of evil people for young-earth creationists. They would argue that God could not create natural evil until after Adam and Eve sinned. This passage, however, flips that on its head and asserts God’s right to create whatever he wants when he wants, including natural evil, independent of us.
-- David Snoke A Biblical Case for an Old Earth
Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Context and point of view is essential to understanding meaning. Stillreading and meditating oon this.
I was exposed to this very same question a longtime ago. The 1st thing I would say is that moral evil is not a “thing” to be made but a choice or intent contrary to God’s good purposes, His holy character, and His law.
To me......this is the prophets way of sayimg....."The wages of sin is death".
"Evil" does not always mean wickedness and it also has the meaning of SORROW, DIFFICULTIES"
(CWSB Dictionary) H7451. רַע ra‘, רָעָה rā‘āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9; 3:5, 22).
(Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) [8273] 1 רַע raʻ 312x bad, disagreeable, inferior in quality; by extension: evil, wicked in ethical quality; what is disagreeable to God is ethically evil; God’s actions of judgment are disagreeable to the wicked (Eze 14:21), but are not ethically evil [7451] See bad; corrupt; destruction; disaster; evil; ugly; wicked, wickedness.
(Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary) ra‘ (רַע, 7451), “bad; evil; wicked; sore.” The root of this term is disputed. Some scholars believe that the Akkadian term raggu (“evil; bad”) may be a cognate. Some scholars derive ra‘ from the Hebrew word ra‘a‘ (“to break, smash, crush”), which is a cognate of the Hebrew ratsats (“to smash, break to pieces”); ratsats in turn is related to the Arabic radda (“to crush, bruise”). If this derivation were correct, it would imply that ra‘ connotes sin in the sense of destructive hurtfulness; but this connotation is not appropriate in some contexts in which ra‘ is found.
"The root of this term is disputed."...no wonder the differences
(Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) [8273] 1 רַע raʻ 312x bad, disagreeable, inferior in quality; by extension: evil, wicked in ethical quality; what is disagreeable to God is ethically evil; God’s actions of judgment are disagreeable to the wicked (Eze 14:21), but are not ethically evil [7451] See bad; corrupt; destruction; disaster; evil; ugly; wicked, wickedness.
(Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary) ra‘ (רַע, 7451), “bad; evil; wicked; sore.” The root of this term is disputed. Some scholars believe that the Akkadian term raggu (“evil; bad”) may be a cognate. Some scholars derive ra‘ from the Hebrew word ra‘a‘ (“to break, smash, crush”), which is a cognate of the Hebrew ratsats (“to smash, break to pieces”); ratsats in turn is related to the Arabic radda (“to crush, bruise”). If this derivation were correct, it would imply that ra‘ connotes sin in the sense of destructive hurtfulness; but this connotation is not appropriate in some contexts in which ra‘ is found.
"The root of this term is disputed."...no wonder the differences
Would you agree that the Hebrew word translated as “evil” (ra‘) in the King James Version of has two applications in the Bible.
1. It can be used in the sense of moral evil, such as wickedness and sin,
2. Or it can refer to harmful natural events, calamity, misfortune, adversity, affliction, or disaster.
Could it be that the #2 idea is what Isaih was referring to?
“I make success and create disaster” (HCSB);
“I make well-being and create calamity” (ESV);
“I send good times and bad times” (NLT).
Source: https://biblical-christianity.com/did-god-create-evil-isaiah-45-
evil is evil no matter how defined
Not fully sure (not a Hebrew scholar), but from the context of Isa 45:7 it would seem so.
Obviously God has created everything, or at least has created the framework that allows for the creation of everything, and this necessarily includes evil. However, as stated above, evil can mean many different things from natural calamity, to predatory animals, to war and ultimately murder. I feel there are too many shades of grey to classify. As such it may be best to not dwell on this matter since it's likely to simply cause distress. I say this with the realization that all life feeds on life and no life can exist absent death. For example: plants feed on soil; animals feed on plants; predatory animals feed on animals; and even apex predators fall prey to disease, which returns them to the soil for the process to begin again. There is no life form that can live without another life form also dying.
Like I said, don't think about it too much.
Last edited:
Reading through some of this, I'm reminded about people like Hugh Ross, a Theistic Evolutionist, and his continual play upon semantics in order to have developed his following. The way he redefines and redefines death, over and over, in his irrational and illogical system of defense for his strange construct for how things have gotten to where they are in creation. Wow. Even my half brother has swallowed that whole pitcher of koolaid without one critical thought in his head.
MM
And that is my understanding as well.
I am not familiar with Hugh Ross and take no issue with you disagreeing with me, but please refrain from indirect attacks such as this.
I'm not sure how you thought it was an indirect attack since I don't know what you believe in relation to the doctrines of Theistic evolution. You never stated them, so I would have nothing to go on in order to launch any kind of attack. Are you saying that I accidentally hit upon what you believe?
MM
You said my words reminded you of the teachings of Hugh Ross then proceeded to call his words "irrational", "illogical" and "koolaid". I can only infer that is what you also think of what I had posted. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I stated the following, "Reading through some of this, I'm reminded about people like Hugh Ross, a Theistic Evolutionist..." That doesn't imply that you hold to those strange doctrines, only that your words, and other posts through here from others, brought to mind that avenue of belief that I've encountered over the years among so many others.
For example, I've been told that my facial features reminded other people of someone else who wasn't at all a part of the topical conversation at hand. I never took that as an insult...unless they named someone like Marty Feldman...
So, no. That was not an insult aimed at you or any of your actual beliefs. I was simply being conversational. If you have doubts or questions about something that I said, please just ask rather than to leap at accusation. I won't take offense to anyone simply asking for clarification.
MM
Fair enough.
What's wrong with a couple of misaligned eyes? After all, it would be no more than two.
ButterflyJones
Account Closed
Except knowing good from evil, being like God in that knowledge as God said they were, is what allows someone to make an informed choice when given an ultimatum.
Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong, good from evil prior to eating the fruit that then bestowed that awareness.