God, who creates evil

[martincisneros]

An "educated opinion" was asked for.  This can only be considered one in terms of my having only a very slight idea and understanding of God's workings and His words.  IMO, even if Moses "understood the word(s) that way", or even if the Israelites perceived things from a certain perspective, I still have to trust that God is able to get across what He wants expressed to us...that even our limited vocabulary, understanding, and ability to express, still fall under the umbrella of "God working all according to the counsel of His will, and "all scripture is inspired..."  even 'ra'  :happygrin:.  God's blessing, James.

Yeah, I have absolutely no doubts that we have exactly what God's intended for us to have in the Old and New Testaments, though some of it's in a form where like with everything else we've got to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling."  I was just wondering if anybody else detected a bit of a cultural subliminal there in the choice in wording that would obviously have been more relevant to the ancient world than to ours:  The whole Torah seems written [in a careful ordering of terms and events] to anticipate things.  If Adam and Eve hadn't done what they did, then y'all wouldn't have just had 430 years in Egypt having to deal with all of that mess.  Why are y'all wanting the quail?  You're fussing over what's not yours just like Adam and Eve reached out for what wasn't their's!  Since they had a snake to deal with in their rebellion, then all of y'all can drop dead via snakes for your rebellion, etc.  Tree of Life in the Garden, then a tree of life in the wilderness with the serpent on the pole.  If nobody else has seen that or wondered about a possible either etymological connection or a deliberate play on words, concerning the word "Ra," then that's fine.  I was just curious if anybody had anything on that.

[jabcat]

 No ra to you  :mthumbsup:...I thought Paul's observation was interesting. 

[noname]

it still amazes me that people would honour a god that creates evil...and even try and justify his actions

[Craig]

it still amazes me that people would honour a god that creates evil...and even try and justify his actions

It amazes me that people still see evil and a concrete thing.

[willieH]

willieH:  Hello thou nameless one!   :laughing7:

it still amazes me that people would honour a god that creates evil...and even try and justify his actions

:omg:  Not sure this is what it appears... do you not believe there is a God ...noname?  :Chinscratch:

PeacE...
...willieH  :icon_king:

[martincisneros]

No ra to you  :mthumbsup:...I thought Paul's observation was interesting. 

And he could be totally right 'cause of the hurdle of a word translated from hieroglyphs and a word written in Hebrew.  It's just always been odd to me.  Since the real breakthroughs with translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs didn't really start coming until the 19th century, the translation of that particular word could have been influenced by Jewish thought if a Jewish scholar was the first one handling the translation of the relevant hieroglyphs, or if on the publication side was having editorial input.  I recognized the possibility of a "chicken or the egg" scenario before I asked the question.  You just never know if you'll find a conclusive answer one way or the other on some questions until you toss the question out there and wait a few weeks to see who comes by, reads the thread, and posts any relevant info that they've got that gives input, suggestion, or clarification one way or the other.

[AbbasChild]

In my last post I looked at the original meaning of "evil" (Hebrew Ra), connected with making a loud noise, and breaking in pieces. I also concluded that the adversary must have chosen the concept of noise, display, showmanship, and pride as being  better then the gentle rest of Father, which is called "good" (Hebrew Tov) suggesting quietness, softness, beauty, and peace

As has been noted, RA was also the name of the egyptians most important god, the sun-god. This kind of worship was clearly forbidden in the law of Moses. Just as any worship of the "heavenly host". I believe the answer comes from the way in which the devil's mind-set has been infused into human affairs right from the beginning.

He is the one who has encouraged man to worship him, by making him think a lot of himself, and by promoting one-upmanship, showmanship, and the love of all things that are "big, grand, superior, stronger, faster, louder, more clamorous, and more insistently drawing attention to one's self."

What is the greatest light in the heavens? It goes without saying. The Sun is clearly the only contender for prime place. And so he presents himself as Ra to the Egyptians, Shamash to the Babylonians, Phoebus Apollp to the Greeks (identical with Helios in legend,) Baal in Canaan, Sol in Rome, Surya to the Hindus, and so on, right across the world to the ancient Incas and Mayas in South America who likewise worshipped the Sun.

How different is that to our Son/Sun of Rightouseness, Who humbled Himself to become a servant taking on our lowly form to draw us back to Father's heart? He did not boast in His Divinity (which He could have had reason to do so- unlike any of his creatures).

Do I believe there are some conections? There certainly are. But to be honest, I would have to study this out far more, and at the moment I am not really interested in this kind of stuff.

[Molly]

it still amazes me that people would honour a god that creates evil...and even try and justify his actions

It amazes me that people still see evil and a concrete thing.

There are so many evil people in this world--if God wants to chase them into the mountains and make a spectacle of them, that's fine by me.  I wish he would do it more often.  Is that what God calls 'creating evil'?

King David would often call on him to vanquish his enemies.  Was King David praying to the wrong God?

Psalm 11:6
Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

[Craig]

it still amazes me that people would honour a god that creates evil...and even try and justify his actions

It amazes me that people still see evil and a concrete thing.

There are so many evil people in this world--if God wants to chase them into the mountains and make a spectacle of them, that's fine by me.  I wish he would do it more often.  Is that what God calls 'creating evil'?

King David would often call on him to vanquish his enemies.  Was King David praying to the wrong God?

Psalm 11:6
Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

Already explained previously, please re-read the thread for more information. Thanks.

[Craig]

In my last post I looked at the original meaning of "evil" (Hebrew Ra), connected with making a loud noise, and breaking in pieces. I also concluded that the adversary must have chosen the concept of noise, display, showmanship, and pride as being  better then the gentle rest of Father, which is called "good" (Hebrew Tov) suggesting quietness, softness, beauty, and peace

I am going to make this as polite as possible, AbbasChild, as I said before, you are incorrect. It is a matter of record what "ra" means. What you have been doing is a practice is called the Root Word Fallacy.

What is the Root Word Fallacy? I will post two explanations:

"Presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components".

Example: Nice comes from the Latin nescius, which means "ignorant"

Words should not be defined by their etymology but instead by their context and use.

Not all words are referential, a sentence cannot be analyzed into the things each word in the sentence 'names.' It follows that the meaning of words in a grammatically coherent array, as in a, is different from the theoretical referent of each word"-Dr. Fesko Hermeneutics

Word studies are popular, easily obtained from available resources, and an easy way to procure sermon content. However, word studies are also subject to radical extrapolations and erroneous applications. It is not always possible to strike exegetical gold by extracting a word from the text for close examination. Word studies alone will not suffice. Indeed, over-occupation with word studies is a sign of laziness and ignorance involved in much of what passes for biblical exposition in our times. While we might decry over-emphasis on philology or etymology, we must recognize that the choice of individual words was significant to the writers of Scripture. It is legitimate for the exegete to ask, "Why did the writer choose this term as opposed to one of its synonyms?" Study of the words alone will not present us with a consistent interpretation or theology. This is one of the misleading aspects of theological dictionaries/wordbooks. Any linguistic aids are virtually useless apart from the author's context. -William D Barrick, Exegetical Fallacies.

We are aware that nothing is more unsafe and treacherous than the guidance of etymology. An ounce of usage is worth a pound of it. Etymology is theory, usage is fact. -John Westley Hanson

Now it is time to address your error. The definition you are providing does not belong to "RA" but "RA'A", both words exist at the time of writing of Scripture. The author of Scripture used "RA" not "RA'A" regardless that the root of "RA" is "RA'A", therefore it must be noted, that the definition of "RA'A" is incorrect because the author used "RA" instead. My rhetorical question is, why do you think that using the 'root word' definition of "RA'A" (not even the primary definitions of "RA'A" by the way) has any relevance to the word "RA"? It doesn't, in the same way that the word 'nice' doesn't mean 'nescius' which means 'ignorance'.

The word is derived from a verb of similar sound (RAA) which, according to Gesenius means "to make a loud noise, or to break in pieces." Hence strictly RA means "a loud noise," or "a smashing sound."

RA'A means "a loud noise," or "a smashing sound.", RA means "evil (moral and ethical)".  You continue to perpetrate this error, but there is no way you can defend it. By your own words, do you expose the error. It doesn't matter where the word was DERIVED from, and it does not matter what it is SIMULAR sounding too. What matters is it's usage, and why "RA" and not "RA'A" was used. As you can see, your error causes more problems and perpetrates erroneous thinking.

If you are dedicated to the knowledge of the truth, and want to know what is true, I ask you to quit using the Root Word Fallacy and begin to study what is the truth by error free terms. The first is to throw away your bad study habits.

In Hebrew, the word for bread is "lehem" and the word for war is "milhama." They both share the same root word of "lehem," but these two have entirely different meanings. To force a connection between bread and war, is incorrect and is an injustice to the text. Do not do this! - Stephen Cohen, www.bible.org

Another fallacy very close to the Root Word Fallacy is, Semantic Anachronism and Overload Fallacy.

Semantic Anachronism is when we choose a modern usage of a word and replace an ancient usage of the word with the modern definition. Example the root word of DYNAMITE is DUNAMIS, but DUNAMIS does not mean DYNAMITE since DYNAMITE did not come into being until 3000 years after the word DUNAMIS was coined.

Overload Fallacy is where we read into a word any or all of its possible meanings. This is where we really need to let the context rule. We are not free to look up all the possible meanings of a word, and pick from that list the one we like the most. Rather, the context will determine which of those possible definitions is, in fact, the correct one.

Example, you chose the secondary definition of "RA'A" which means "Loud Noise" instead of the primary definition of "RA'A" which means "Evil".

1) to be bad, be evil
.   a) (Qal)
.       1) to be displeasing
.       2) to be sad
.       3) to be injurious, be evil
.       4) to be wicked, be evil (ethically)
.           b) (Hiphil)
.              1) to do an injury or hurt
.              2) to do evil or wickedly
.              3) mischief (participle)

2) to break, shatter
.   a) (Qal)
.       1) to break
.       2) broken (participle)
.       3) to be broken
.           b) (Hithpolel) to be broken, be broken in pieces, be broken asunder.

"The heart of the issue – context matters! "Semantics, meaning, is more than the meaning
of words." - D.A. Carson Exegetical Fallacies

Please learn from this mistake to not repeat it. Thanks.

[Molly]

Already explained previously, please re-read the thread for more information. Thanks.

Is this a recording? :grin:

Actually, my question was for noname.  I didn't set that up right.

[Craig]

Already explained previously, please re-read the thread for more information. Thanks.

Is this a recording? :grin:

Actually, my question was for noname.  I didn't set that up right.

BEEEP!  :cloud9:

Obviously, since you quoted me, nobody would have known.  :laughing7: :dontknow:

[AbbasChild]

Hi Craig,

I really appreciate your input. As I said I havn't done much study on this topic latley. And as you probably can also see from my second post, I do agree with you on the basics.

But the thoughts I brought up where not solemnly based upon the wordstudy as you can see when you go back and actually read through  my posts.

Because this is a discussion boards where we can share our thoughts I simply try to find a solution for these things in scripture that speak about evil and are hard to understand for myself and many others, and thus reconcile the different statements in it.

Since I don't claim to be a teacher or expert on this matter, I appreciate your input, even though I think it sounded unecessarily angry and harsh.

All I tried to bring forward was a possible solution to a problem many people see in the scriptures and can't find a solution to. So far the question to what it says about Father's character and how to reconcile this with other statements that He can't be tempted by evil etc. has not been answered.

Sometimes I even wonder if these scriptures must be seen in the context of the law of Moses that brought blessings and curses, or peace and evil. Since all the scriptures that seem to imply that evil comes from Father are to be found in the OT.

For this dilema I tried- in my way- to find some answers (which some of them might be wrong, I agree). If I would want to teach people on a certain subject I would not go to a discussion board but prepare myself properly and go out there to the folks Father has placed in my life.

So if you are annoyed about wordstudies maybe we should first start a thread on this subject before you tell everybody that what they are doing is wrong. Because I didn't know that there is supposedly something wrong with this.(Or that you think wordstudies are not valid.)

Posting all the scriptures about Father bringing ra on people doesn't solve the problem either. Unless you deny that this is in contradiction with some other scriptures if you see it as moral evil/sin.

However, since you are not my pastor or something I would appreciate it if you talked to me in a more conversational style, instead of trying to lecture me like a kid.

Since I am actually on a break from the board right now I will stay away here for quite some time anyway. So you don't have to worry that I lead people astray by spreading the horrible heresy that Father is not the Author of sin and moral evil (even though He has certainly a plan for it, which I never denied.)   :happygrin:

[jabcat]

willieH:  Hello thou nameless one!   :laughing7:

it still amazes me that people would honour a god that creates evil...and even try and justify his actions

:omg:  Not sure this is what it appears... do you not believe there is a God ...noname?  :Chinscratch:

PeacE...
...willieH  :icon_king:

Willi, I'd guess it's exactly as it appears and more...Fortunately, we're no longer doing textual criticism so we can get the discussion back to actual scriptural beliefs.

[Reverend G]

Just sneaked in here today and saw this topic. One thing that came to my mind is that it doesn't say that Father creates good and evil but peace and 'evil'.

Here is what the hebrew words for good (tov) and evil (ra) originaly meant:

Tov: Good, Soft, Quiet, Gentle, Tender, Rippling (as a Mountain stream,) Kind, Mild, Shy, Humble, Meek, Retiring, Unobtrusive, Unassuming, Tender-hearted, Courteous, Chivalrous, Easily entreated, Employing economy of words.

Ra: Loud, Noisy, Breaking, Crashing (as Niagara in full flood,) Robust, Energetic, Flamboyant, Displaying, Demonstrative, Expressive, Forthright, Brilliant, Unreserved, Exhibiting, Flourishing, Verbose.

Note that none of the words for ra have any relation to moral evil/sin. (Which is missing the mark/or failing. Something we know Father never does.)

In this context I would suggest that the scripture ought to be translated:

I make peace, and I cause (hebr. bara) trouble. I Yahwe do all these things.

maybe it should be that He creates brilliance!!

[Craig]

Hello AbbasChild,

I am going to quote and reply:

I really appreciate your input. As I said I havn't done much study on this topic latley. And as you probably can also see from my second post, I do agree with you on the basics.

But the thoughts I brought up where not solemnly based upon the wordstudy as you can see when you go back and actually read through  my posts.

How we interpret and gather information is actually done in a logical and rational sequence. Presupposition, Proposition and Conclusion. Our thoughts derive from the conclusion, and should our conclusion actually be flawed due to a false proposition, our thoughts and our conclusion are flawed. It is like sending the satellites into geosynchronous orbit on earth, in a real life example, one of the first collaborations between USA and Europe in a space program led to a billion dollar disaster, you see they both built perfectly to the specs provided, but they were both using different measurement systems; one metric and the other imperial.

Because this is a discussion boards where we can share our thoughts I simply try to find a solution for these things in scripture that speak about evil and are hard to understand for myself and many others, and thus reconcile the different statements in it.

There is no solution in using fallacy and erroneous reasoning to conclude something. The truth requires truth, not lie in order to make a sound conclusion. We must reconcile the facts, not ignore them.

Since I don't claim to be a teacher or expert on this matter, I appreciate your input, even though I think it sounded unnecessarily angry and harsh.

Unfortunately there is no nice way to tell you that you are wrong, when it comes to facts. Interpreting negative emotion is a false perception. I say this with no condescending attitude. In the same way a person is wrong when they believe 2+2=6 and they base their entire grocery list on this faulty math, is how you are wrong when you commit the Root Word fallacy and the Overload Fallacy concerning the word RA.

All I tried to bring forward was a possible solution to a problem many people see in the scriptures and can't find a solution to. So far the question to what it says about Father's character and how to reconcile this with other statements that He can't be tempted by evil etc. has not been answered.

Yes, a possible solution which has been refuted. The problem is people do not understand that God is not a man; therefore His thoughts are not our thoughts. They are unwilling to actually reconcile the facts, and instead rather live nice lives (This is a pun).

Sometimes I even wonder if these scriptures must be seen in the context of the law of Moses that brought blessings and curses, or peace and evil. Since all the scriptures that seem to imply that evil comes from Father are to be found in the OT.

Everything God planned for creation, including the evil God does to creation, is ontologically very good for purpose creation was created. Jesus came and reconciled all creation concerning the evil God does this will end, but His mercy endures forever.

For this dilema I tried- in my way- to find some answers (which some of them might be wrong, I agree). If I would want to teach people on a certain subject I would not go to a discussion board but prepare myself properly and go out there to the folks Father has placed in my life.

Yes, and the question remains, if you have been refuted, how can you go and commit to a fallacy (an error) in order to answer their question? By that very reason, I find such things cause more problems than it solves, because they will be faced with someone far more intelligent and educated on linguistics and words, and then everything you ever presented would be in scrutiny and dismissed just as easily. That is why we are called to righteousness.

o if you are annoyed about wordstudies maybe we should first start a thread on this subject before you tell everybody that what they are doing is wrong. Because I didn't know that there is supposedly something wrong with this.(Or that you think wordstudies are not valid.)

I never said word studies are not valid, I said Root Word Fallacy/Word Study Fallacy is not valid. Perhaps you need to go through the forum again since this is already addressed: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=187.0

Posting all the scriptures about Father bringing ra on people doesn't solve the problem either. Unless you deny that this is in contradiction with some other scriptures if you see it as moral evil/sin.

It absolutely does, since it puts it into context. The same 'RA' God rebukes us for, is the same 'RA' He has taken ownership in creating. Therefore, one cannot mistake 'RA' for 'RA'A' or 'RA'O'.

However, since you are not my pastor or something I would appreciate it if you talked to me in a more conversational style, instead of trying to lecture me like a kid.

The start of this discussion was a conversation, when it grew apparent you were ignoring the facts before you, it turned into an informational style post in which you are now put into a critical thought process. You can choose to make it personal, which is a fallacy and has nothing to do with the discussion, or you can address the points in which you have been refuted and back it up with better explanations or proofs or admit you are wrong or agree to disagree and neither of us continue discussing it.

Since I am actually on a break from the board right now I will stay away here for quite some time anyway. So you don't have to worry that I lead people astray by spreading the horrible heresy that Father is not the Author of sin and moral evil (even though He has certainly a plan for it, which I never denied.)   :happygrin:

There is no heresy in believing 'RA' means, 'clanging noise'. It is just not what it means, nor has it ever meant that. That is all. It is something we can discuss.

Do you or do you not believe God created all things? If you say "yes" your dilemma is solved, now you need to reconcile it.

[Paul Hazelwood]

it still amazes me that people would honour a god that creates evil...and even try and justify his actions

Your point of view here is just semantics when it comes right down to it noname.


Do you believe God allows Evil? Do you believe God was surprised by evil in the existence He created?

No matter how someone that makes a comment like you made tries, your view of God will not survive the same moral logic you are trying here.

[noname]

Hi again...I'll try and explain to each one what I mean...

@WillieH

Not sure this is what it appears... do you not believe there is a God ...noname?

yes I do

Do you believe God allows Evil? Do you believe God was surprised by evil in the existence He created?

No matter how someone that makes a comment like you made tries, your view of God will not survive the same moral logic you are trying here.

It is pretty obvious that God allows evil...for there is evil in this world...whether He creates it is another matter

also, "morally logically" speaking...I believe in the God Jesus said was his Father...NOT the one of the Pharisees...
that god (whatever you want to call him) is the god of Canaan (Baal)...Creator/Detroyer god...the god of the hindus Shiva...Creator/Detroyer god...the god of the Greeks and Romans Zeus...Creator/Detroyer god...Osiris of the Egyptians....whether his name is Jehovah/Yaweh, Shiva, Baal, Osiris...he is one and the same...he bears the same fruits...that of "good" (Creator) and evil

my Father is Life...not evil which leads to death

@Molly

King David would often call on him to vanquish his enemies.  Was King David praying to the wrong God?

Nebukadnezzar also called on his god to vanquish his enemies...which was Judah...and they were completely destroyed and taken away...was he praying to the wrong god?
as for David...you must know that NO conclusive evidence in Israel has ever been found of his kingdom or of his son's Solomon...and Solomon was supposed to have been the most wise and most rich and most everything king of all time??? Jewish mythology...ever heard of that?

@ Craig
brother, you're too clever for me being of lowly folk...no need to say anything further

[Paul Hazelwood]

It is pretty obvious that God allows evil...for there is evil in this world...whether He creates it is another matter

also, "morally logically" speaking...I believe in the God Jesus said was his Father...NOT the one of the Pharisees...
that god (whatever you want to call him) is the god of Canaan (Baal)...Creator/Detroyer god...the god of the hindus Shiva...Creator/Detroyer god...the god of the Greeks and Romans Zeus...Creator/Detroyer god...Osiris of the Egyptians....whether his name is Jehovah/Yaweh, Shiva, Baal, Osiris...he is one and the same...he bears the same fruits...that of "good" (Creator) and evil

my Father is Life...not evil which leads to death

It is not quite another matter.    If God allows evil then there is no moral difference between a creator of evil and a being with the power to prevent evil from existing but continues to allow it to happen.  This is especially so when the same God designed existence knowing evil would exist within it in the first place.

So if someone is wanting to play the my God is better than your God game, there is no real distinct difference that can be made.

People will still have the reasoning to justify it because there have been books written about it  (I.E Why do bad things happen to Good people), but will that reasoning hold up to scriptural scrutiny or will it be more speculation and opinion?

So to use your own logic, why would someone continue to honor a God who has the power to stop evil, yet he just allows it to continue?

[Craig]

You got it Paul!

If God allows evil then there is no moral difference between a creator of evil and a being with the power to prevent evil from existing but continues to allow it to happen.

There was a child crossing the street not looking where he was going and was directly in the path of a truck, at a point of no return. In reach of the child, was two men, one was his parent and another was a stranger.

The parent looks at his child and says, "My child should have looked both ways before crossing the street. Because he disobeyed, I must let the truck hit him and hope for the best." The parent stood, able to save the child but did not.

At the same time, a stranger seeing the truck grabbed the child and pulled him to safety.

When the Day of Light appears, which of these men will receive praise from the Father God?

God is all-powerful. Everything is within His reach, there is nothing outside His control, that includes evil. To allow evil, but not create it, when He is able to prevent it means God is in fact morally and ethically evil. In fact, it is far more problematic for one to say God allows evil in order to remain good because it demonstrates a much deeper evil than realized.

On the other hand, if we say that God does both good and evil, it is He who created it and He would finish it, then we have a God who is ontologically good in nature, and evil is part of the good plan He has for all creation.

[Mickiel]

Evil is certainly of intrest to me, kind of like a mountain that is just there in front of you. Go around it, over it, under it or through it, its just there. And our thinking can follow this same path, just trying to deal with this " Overwhelming reality", simply produces problems. And the problems with it are real. In Isaiah 40:31;" Yet those who wait on the Lord, will gain New Strength." New is the term that strikes me in this scripture , it does not deny that strength is already there, but it opens up the need for MORE, and the more brings the New. And I think this is what God is doing with Evil, its reality demands more from you. Evil is really a demand from God for more from the human experience.

In cooking often the demand is for more heat, or its just not going to get done. I mean eventually it will get done, but if the heat is applied just right, then it gets done on schedule. Evil is a heat from God to get things done on his schedule. To cook it, as only God could. Its obviously a deadly ingredient, or is it an ingredient, or just the flame to boil the ingredients at the right temperture? And I think that is what dims our view of certain things God has done, or is doing. We tend to look at Evil as an ingredient of the human experience and make our discernments accordingly, trying to figure out the logic of God.

Evil is a Fire from God, as is the Lake of Fire, both intended to cook the ingredients in order to achieve a certain result. One could place their focus on the ingredients and fail to see the fire for what it really is, what its really doing.

Peace.

[noname]

@Paul:

It is not quite another matter.    If God allows evil then there is no moral difference between a creator of evil and a being with the power to prevent evil from existing but continues to allow it to happen.  This is especially so when the same God designed existence knowing evil would exist within it in the first place.

we just have to go back to Genesis and find the answer...God gave the earth to man as his dominion to rule over it...God gave us everything we needed to do this...and still He gives us a choice between two paths in life...the path of Life and the path of Good & Evil...the path of Life leads to eternal Life...and Good & Evil...Ying & Yang...leads to Death and Destruction
it is not God who created evil on earth, it is man...

Jesus also told us how to rule...not like a tyrant...of which most of all world leaders past and present subscribe to...but to be a servant of mankind and of the animals, the plants and the earth as a whole...to be co-creators of Life...temporal and eternal

[Paul Hazelwood]

it is not God who created evil on earth, it is man...

Your wording will not get around what I have already said.   Man does commit evil acts, but, man did not create Evil.

The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil already existed before man knew what evil is.   Who Created that?

Gn 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


God put this in the midst of man, before man even knew what it was, it was a part of Gods creation.   

Isa 45:7 Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.

Where is a verse that is as specific as this for Mans creation of evil?   I see that you say "on earth"  and I can contemplate what that might mean, if you have a chapter and a verse that states this rather than an interpretation of what scripture might imply in an indirect manner.

No matter the point of view, God is responsible for evil's existance.   He created our existance knowing full well what we as humans would do. 

If we want to play the game of moral superiority of a view point,  there is no moral difference in a Creator that Creates something with the power to create evil knowing it will indeed do that,  and creating it directly where man will commit acts of something already in existance. 

[jabcat]

The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil already existed before man knew what evil is.   Who Created that?

God put this in the midst of man, before man even knew what it was, it was a part of Gods creation.  

Isa 45:7 Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.

No matter the point of view, God is responsible for evil's existance.   He created our existance knowing full well what we as humans would do. 

If we want to play the game of moral superiority of a view point,  there is no moral difference in a Creator that Creates something with the power to create evil knowing it will indeed do that,  and creating it directly where man will commit acts of something already in existance. 

:goodpost:

On the other hand, if we say that God does both good and evil, it is He who created it and He would finish it, then we have a God who is ontologically good in nature, and evil is part of the good plan He has for all creation.

:mthumbsup:  God is good, all the time...even in His creation of evil.  IMO, we can only truly understand this spiritually rather than with our carnal mind...just read today in I Cor. wrt God's wisdom vs. our wisdom.  1:18  For the word of the cross is stupidity, indeed, to those perishing, yet to us being saved it is power of God.  For it is written, I shall be destroying the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the intelligent shall I be repudiating....Does not God make stupid the wisdom of this world?

That's all of us without God's revelation.  God's  blessing, James.

[auggybendoggy]

seems to me the kjv is the weakest in it's literal rendering.

I'm not a linguist and no scholar but from the bit of study it seems amplified and nasv seem to try to use the literal word used.

I'm not saying whos right and wrong but could nasb be right in how they render the text.

Aug