God created evil

[Angela53510]

I would think that also Tintin, and normally it would be an issue for me, and at first it actually did bother me that they were so far doctrinally from what I understood, but they bring other things to the table... and though I live in a big city, home based Bible studies are not easy to come by that fit in my somewhat busy schedule. They consider themselves Christians: United Churchers and a couple of other denominations that may fall under that umbrella... apparently the United Church is apostate according to some. However I am learning to look for the similarities and not the differences, plus I learn so much from them, and they love me... as I do them. I love looking at and dissecting the Word of God with them, seeking understanding of what the texts are communicating, and seeing how others view it. I am always welcome to give my view as well. Sometimes I feel like I know so little and other times I can easily think, wow, God has blessed me with an abundance of understanding, but either way, I have had a great hunger and thirst for God's Word as well as experienced dry spells, and I much prefer the former. It is one of the places I get fed despite our differences.

Yes, the United Church of Canada is totally apostate. Many churches now have rainbow flags in the front in their sanctuary. I used to go to the United Church in the 1960's. I never learned anything about the Bible or God, after 3 years of going from age 9-11. By contrast, I went to Sunday School in a Baptist Church when I was much younger, age 5-8 and I still remember all the verses I learned, which came back to me when I was farthest from God. And influenced me not only in behaviour and ethics, but in wanting the peace of knowing God and being right before him through Jesus.

I have quite a few high school friends who consider this "their" denomination. When I mentioned something to them about a lot of fighting between the conservatives and the liberals, they said that was over and done with, since they got rid of all the "troublemakers!" Meaning the Bible believing Christians.

In the 1990's was when the liberals and the gay rights activists took power of that church. And yes, the Christians left, many going to the congregationalists and others becoming "community" churches. The sad thing is because the denomination actually owned the buildings, many local churches lost the building they had been in for over 100 years and had to start over.

I do agree with Tintin, that if they don't believe in the deity of Christ, they are simply NOT Christians. Unless you are there to spread the real gospel of Jesus, I think you are wasting you time, and also maybe being influenced for bad. I am glad you are seeking fellowship and want to study the Bible, but when you are with United Churches, you are going to get "another" gospel. That is all there is to it.

I don't know exactly where you live, but I would google Bible believing churches. There have to be some more conservative churches, who love God and study the Bible in your area. I also know you live in an extremely left wing part of the country, but that doesn't mean that you can't find pockets of people who do believe in the deity of Christ, and who do teach the truth of the gospel. (Regardless of their social politics!)

The big issue with the UCoC is that social politics has become the total gospel to them, rather than Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, and then we spread that gospel of love, which includes the works the Father gave us to do - like helping the poor, the broken and needy. Now that is a part of the gospel that much of the politically conservative Christians seem to have forgotten, but it is repeated over and over in both the Old and New Testaments.

 

[Angela53510]

There's really nothing to forgive, so we're cool. I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the modern versions in comparison to the KJV, but I'd never even think of suggesting that you're damned to eternal death for using them. I took the time many years ago to do a pretty intense comparative study on Bible translations and the underlying texts from which they're translated and I've based my own conclusions upon the same. If anybody wanted to get into a civil discussion about that, then I'd entertain the idea. Other than that, I'm really not looking to get into an argument with anybody over this topic. Less than a year ago, I got into a discussion with a local pastor on this topic and I showed him how many changes have been made in the ESV which affect major tenets of the Christian faith and he basically couldn't have cared less. That was pretty much the last straw for me. I personally believe that a lot of the divisions with Christendom are directly related to the different Bible translations which different people use. In many instances, the different translations are clearly saying different things.

I don't want this to degenerate into a KJV Only debate vs other translations. But since the OP did come out of a bad translation in the KJV, I think it is relevant to talk a bit more about it.

When I studied both Greek and Hebrew in Seminary, we did a LOT of translation of Scriptures to English from the original langauges. We then compared them to English versions to see how close they were. ESV was always the closest, because it kept the word order as similar as possible, given the confines of English grammar, and modern word usage. Holman's came second. The paraphrases were somewhere below that, with KJV somewhere in the middle.

KJV has far too many archaic words, which simply do not convey the intent of the original languages and their authors. KJV is notorious for added words and phrases, even whole sections. This is because (pardon me to those who have heard this from me so many times!) the Byzantines, the so-called scribes of the "Textus Receptus" or Majority Text, maintained Greek as their first language, and thus it was copied more times. That is where the big problem comes in - unlike the Masoretic Text, where copies with so much as a jot or tittle that was not correct were thrown out, the Greeks had no such checks and balances.

In fact, the Byzantium scribes like to embellish, add or improve on the earliest texts. Sometimes it was a note in the margin. But that gradually became incorporated into the text. Thus the KJV does have a lot more text than the modern translations. But that is because they were using copies of copies of copies with mistakes that were handed down from the Greek scribes many years ago. And while the translators of the KJV did use the best copies available for their time, because they were all that was available, now we have access to much older manuscripts, that are much closer to the original language of Greek autographs.

It's like that game kids play called "telephone." The farther you get from the original source the more you lose the meaning, or things getted added or sometimes subtracted. That is what lower textual criticism is about. It traces the 5000 or so manuscripts, finds where the corruption came in and became recopied over and over until it reached the 1500 hundreds and was used as the basis to translate the KJV.

As for Strong's, someone said rightly that it uses the KJV. Well, that was the only Bible available in the 18th century. And really, any concordance should use the Greek and Hebrew to start, not an old translation of the Bible.

As for the verse in the OP, I much prefer ESV.

"I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things." Isa. 45:7

Calamity best expresses the natural woes and problems we have to deal with, rather than the word "evil," which indeed makes it look like God created moral evil, as others have pointed out.

It is not about what a text "feels" like, but rather the accuracy of the text when compared to the oldest manuscripts, which do not have the additions and mistakes. And for clarity, modern English is what I have been taught. It was easier learning Greek and Hebrew for me, than understanding KJ English!

 

[Magenta]

Yes, the United Church of Canada is totally apostate. Many churches now have rainbow flags in the front in their sanctuary. I used to go to the United Church in the 1960's. I never learned anything about the Bible or God, after 3 years of going from age 9-11. By contrast, I went to Sunday School in a Baptist Church when I was much younger, age 5-8 and I still remember all the verses I learned, which came back to me when I was farthest from God. And influenced me not only in behaviour and ethics, but in wanting the peace of knowing God and being right before him through Jesus.

I have quite a few high school friends who consider this "their" denomination. When I mentioned something to them about a lot of fighting between the conservatives and the liberals, they said that was over and done with, since they got rid of all the "troublemakers!" Meaning the Bible believing Christians.

In the 1990's was when the liberals and the gay rights activists took power of that church. And yes, the Christians left, many going to the congregationalists and others becoming "community" churches. The sad thing is because the denomination actually owned the buildings, many local churches lost the building they had been in for over 100 years and had to start over.

I do agree with Tintin, that if they don't believe in the deity of Christ, they are simply NOT Christians. Unless you are there to spread the real gospel of Jesus, I think you are wasting you time, and also maybe being influenced for bad. I am glad you are seeking fellowship and want to study the Bible, but when you are with United Churches, you are going to get "another" gospel. That is all there is to it.

I don't know exactly where you live, but I would google Bible believing churches. There have to be some more conservative churches, who love God and study the Bible in your area. I also know you live in an extremely left wing part of the country, but that doesn't mean that you can't find pockets of people who do believe in the deity of Christ, and who do teach the truth of the gospel. (Regardless of their social politics!)

The big issue with the UCoC is that social politics has become the total gospel to them, rather than Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, and then we spread that gospel of love, which includes the works the Father gave us to do - like helping the poor, the broken and needy. Now that is a part of the gospel that much of the politically conservative Christians seem to have forgotten, but it is repeated over and over in both the Old and New Testaments.

Good morning Angela (It is still morning for me).

I do not attend the United Church. I did go there a couple of times after beginning this study with them a few years ago, just to see what it was like (I didn't particularly care for it, and that was before I found out how far they were from what I believed). But my association ends at studying the Word of God with them once a week. I am an unofficial member of and attend a beautiful little non-denominational congregation that was seeded from Baptists in Kansas of all places! I cannot remember when I started going there, but it has been quite a few years, really. We recently (over a year ago, actually) got a new pastor after the first one departed his fifteen year tenure (is that word applicable here? that is how long this church has been here, as far as I know) and he is absolutely wonderful, both him and his wife, as are the congregants.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

I don't want this to degenerate into a KJV Only debate vs other translations. But since the OP did come out of a bad translation in the KJV, I think it is relevant to talk a bit more about it.

When I studied both Greek and Hebrew in Seminary, we did a LOT of translation of Scriptures to English from the original langauges. We then compared them to English versions to see how close they were. ESV was always the closest, because it kept the word order as similar as possible, given the confines of English grammar, and modern word usage. Holman's came second. The paraphrases were somewhere below that, with KJV somewhere in the middle.

KJV has far too many archaic words, which simply do not convey the intent of the original languages and their authors. KJV is notorious for added words and phrases, even whole sections. This is because (pardon me to those who have heard this from me so many times!) the Byzantines, the so-called scribes of the "Textus Receptus" or Majority Text, maintained Greek as their first language, and thus it was copied more times. That is where the big problem comes in - unlike the Masoretic Text, where copies with so much as a jot or tittle that was not correct were thrown out, the Greeks had no such checks and balances.

In fact, the Byzantium scribes like to embellish, add or improve on the earliest texts. Sometimes it was a note in the margin. But that gradually became incorporated into the text. Thus the KJV does have a lot more text than the modern translations. But that is because they were using copies of copies of copies with mistakes that were handed down from the Greek scribes many years ago. And while the translators of the KJV did use the best copies available for their time, because they were all that was available, now we have access to much older manuscripts, that are much closer to the original language of Greek autographs.

It's like that game kids play called "telephone." The farther you get from the original source the more you lose the meaning, or things getted added or sometimes subtracted. That is what lower textual criticism is about. It traces the 5000 or so manuscripts, finds where the corruption came in and became recopied over and over until it reached the 1500 hundreds and was used as the basis to translate the KJV.

As for Strong's, someone said rightly that it uses the KJV. Well, that was the only Bible available in the 18th century. And really, any concordance should use the Greek and Hebrew to start, not an old translation of the Bible.

As for the verse in the OP, I much prefer ESV.

"I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things." Isa. 45:7

Calamity best expresses the natural woes and problems we have to deal with, rather than the word "evil," which indeed makes it look like God created moral evil, as others have pointed out.

It is not about what a text "feels" like, but rather the accuracy of the text when compared to the oldest manuscripts, which do not have the additions and mistakes. And for clarity, modern English is what I have been taught. It was easier learning Greek and Hebrew for me, than understanding KJ English!

There's much that I disagree with here based upon my own research, but I'll only mention one thing and how it negatively affected my own Christian walk for a very short period of time when I first became a Christian. When I got saved 27 years ago, my mother bought me an NIV Bible and I read it for about two months. With God as my Witness, I never felt the least bit comfortable with it in my spirit and I was especially troubled by all of the footnotes which kept on telling me what didn't appear in the earliest manuscripts...according to them, that is. IOW, I was having a crisis of faith from the outset in that I didn't even know if I could trust what I was reading because I wasn't sure if it was really the Word of God or not. For example, there's the Johannine Comma or the portions of I John 5:7-8 which appear in the KJV, but are missing in the newer versions. According to the newer versions, this doesn't belong because it doesn't exist in the earliest extant manuscripts. Well, I've got a couple of problems with that right off of the bat. For starters, who said that the earliest extant manuscripts accurately portray what was actually written in the earliest manuscripts? IOW, how do we know that changes weren't made in that extant manuscript or that things weren't deliberately removed? My second problem, which is really a problem for the new translations, is that Cyprian quoted the Johannine Comma BEFORE the earliest extant manuscripts of I John that we have, so where the heck did he quote it from? The back of a cereal box? The oldest EXTANT manuscript doesn't mean the oldest manuscript nor does it necessarily mean the correct manuscript. Anyhow, I bought myself a KJV two months after I was saved and I've never had a problem understanding it and I mean never...and I was a drug addict and a drunkard for eleven years leading up to my salvation and I hated reading books. In fact, my last two years of high school, I literally got my books on the first day of school, put them in my locker and never took them out for the whole two years. Like I said, I hated reading, but the Holy Spirit is more than capable of helping somebody to understand the KJV.

 

[Magenta]

.
If anything, the fact that they do not believe in the Deity of Christ has caused me to more closely examine what I truly believe about Jesus in this regard, for though I feel I understand why people are unsure about the Trinity or just don't know or even outright reject the claim, I discovered that amidst all the uncertainty and confusion that I was in fact included among those who believe that Jesus is the Living Word of God, purposed from before the foundation of the world, eternal in His sharing of the triune Godhead, incarnated for the benefit of our salvation, and that because He is God, His death was sufficient to pay the sin debt of the world. He is everything I plainly see Scripture attests Him to be, alive to this day and forevermore, the Rock of my salvation.

 

[thebesttrees]

There's much that I disagree with here based upon my own research, but I'll only mention one thing and how it negatively affected my own Christian walk for a very short period of time when I first became a Christian. When I got saved 27 years ago, my mother bought me an NIV Bible and I read it for about two months. With God as my Witness, I never felt the least bit comfortable with it in my spirit and I was especially troubled by all of the footnotes which kept on telling me what didn't appear in the earliest manuscripts...according to them, that is. IOW, I was having a crisis of faith from the outset in that I didn't even know if I could trust what I was reading because I wasn't sure if it was really the Word of God or not. For example, there's the Johannine Comma or the portions of I John 5:7-8 which appear in the KJV, but are missing in the newer versions. According to the newer versions, this doesn't belong because it doesn't exist in the earliest extant manuscripts. Well, I've got a couple of problems with that right off of the bat. For starters, who said that the earliest extant manuscripts accurately portray what was actually written in the earliest manuscripts? IOW, how do we know that changes weren't made in that extant manuscript or that things weren't deliberately removed? My second problem, which is really a problem for the new translations, is that Cyprian quoted the Johannine Comma BEFORE the earliest extant manuscripts of I John that we have, so where the heck did he quote it from? The back of a cereal box? The oldest EXTANT manuscript doesn't mean the oldest manuscript nor does it necessarily mean the correct manuscript. Anyhow, I bought myself a KJV two months after I was saved and I've never had a problem understanding it and I mean never...and I was a drug addict and a drunkard for eleven years leading up to my salvation and I hated reading books. In fact, my last two years of high school, I literally got my books on the first day of school, put them in my locker and never took them out for the whole two years. Like I said, I hated reading, but the Holy Spirit is more than capable of helping somebody to understand the KJV.

KJV is my go to Bible also.

 

[Angela53510]

There's much that I disagree with here based upon my own research, but I'll only mention one thing and how it negatively affected my own Christian walk for a very short period of time when I first became a Christian. When I got saved 27 years ago, my mother bought me an NIV Bible and I read it for about two months. With God as my Witness, I never felt the least bit comfortable with it in my spirit and I was especially troubled by all of the footnotes which kept on telling me what didn't appear in the earliest manuscripts...according to them, that is. IOW, I was having a crisis of faith from the outset in that I didn't even know if I could trust what I was reading because I wasn't sure if it was really the Word of God or not. For example, there's the Johannine Comma or the portions of I John 5:7-8 which appear in the KJV, but are missing in the newer versions. According to the newer versions, this doesn't belong because it doesn't exist in the earliest extant manuscripts. Well, I've got a couple of problems with that right off of the bat. For starters, who said that the earliest extant manuscripts accurately portray what was actually written in the earliest manuscripts? IOW, how do we know that changes weren't made in that extant manuscript or that things weren't deliberately removed? My second problem, which is really a problem for the new translations, is that Cyprian quoted the Johannine Comma BEFORE the earliest extant manuscripts of I John that we have, so where the heck did he quote it from? The back of a cereal box? The oldest EXTANT manuscript doesn't mean the oldest manuscript nor does it necessarily mean the correct manuscript. Anyhow, I bought myself a KJV two months after I was saved and I've never had a problem understanding it and I mean never...and I was a drug addict and a drunkard for eleven years leading up to my salvation and I hated reading books. In fact, my last two years of high school, I literally got my books on the first day of school, put them in my locker and never took them out for the whole two years. Like I said, I hated reading, but the Holy Spirit is more than capable of helping somebody to understand the KJV.

Once again, as I said previously, you are valuing your personal "experience" with the KJV over what the actual translation is, and how close it is to the original autographs.

First the KJV is based mostly on Erasmus' translation which was not fully complete, because of pressures from the Vatican to publish it fast. (He used Jeromes' incurate Latin version to fill in the gaps) When Erasmus translated the Bible for the RCC from the Greek and Hebrew, there were several problems. One, was that his research indicated tht the Johannine comma was NOT in the originals or the earliest manuscripts. The Vatican stopped him from dropping these verses, as they felt they needed it to prove that Jesus was God and the Trinity. However, the whole Bible is full of examples of both the deity of Christ and the Trinity. In fact, such a terse statement of this doctrine (which I agree with totally) was probably not spelled out in the autographs. Not because it wasn't true, but because God inspired it in so many other places.

As for Cyprian, if he did quote it, that does not make it inspired or Scriptural. It may have been a common saying, which was repeated so often and handed down, that it became equal to Scripture in the early church, even though it was not. And of course, added at some time into the Byzantine manuscripts.

So you think someone went back into the earliest manuscripts, and edited out the later additions made in the Byzantine manuscripts? That is so backwards, it is unbelievable! The fact is, as I said before, textual criticism is very accurate. It literally traces every word in the Greek manuscripts from the oldest to the most recent. It can follow a mistake or an added section, pinpoint where it started and follow it down the chain of manuscripts that copied the one with the mistake.

I suggest you read The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? by James R. White. He dispels these emotional and ignorant ideas that how you "feel" about the Bible is what counts, not the actual, properly translated text.

The KJV is NOT the standard by which we judge all other translations. It must take its place as one translation among many which can be tests, just like the NIV or NASB or ESV. In some places it may well excel the other versions, in some places it may lag behind. Our standard must always be found in the question, "What did the original author of Scripture say at this point?"

Your experience is simpy that - your feelings and emotions. You like the flowery, archaic language, well that is your right! I am more interested in learning the truth about what God actually and accurately said in the Bible.

PS I've read the NIV and didn't like it either. That is no reflection on the text, which I have not studied for accuracy, one way or another.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

No, my experience isn't simply my feelings and my emotions as you just alleged. As I said before, I've spent years studying manuscripts and different translations and I've periodically delved into the same just to keep abreast with the latest info. Anyhow, I'm not going to get into all the details of what you've written because, quite frankly, a lot of it, in my opinion which is based upon my own research, is just biased reporting. James White? Please. That guy is so wrong on certain things doctrinally that I'd gladly publicly debate him. He's one of the last people on the face of this earth that I'd ever listen to...although I have heard him speak many times...an affliction which I had to bear.

 

[atwhatcost]

KJV is my go to Bible also.

Actually, I gave up on KJV after reading God is awful. Kind of ruffled my feathers. I did go running to my Strong's and found out it meant full of awe, which makes sense, but left a bad taste in my mouth. Feathers -- as I recall.

All jokes aside, (I hope), I still need a copy of KJV around when I go for Strong's concordance. Angela just taught me the flaw of Strong's, but Thayer is above my head in understanding. (Was going to make a joke, and then remember I asided the jokes. Nuts! Is this a joke?)

 

[Galahad]

Tintin's right. But I think a lot of folks think of evil as a "thing". It's not really - it's an absence of a thing which God did create - that of good. Think of it like a hole. A hole would be nothing unless it were confined within dirt, so a hole is the absence of dirt. Another analogy is that cold is the absence of heat. There is no cold really and nothing has been created when one experiences cold other than the absence of the thing that is real and created and that has a real source - heat.

When I first read this, I disagreed.

I agree with you. How can God create hate, lust, covetousness. That's absurd.

Murder is the absence of love.

God saw His creation. He saw that it was good. And sin is not good.

 

[Utah]

God did not create evil. Compare many translations, you'll find that the word 'evil' here is a very unfortunate translation.

Haters gonna hate, Bro, just the way it is.

Let them; you and I have some rejoicing to do!

 

[Alongshorr]

I'm not sure why so many people hold the KJV to so high standards. I find that many don't understand what they're reading and that can cause a lot of strange beliefs and sometimes dangerous ones. Wouldn't it just be easier to read a Bible that you can understand?

And Magenta is correct, the word 'calamity' is appropriate for that verse, not 'evil'.

Do you know of any calamity that is not evil? If so what is it?

 

[Tintin]

KJV is my go to Bible also.

I noticed. You think everything in the Bible is a parable. Perhaps, it's best that you read and compare a few different translations.

 

[Tintin]

Do you know of any calamity that is not evil? If so what is it?

One post? That's it? Now, which old member are you?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Some people seem pretty tense around here...and I don't just mean on this thread.

Just for the record, I never said that I am a "King James Onlyist"...even though I was basically addressed as being such twice.

Anyhow, I have nothing else to offer to this discussion, so I'm bowing out of it.

 

[Angela53510]

Some people seem pretty tense around here...and I don't just mean on this thread.

Just for the record, I never said that I am a "King James Onlyist"...even though I was basically addressed as being such twice.

Anyhow, I have nothing else to offer to this discussion, so I'm bowing out of it.

Not to belabor the point, but you have not offered one shred of factual evidence for the KJV being a right or good translation and nothing substantive regarding the manuscript discussion. Or translational issues, but casually saying you have studied the original languages.

How did you study them? Using Strong's? That simply doesn't give you a clue about grammar and translational issues, to say nothing of syntax and context.

 

[Galahad]

Do you know of any calamity that is not evil? If so what is it?

An entire town swished away by a tornado. That's a calamity. But it ain't evil. It's bad, but not evil.

 

[Alongshorr]

An entire town swished away by a tornado. That's a calamity. But it ain't evil. It's bad, but not evil.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[Galahad]

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Why did you write this? I do not understand. What do you want me to learn from that verse as it relates to my statement?

 

[Galahad]

Originally Posted by Alongshorr Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Why did you write this? I do not understand. What do you want me to learn from that verse as it relates to my statement?

I reread your earlier postings. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

A tornado destroying an entire town is not evil. It is bad.
ISIS is evil.
A child feeling pain from fatherly discipline, is not evil. Not even bad.
God disciplines those whom He loves.
A gas chamber is neither bad nor evil. Gas is neither bad nor evil. But men, rulers locking people up in gas chambers that are to be filled with gas are evil. Evil.

You know, some of the conclusions people make first appear insignificant. Almost simply as nothing more than stupid. But put your mind to those conclusions, draw them out to a maxim, and anger sets in. To think that a tornado - nature - destroying a town is comparable to the immoral, sinful behavior of a human being is evil in itself.

An accidental explosion at an oil refinery is bad. It is not evil.

Question: Is the lion evil or bad when he kills and eats? Which?
Question: Is the man hunter evil or bad when he kills and eats? Which?
Question: Did not the Lord tell Peter to kill and eat? So is the Lord commanding Peter to do something evil or bad? Which?
Question: If I encourage others to sin, am I innocent? Or am I condoning the sin? Is it evil or bad to condone sin? Which?

Alongshorr, you have dove into a sea of wickedness. Atheism. Blasphemy.

If you don't reach for the truth, you will go down into the abyss.