What I'm Reading -- How About You?

[Faith.Man]

Knowing Scripture by R. C. Sproul.

 

[JM]

Warrior, I get it...I understand your point but disagree.

Word Study Dictionary:

ra‛, ָרָעה

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; Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22). It was necessary for a wise king to be able to discern the evil or the good in the actions of his people (Ecc 12:14); men and women are characterized as evil (1Sa 30:22; Est_7:6; Jer 2:33). The human heart is evil all day long (Gen 6:5) from childhood (Gen 8:21); yet the people of God are to purge evil from among them (Deu 17:7). The Lord is the final arbiter of whether something was good or evil; if something was evil in the eyes of the Lord, there is no further court of appeals (Deu 9:18; 1Ki 14:22). The day of the Lord's judgment is called an evil day, a day of reckoning and condemnation (Amo 6:3). Jacob would have undergone grave evil (i.e., pain, misery, and ultimate disaster) if he had lost Benjamin (Gen 44:34). The word can refer to circumstances as evil, as when the Israelite foremen were placed in a grave situation (Exo 5:19; 2Ki 14:10).

The word takes on the aspect of something disagreeable, unwholesome, or harmful. Jacob evaluated his life as evil and destructive (Gen_47:9; Num_20:5); and the Israelites considered the wilderness as a threatening, terrifying place. The Canaanite women were evil in the eyes of Isaac (i.e., displeasing [Gen 28:8]). The rabble's cry within Israel for meat was displeasing in the eyes of Moses (Num 11:10). This word describes the vicious animal that killed Joseph, so Jacob thought (Gen 37:33). The despondent countenances of persons can be described by this word; the baker's and the butler's faces were downcast because of their dreams (Gen 40:7). It can also describe one who is heavy in heart (Pro 25:20).
In a literal sense, the word depicts something that is of poor quality or even ugly in appearance. The weak, lean cows of Pharaoh's dream were decrepit, ugly-looking (Gen 41:3, Gen 41:20, Gen 41:27); poisonous drinking water was described as bad (2Ki 2:19; 2Ki_4:41). From these observations, it is clear that the word can be used to attribute a negative aspect to nearly anything.

Used as a noun, the word indicates realities that are inherently evil, wicked, or bad; the psalmist feared no evil (Psa 23:4). The noun also depicts people of wickedness, that is, wicked people. Aaron characterized the people of Israel as inherently wicked in order to clear himself (Exo 32:22). Calamities, failures, and miseries are all connotations of this word when it is used as a noun.
​

Gordon Clark on the Subject:

The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, “ra, translated ‘sorrow,’ ‘wretchedness,’ ‘adversity,’ ‘afflictions,’ ‘calamities,’ but never translated SIN. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

Now the most remarkable point about Scofield’s note is that he told the truth when he said, “RA . . . [is] never translated sin.” How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of RA in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of RA with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that RA in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated WICKEDNESS. In fact RA is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, RA is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word EVIL, a partial list of verses in which this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where WICKED or WICKEDNESS is used.

Going through the Bible, Scofield must have read as far as Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; 6:5; 8:21; 44:4; 48:16; 50:15, 17, 20. “The knowledge of good and EVIL” is simply a knowledge of sorrow or calamity; it is primarily a knowledge of disobedience and sin. Similarly, Genesis 3:5, 22 refers as much to sin as to its punishment. In fact Genesis 3:22 hardly refers to punishment at all. True, Adam was banished from the garden; but the word EVIL in the verse refers to his disobedience and sin.

Whatever lame excuse can be given for excluding sin and retaining only punishment in the previous four verses, Genesis 6:5 is clearly and indisputably a reference to sin. God did not see “adversity” or “afflictions”; he saw sinful thoughts. RA, in this verse at any rate, means sin. The same is true of Genesis 8:21. In fact sin and its punishment are separated here. God will not again curse or smite, as he had just done, for man’s heart is evil. The flood was a punishment, but the evil was the sinful heart of man.

Toward the end of Genesis RA refers to an alleged theft, many sins from which the Angel had redeemed Jacob, and three times the brothers’ sin against Joseph. In 50:17 again the sin is easily distinguishable from the feared punishment.

Is it necessary to plod through all the Old Testament to show that RA often means sin as distinct from its punishment? It should not be necessary; but to show the pervasiveness of the doctrine and the perverseness of Arminianism, something from II Chronicles will be listed: 22:4; 29:6; 36:5, 9, 12. Ahab did EVIL in the sight of the Lord. Our fathers have trespassed and done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Manasseh did evil in the sight of the Lord. He wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord. Jehoiakim did evil in the sight of the Lord. . . .

Evil, RA, is not once TRANSLATED sin. Very strange, but true.

Then there is Isaiah 56:2; 57:1; 59:7, 15; 65:12; 66:4. All instances of RA, or EVIL.

Now, if Scofield knew that RA was never translated SIN, he must have known that it was often translated WICKEDNESS. WICKEDNESS or WICKED, as the translation of RA occurs in Genesis 6:5; 13:13; 38:7; 39:9. Also in Deuteronomy 13:11 and 17:2. Also in I Samuel 30:22 and II Samuel 3:39. I Kings 2:44; Nehemiah 9:35; Esther 7:6, 9, 25. And Proverbs 21:12; 26:23, 26. Nor are these the only instances.

Scofield told the literal truth when he said it is never translated SIN. But nothing could be more false than his statement, “ God created evil ONLY in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

The scriptural meaning of the word RA, has now been abundantly made clear. But there is another point too. If RA means simply external calamities, then the word PEACE, which God also creates, can mean only military peace. The phrases are parallel. But this interpretation reduces the verse, or THIS PART OF THE VERSE, to triviality. Even verse one can hardly be restricted to purely political matters. Verse three speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God. Jacob my servant and Israel my elect are not phrases to be restricted to politics and economics. Verse 6 speaks of the extension of the knowledge of God throughout the world. Then comes “I make peace and create evil.” Merely military peace? Not peace with God? The next verse speaks of righteousness dropping down from heaven, not like dew, but like pouring rain. Bring forth salvation, let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord have created it.

O, Arminian, Arminian, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told your children the plain truth . . . and ye would not let them understand!

There is still more in this chapter from Isaiah. Once again we find the potter and the clay. It indicates that God is not responsible to man. Woe to the man who complains that God has made him or anyone else a vessel of dishonor. The clay has no ‘rights’ against the potter. Nor does it have any free will to decide what sort of a bowl or jug it shall be.

Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987, pp. 185-188

Strong's:

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.]

​

BDB:
​

1) to form, fashion, frame
1a) (Qal) to form, fashion
1a1) of human activity
1a2) of divine activity
1a2a) of creation
1a2a1) of original creation
1a2a2) of individuals at conception
1a2a3) of Israel as a people
1a2b) to frame, pre-ordain, plan (figuratively of divine) purpose of a situation)
1b) (Niphal) to be formed, be created
1c) (Pual) to be predetermined, be pre-ordained
1d) (Hophal) to be formed

​

Just to double check what the word "CALAMITY" means I used Websters 1828 dictionary, "Any great misfortune, or cause of misery; generally applied to events or disasters which produce extensive evils, as loss of crops, earthquakes, conflagrations, defeat of armies, and the like. But it is applied also to the misfortunes which bring great distress upon individuals."

 

[JM]

I just started reading "The Life and Diary of David Brainerd."

 

[JM]

Any thoughts on Pink's work titled "The Life of David?" It's two volumes and I hate to start something and not finish.

 

[RefCath]

Well I have Collections at the start of next term so I am mostly reading commentaries on Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah.

 

[cygnusx1]

Any thoughts on Pink's work titled "The Life of David?" It's two volumes and I hate to start something and not finish.

It's great , first class work . Then read Spurgeon's Treasury Of David .

 

[JM]

I'm on to Luther's commentary to the Galatians. I've read it online but it's different being able to sit with it in your hand and read it. Right off the top he deals with the RC and EO argument for their authority from antiquity....excellent read.

 

[JustAsIam77]

I'm on to Luther's commentary to the Galatians. I've read it online but it's different being able to sit with it in your hand and read it. Right off the top he deals with the RC and EO argument for their authority from antiquity....excellent read.

Is it available in book form, if so what is the title? I also prefer a book in my hand when reading it, thanks.

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm on to Luther's commentary to the Galatians. I've read it online but it's different being able to sit with it in your hand and read it. Right off the top he deals with the RC and EO argument for their authority from antiquity....excellent read.

I think it's the book that "converted" John Wesley

---------------- Listening to: Yes - Close To The Edge

 

[reformedfan]

I'm reading a number of things. My latest read was John Nevin's 1840's book, "Mystical Presence: A Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist" I found this to be a very telling and exciting book. I found Charles Hodges review on the book and I've printed it out and hope to read it soon.

dude, sorry, no offense..... etc; been a while. howz the wife & kids etc... can't fig out how to log out so here i still am, wooo!!!!

ummmmm...y'ever hear of Van til?

man i love van til.... that dude was indescribably brilliant... he got his own commentator/ decipherer cuz few could understand him!!!!! *cough* greg bahnsen *cough*

ok, so let's say van til was the most freakin' brilliant theologian this generation will ever know... a 'this generation' 's calvin.

if he sez 'chaz hodge was an inconsis calvinist'.... cuzza this & that fine theological point.... let's say 'ok van til!! you da man!!! chaz hodge was an inconsis calv!!!' cuz that must be the case!!

without reading the book on the catholic pukerist or the 11 pages of internet responses to your OP...... ummmmm.... really????

I'm meandering my way through a new biography about Mormon founder Joseph Smith. The books is by historian Bushman.

ummmm.......

ummmmmm...

don't wanna sound all legalistic & 'harry potter is BAD!!' on ya, but really????? you read a book by a mormon, by a respected mormon & are all gushy & happy about whatcha learned?? ??

i haven't been back long enough to see if you were kidding about this.... were ya?? dude i get mormons in my driveway 1'ce every other year.... man!!! so infrequently i could just die!!! the last thing i'd wanna be well versed in when they showed up THAT not often was 'the history of mormons' vs the Bible, y'follow me ??

I'v also started reading the writings of Pope Gregory the Great. When I finish this I plan to continue reading Pope Gregory's letters.[/COLOR]

dooode....
totally you are kidding, right??

yeah... gotta be that.

see ya in 3 years!!

(if i figure out how to log out!!)

 

[heymikey80]

van Til: great guy, deep thinker, one of my youth pastor's more frequent quotes was from him (he went to Westminster & studied under vT).

Bahnsen: Eh, meh, well, not so much. To me he's a "bridge too far" interpreting the application of Law.

 

[reformedfan]

how do i log out????? i hate this place!!

 

[reformedfan]

one of my youth pastor's more frequent quotes was from him (he went to Westminster & studied under vT).

LOL!!

did he verbally 'wander' & talk at you for 40 min on some abstract tangent that had nothing to do with what you were originally discussing with him??

cuz man alive!!!!

this past year a guy died that studied under van til....

'the digressions ARE the point' he used to tell me... GRRRRR!!!!

 

[reformedfan]

dude & seriously... i GOTTA log out!!!!! how do i????

 

[heymikey80]

dude & seriously... i GOTTA log out!!!!! how do i????

Go to the top of the page.

In the bright blue horizontal bar under your "welcome" block there's "Log out" on the far right.

 

[heymikey80]

LOL!!

did he verbally 'wander' & talk at you for 40 min on some abstract tangent that had nothing to do with what you were originally discussing with him??

cuz man alive!!!!

this past year a guy died that studied under van til....

'the digressions ARE the point' he used to tell me... GRRRRR!!!!

He told me something that stuck with him after 20 years, and it's stuck with me after 20 years as well.

"Every created thing is simply a reflection of the relationships that exist in the Trinity." -- van Til, lecture remembered by Joe Novenson

The only thing I can't remember is whether Joe said "reflection" or "model"

 

[reformedfan]

Go to the top of the page.

In the bright blue horizontal bar under your "welcome" block there's "Log out" on the far right.

wooo!!! thanx, thanx, thanx!!!!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

ummmmm...y'ever hear of Van til?

man i love van til.... that dude was indescribably brilliant... he got his own commentator/ decipherer cuz few could understand him!!!!! *cough* greg bahnsen *cough*

Hello, I know we have not interacted before, but I wanted to respond to a couple of your comments, please bear with me.

I discovered Van Til about 8 or 9 years ago. Started learning about him, and his teaching with the old Logos Software collection of his writings, also included most if not all of his tape recordings which I listened to. The first thing that comes to mind concerning Van Til...Biblical...the man wanted nothing more than to be faithful to the Scriptures and God. Anyway, it's overstating a bit to say few could understand him...I would say few cared to take the time to understand him, and many hated him because of his criticisms. I would say maybe it's true few could totally understand him (so many have misunderstood him, perhaps out of poor stewardship researching), but many understand the gist of what he taught, or have a general idea.

ok, so let's say van til was the most freakin' brilliant theologian this generation will ever know... a 'this generation' 's calvin.

I think so, in my humble opinion, yes.

if he sez 'chaz hodge was an inconsis calvinist'.... cuzza this & that fine theological point.... let's say 'ok van til!! you da man!!! chaz hodge was an inconsis calv!!!' cuz that must be the case!!

Mmmm...not sure what you're talking about. I think Van Til studied under Charles Hodge, and from what I understand he held Hodge in high esteem, revered him even, as did Bahnsen. The only disagreement between Van Til and Hodge of which I am aware, is in how the Christian faith is defended, or Apologetic methodology. Hodge came from the rationalistic school of defending the faith, most likely what he was taught. I'm not sure if you're serious or bein' sarcastic though....I sense a little sarcasim.

 

[Anoetos]

More of a Gordon Clark man, myself...

 

[JM]

More of a Gordon Clark man, myself...