God created evil

[Josefnospam]

Galahad,



Well he created the devil I suppose but as for what else or how or why I leave that is his hands. He does as he wants and while I don't understand all things he wrote I believe them. He alone is God and there is no other.

 

[Tintin]

Yes. Just like lies are the absence of truth, evil is the absence of God's holiness and righteousness. In short, evil is corrupted good.

 

[Ugly]

I can understand the KJV just fine and I like the Language and the way it is written. My problem with other translations is that men often try to make the scriptures easier to understand and only God can give the understanding of his word.

So it makes more sense to use an outdated language that most people would find difficult to read and comprehend because it's more spiritual that way? To sit down and read through the bible Should be easy, people should be able to get, at least, the gist of the text. It's the deeper understanding that Christians receive through the Holy Spirit, and this doesn't require reading in a dated variation of the language.

Also in your reference to what the scriptures 'clearly' say vs 'others' changing it... is this coming from a study of the original language of the text? Or are you using the KJV?

 

[Josefnospam]

Well for me the KJV is the word of God as he wants us to have it and was written by holy men of old as moved by the spirit. It has stood the test of time, most concordances are keyed to it and the new translations are in my humbled opinion, attempts by men to get the bible to say certain things as they see it. I am partial to the KJV and will continue to use it as it has served me well and has been the standard for many, many years. Since the bible is written in parables some people will never understand what it says as it is hidden from those whom the Lord has not given understanding. A new translation can never change this.

 

[Tintin]

Well for me the KJV is the word of God as he wants us to have it and was written by holy men of old as moved by the spirit. It has stood the test of time, most concordances are keyed to it and the new translations are in my humbled opinion, attempts by men to get the bible to say certain things as they see it. I am partial to the KJV and will continue to use it as it has served me well and has been the standard for many, many years. Since the bible is written in parables some people will never understand what it says as it is hidden from those whom the Lord has not given understanding. A new translation can never change this.

First of all, the KJV has stood the test of time, because it's been around for 400+ years! Not because it's the best translation or the only God-approved Bible. Secondly, the Bible is not written in parable form. Some parts are parables, but it's easy to tell which ones. Most of the Bible can be read plainly as history, played out in different genres. Oh, and the Bible also often uses figurative language to speak God's truth. Lastly, why didn't you say you were a KJV-Onlyist? Ain't nobody got time for dat!

 

[Josefnospam]

Ugly
My bible is the KJV. Use whatever translation you like. I thoroughly enjoy reading it and when I get a different translation it just seems strange to me. I don't say that other translation are worse or better I just Like the traditional Bible I have always read. I know and trust it, And you know it's not the Bible that saves anyone, It is Christ the Lord. Call me old fashion or out dated or whatever but I know who the Lord is and what he has done for me and I am forever thankful.

 

[Magenta]

If you want to read Scripture in the language it was written, you will need to learn Hebrew and Greek The King James Bible is a translation from other sources...

 

[Josefnospam]

I had a NKJV once and gave it to my sister. I guess I am one of those KJV only people. I studied Greek, and Hebrew and I even read the Septuagint. Don't hold it against me but I even read that Bible(catholic I think) that had several other books in it. I always come back to the same one. What bible do you recommend as "modern" or "superior? "

 

[Magenta]

You may not have addressed that last question at me but this
is something I wrote earlier today, modified somewhat for you:

Since the Wednesday evening classes I was going to at another church have ended, I have returned to the home Bible study I had been attending for about the past three years. The last few weeks there have been ten people at them! Normally it is about six, and we each read different translations, with the "leader" also reading Hebrew and Greek. I enjoy this group very much even though they do not believe what I believe at all. In fact, others might call them heretics LOL... but they do identify as Christians (the leader is an ordained minister) and I see no reason why not to accept them as my brothers and sisters in Christ just because we have different understandings of Who Jesus is.

Anywho, we read Old and New each week; they really do not like John's gospel because John was all about the Deity of Christ (I like John's gospel) but we are reading the part where Jesus is telling them they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Of course this relates to Him being the Bread of Life, and the manna in the desert...

Back to the present post... I do like the KJV, but for my group I read from the New Jerusalem Bible published in 1985, which is also a Catholic translation. I do not read it for any love of Catholicism, but just to get the different perspective. Sometimes it is grammatically laid out so differently from what I hear the others reading, it is difficult to follow. But I do not mind. We discuss the differences as wee see them, and compare the languages, and generally break it all down and question anything that comes to mind, and a good time is had by all while studying the revealed written Word of God

 

[Tintin]

I had a NKJV once and gave it to my sister. I guess I am one of those KJV only people. I studied Greek, and Hebrew and I even read the Septuagint. Don't hold it against me but I even read that Bible(catholic I think) that had several other books in it. I always come back to the same one. What bible do you recommend as "modern" or "superior? "

I recommend almost any other English translation. My personal favourites are the ESV (English Standard Version), the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) and the NLT (New Living Translation). ESV for Word for Word, HSCB for a hybrid of Word for Word and Thought for Thought and the NLT for Thought for Thought. The NET is also a good translation, but I value it more for its comprehensive translation notes.

 

[Tintin]

You may not have addressed that last question at me but this
is something I wrote earlier today, modified somewhat for you:

Since the Wednesday evening classes I was going to at another church have ended, I have returned to the home Bible study I had been attending for about the past three years. The last few weeks there have been ten people at them! Normally it is about six, and we each read different translations, with the "leader" also reading Hebrew and Greek. I enjoy this group very much even though they do not believe what I believe at all. In fact, others might call them heretics LOL... but they do identify as Christians (the leader is an ordained minister) and I see no reason why not to accept them as my brothers and sisters in Christ just because we have different understandings of Who Jesus is.

Anywho, we read Old and New each week; they really do not like John's gospel because John was all about the Deity of Christ (I like John's gospel) but we are reading the part where Jesus is telling them they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Of course this relates to Him being the Bread of Life, and the manna in the desert...

Back to the present post... I do like the KJV, but for my group I read from the New Jerusalem Bible published in 1985, which is also a Catholic translation. I do not read it for any love of Catholicism, but just to get the different perspective. Sometimes it is grammatically laid out so differently from what I hear the others reading, it is difficult to follow. But I do not mind. We discuss the differences as wee see them, and compare the languages, and generally break it all down and question anything that comes to mind, and a good time is had by all while studying the revealed written Word of God

Wow, sister. I would think one of the very basics of being considered a Christian is that a person must believe in the deity of Christ.

 

[Josefnospam]

Tintin
Do you consider ESV, HCBS, NET, and NLT as "superior or "better" than the KJV and if so why?

 

[CSF]

As I understand it, evil must exist for good to exist, so yeah, god may have created evil, but not in a bad purpose but to offer a choice to us between the absence of god (that leads to evil at some point and at some level no matter what you might say) and the belief and relation with god that should lead you to goodness. I strongly believe that good cannot exist without evil.
We, the entire humanity, bare the fact that our common ancestor ate from the fruit of knowledge (of good and evil), as Adam and Eve were naked before knowing it was a bad thing, we would be like animals in that matter, doing bad things, maybe, but not in an evil way.

 

[Powemm]

all I can share is what God did with me..... It was He who called me forth from His very mouth.. It was He who spoke, whose voice was like no other, the only voice that differed from every other voice... a distinct call... calling me forth from darkness into His marvelous light.... When He spoke my ears could not deny Him... When He revealed Himself it was only then my eyes began to see. When His trumpet sounds...... you will without a doubt KNOW IT.... there is only ONE Voice... His voice is the only voice that will be heard above all others.. He is the lamp, He is the light... darkness can not contain Him....

 

[Tintin]

As I understand it, evil must exist for good to exist, so yeah, god may have created evil, but not in a bad purpose but to offer a choice to us between the absence of god (that leads to evil at some point and at some level no matter what you might say) and the belief and relation with god that should lead you to goodness. I strongly believe that good cannot exist without evil.
We, the entire humanity, bare the fact that our common ancestor ate from the fruit of knowledge (of good and evil), as Adam and Eve were naked before knowing it was a bad thing, we would be like animals in that matter, doing bad things, maybe, but not in an evil way.

No, good must exist for evil to exist. We've just established that evil isn't a thing in and of itself. It's an absence of good.

 

[Magenta]

Wow, sister. I would think one of the very basics of being considered a Christian is that a person must believe in the deity of Christ.

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.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Ugly
My bible is the KJV. Use whatever translation you like. I thoroughly enjoy reading it and when I get a different translation it just seems strange to me. I don't say that other translation are worse or better I just Like the traditional Bible I have always read. I know and trust it, And you know it's not the Bible that saves anyone, It is Christ the Lord. Call me old fashion or out dated or whatever but I know who the Lord is and what he has done for me and I am forever thankful.

You don't need to defend either yourself or the KJV. I've read the KJV for the last 27 years myself and I have no trouble understanding it whatsoever because I rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach me and He does just that. I don't personally believe that it is a perfect translation and I do check things pretty regularly in the Greek, but I personally believe it to be the best translation for many reasons and I'm not about to get into an argument with anybody as to why I believe the same.

 

[Tintin]

Tintin
Do you consider ESV, HCBS, NET, and NLT as "superior or "better" than the KJV and if so why?

Yes, I do. They don't have the archaic lyricism of the KJV, but I do think they're much easier to read and understand and the use of modern language (everyday English) certainly helps. The Bible should be able to be read and understood by the 'man on the street'.

 

[Tintin]

You don't need to defend either yourself or the KJV. I've read the KJV for the last 27 years myself and I have no trouble understanding it whatsoever because I rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach me and He does just that. I don't personally believe that it is a perfect translation and I do check things pretty regularly in the Greek, but I personally believe it to be the best translation for many reasons and I'm not about to get into an argument with anybody as to why I believe the same.

I have no problem with the KJV itself, I just have a problem with the people here at CC who say any other translation is the devil's work and that Christians who read modern translations are damned to eternal death. I've been told that for a few years now and it's not cool. You'll have to forgive me if I've been sharp. I don't say this to excuse myself, but to provide some understanding of where I (and others here) are coming from.

 

[gkroo]

The word is calamity.

H7451
רעה רע
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

Like Phil112 says, the context is not noun permissive.