Theory on the origin of evil

[GodsGrace101]

You said that God created evil. Therefore by definition, you are saying that God is not omnibenevolent. Meaning God is no all good because he is the author and creator of evil.

Correct.
A being that is all-good cannot create anything evil.
The bible says that God has no evil in Him.

Psalm 5:4
Psalm 92:15
1 John 1:5
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

And more...

(1 John 1:5 might interest the O.P. since it equates darkness with evil.
@The Righterzpen )

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't disagree that animals and plants also suffer from the fall of man. However, I would not attribute either evil or sin to them, or say that it resides in them. What I would say is that they suffer the consequences of mans sin and evil. They are made subject to it, but not as participants in it. Man has subjected the creatures to disorder. Evil comes forth from the heart of man, not as eminating from plants or rain or irrational animals. If an animal kills a human being, the animal has not done evil, has not sinned, but has behaved as its keeper has bid it. The plants and animals are subject to us, to our disposition in relation to God. Any disorder among them is from us, not from their own being.

Imagine there is a king, and he rules that within his kingdom all the food will be destroyed and none will be brought in. His soldiers will be positioned at all exits of the kingdom, and will slay any who attempt to leave. His subjects take up the disordered act of consuming dirt from the ground, or other random objects in their desperate attempts to obtain nourishment. The disordered behavior is made manifest in the subjects, but it is as a direct result of the kings willful deprivation of what is needful for them, not something self-contained. The evil came forth from the king and his rule. The subjects who have no choice but to live by this rule take on behaviors not intended to be in their nature. This is, I believe, as our role in the disorder found among nature.

When it is said that the hurricane is evil because it is in disorder, or the animal which attacks a man is evil because it is in disorder, I believe this is assigning blame to victim of the ones who imposed the disorder in the first place. It is like saying of the dirt eating subjects in my above example "You are evil because you ought to be eating food but instead eat dirt." rather than saying to the king "Look at this evil you have done, you have made your subjects to do that which is against their nature."

I also do not attribute sin to plants or animals -- I've never stated this.

You have a concept of evil that is somewhat different than its being the sin nature.
It would be interesting for you to do another study in this...maybe you'd get something different from it the second time around.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Ok. As to the "reaction theory", I think that Tone has a bit more refined concept on this with the idea that creation is simply inferior to God; God, alone, being perfect and anything else being relatively less than perfect. God cannot create another God, to put it another way. And this imperfection can then translate into less than perfect choices via created rational beings with free will, who lack God's perfect wisdom. Evil is the result. And yet God deemed it worthy to create anyway, desiring man to be able to freely choose the good instead, having developed a hunger and thirst for it here in this world, to choose love, to choose Him, to put it another way, the essence of goodness and love itself. And desiring this while knowing that evil would occur as a result in the meanwhile, endeavoring to ultimately bring an even greater good out of that evil, knowing the beginning from the end as only He does.

As to the concept of good, itself, everything that God creates is good, and yet, as noted above, it can be considered "evil" in the relative sense, relative to Him. At any rate creation possesses the seeds of evil in its relative imperfection, and, again, can manifest or express that inferiority only via the existence of free will.

As to the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree simply represented the fact that man is obligated to obedience; eating of its fruit represented an act of disobedience, of not trusting and heeding God, of not acknowledging Him as God for all practical purposes. And this act, itself, was the first instance of evil they experienced, BTW, an act that immediately put them at odds with God and cast them out of His control and grace and corrupted their relationship with Him, with fellow man, with the rest of creation, and with their own selves. Disharmony, strife, conflict, and competition became the order of the day more often than not.

By seeking to determine good and evil for themselves, by setting themselves in opposition to God's will on the matter IOW, they had now gained a new knowledge, the knowledge of evil, and by contrast the knowledge of good. Prior to their first sin, everything in their experience was good; there was nothing to identify that as a separate reality until evil was also tasted or experienced. So with the experience of evil came the knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew word for knowledge used is "yada", which is often used in the bible to mean knowledge gained by direct experience, as when a couple know each carnally, for example.

You misunderstand the theory presented.

The appearance of darkness coincided with the initial action of God, which was God laying out the "formatting" of the universe. Thus the phrase "earth is without form and void". The "formatting" predated anything else that would be materially created subsequently. This fact eliminates the will, obedience or disobedience of any creature being the "origin of that darkness"; seeing how they did not exist yet.

The darkness was by definition "evil" because the Hebrew word there implies the state of its existence and its goal was to suppress the light of truth.

The Scripture in the beginning of John calls this darkness "god". "In the beginning was god and the Word was with GOD and the word was the GOD." This "god" (darkness) is not God because it is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal or immortal.

Satan became the "prince of" (this) "power" (of the air). Satan is the "spirit that now works in the children of disobedience" because the "darkness" is not a spirit. Spirits are created by God, as well as God being a Spirit Himself.

The darkness is not equal to God and God did not create it. It came about as a result of God's action, not God's intention. God knew this was going to happen because God is omniscient. God planned for the conquering of this evil as part of the redemption plan; so consequently once the new creation replaces this creation, they are incorruptible.

This is the best explanation I've ever encountered for the presence and origin of evil; because it does not blame God for creating evil or for creating creatures flawed with the inclination to bringing evil into existence. What God created was "very good" but it was not incorruptible and God knew that because God has the knowledge of good and evil. Evil is not capable of corrupting God by simple definition of what He is as God.

So God put a plant in the garden called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Note it is not the tree of good and evil, only the knowledge of both. Prior to eating of it, carbon based creation and humanity only knew "good". God put this tree there because He was going to use a man (Jesus Christ) to conquer the darkness and free humans and the carbon based created order from the destructive presence of the darkness.

Angels and Satan are fundamentally different creatures than carbon based life and they are outside of the redemption plan. This is why of those who fell; their fall was diabolically different than Adams. Satan had complete knowledge of the battle plan of salvation; Adam did not. This is why Adam became "totally depraved" when Satan (along with his minions) became "depraved totally".

"Total depravity" is the state of being spiritually dead in trespass and sin.
"Depraved totally" is the state of being spiritually void of any light of truth.

One is naturally still capable of good moral judgement (man), the other (Satan and fallen angels) are not.

That as the theory is different than what you'd stated of your understanding of it to be.

 

[martymonster]

You said that God created evil. Therefore by definition, you are saying that God is not omnibenevolent. Meaning God is no all good because he is the author and creator of evil.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


Amo 3:5 Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all?
Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Now, you could argue (and lots of people do) that the word being used for evil, isn't really evil, but you'd have to ignore a lot of verse in the bible, to do so.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Have you done a word study on the use of the word "evil" in the text? The word used is "רַע" which in context means "calamity". Which is fitting because God uses calamity as a means of His wrath. But His wrath is not evil. Rather, it is the instrument of His righteous judgement. This same hermeneutical principle is also applied to Amos.

In Hebrew, the passage is:
אִם־יִתָּקַע שֹׁופָר בְּעִיר וְעָם לֹא יֶחֱרָדוּ אִם־תִּהְיֶה רָעָה בְּעִיר וַיהוָה לֹא עָשָֽׂה׃
In bold is the same word found in Isaiah, "Ra'" which contextually means calamity.
There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

 

[marineimaging]

Origins of Evil Theory

I've often wondered about the origins of evil? Many church fathers and people in Christian circles believe that evil began with Satan. This may be true, depending on your definition of "Satan"; but if we look closely at the first few verses of Genesis, we'll see that this can not be. If we believe Satan is a fallen angel; (as much of church history has taught) than we know for a fact that evil did not begin with him, since it was present before angels were ever created. Darkness (destruction) was "upon the face of the deep" from the first time God had uttered "Let there be light."

The first words of Genesis start out with "In the beginning". This phrase is in "construct state" and has a "Beth" prefixed preposition to it. The construct state declares that the state of one noun is dependent upon the action of another. In this case the state of heaven and earth are dependent upon the action of God. (Yeah, I know that's an "uh duh" type of observation.)

Now as for the Beth prefixed preposition, it indicates the location or instrumentality of the action. So in other words, the action of what happened "in the beginning" began with God. (Yeah, I know; another "no brainer".) This is important to understand though, because what it is really saying is that all subsequent happenings (including the presence of evil) did not exist before the beginning!

In a prior study I did concerning what had occurred "in the beginning"; I'd stated that I didn't know where evil came from. (I'm still not sure I know?) In that study, it appeared to me that evil was already present from the point that God began the creation process. I'd thought that it may have even predated creation itself. From a little closer look at this word / phrase "in the beginning" though it seems that from the very commencement of any action of God - evil appeared.

Interesting - now why is that?

Here is another point where I'm not sure I have the answer to this question but I'm gonna give it a crack with a theory that's been kicking around in my head here. Now admittedly, this theory isn't "my theory" - no, it's actually part of physics. "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Now let's back up here from "the beginning" to before the beginning. Before any action of creating ever commenced; there eternally existed God. No action brought God into existence. He was just always ...there! So because there was no "action" that created God; there was no "reaction" to His existence. He as an entity is "something" and the opposite of "something" is "nothing". So, in eternity, besides God there was nothing and so any opposite of God that would have "existed" - did so in theory only.

Of course being omniscient; God knew this. He knew that as soon as He "did" something; there would be an equal and opposite reaction to what ever He did. (Note I'm not saying "equal an opposite reaction to what God is!) He knew that what ever action He took; it would bring this theoretical opposite of Him into the created reality. (Because to every action is an equal and opposite reaction.) This is what I believe was the knowledge of good and evil that God possessed.

So, for as much as an oxymoron as this is going to sound like: this created a "dilemma" for God. He had to come up with a plan to adequately compensate for the opposite that would come as a result of His action. Now God being good, holy, righteous, just etc - the opposite of such would be evil, sin, wickedness, injustice etc.

So how could God overcome this "reaction"?

Well, since God is eternally existent; it would seem to me that His incorporating His own presence into His original action (i.e. being incarnated into His own creation, sending His Spirit etc.) does not create another "reaction" because God always existed.

So thus is the nuts and bolts of my "scientific" theory. (Admittedly, likely still needs some refining!) Evil was inherent in the act of creation itself because it was the opposite reaction to God's action.

Could God have created a world where there would be no reaction to His action?

I don't know; maybe on some other dimension or level He has? As for us though and what we understand of our physical universe; we could not exist without these contrasting duel addition to this though; this theory also lends explanation to why God could create something He knew was going to fall and still legitimately call it good. (Which the "good" in Hebrew really means "pleasant". I.E. God was happy with what He'd made. It "pleased" Him; which there is another whole dimension to that application - which maybe I'll tackle later.) Any how; ultimately God is not responsible for the fall; because He did not create evil, nor did He plant within man the seed that would lead to transgression. All that transpired was a byproduct of the act of creation itself.

The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

What of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil than? The tree was just the vehicle that clued man into what was already present in his world. It simply opened the door to the knowledge of both good and evil; but it didn't create either! Remember it's the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; not the "tree of good and evil".

The tree was necessary for that knowledge though; and that knowledge was necessary in order for humanity to truly know God. You see it was still possible for Adam and Eve to behave in ways that displeased God; they just had no knowledge of it because they had no commandments. The only instruction they'd specifically had from God was to take care of the garden and not to eat the fruit off this tree. (All of carbon based creation was commanded to be fruitful and multiply.) See "evil" had entered into the world even though sin had not, because sin is disobedience to God! So long as Adam and Eve didn't disobey; sin didn't enter, even though "evil" was still present.

Kinda weird huh

In regards to sin itself. Even if there was no tree; God would eventually given them a commandment that they wouldn't have kept. Think of all the trouble a person could get themselves into out of sheer ignorance. God is not simply going to sit back and ignore actions that offend Him. So, as long as they obeyed; the knowledge of any offense of action they may have done was hidden from them. As far as any offenses they'd committed against God? Up until the point they actually disobeyed; apparently they had done (or failed to do) something that warranted God to tell them to care for the garden. Once He had instructed them to do so; obviously they obeyed, so still sin hadn't entered.

The word "good" in Genesis:

OK, now that we know "good" in Genesis didn't mean "unable to be corrupted". What did it mean? "Now I didn't really plan on putting "this" "here" but it's a good place for it. I'll explain what the word "good" means in the Hebrew and how the applied to Genesis and even the current underpinnings of how this creation is constructed.

This word "good" basically means "pleasing"; although pleasing in a natural way, not so in the connotation of lust or perverse desire for something. It's the same word used to describe Abraham's wife Sarah; she was "beautiful" she was "pleasant (or pleasing) to look at". She appealed to other men as an object of physical beauty. This word, or derivatives there of; is used in description of attractive men too and even other living things; i.e. physical qualities that would make them attractive - like health, strength, vigor, vitality of complexion / hair etc.

We see this concept of "good / pleasing" being inherent in the biology of the physical world. Some researchers at one point did an international study to come up with a composite of what human beings considered to be physically attractive or desirable in other human beings. The point of the study was to see if there was an underlying consistency in who people would consider to be the opposite parent to their individual future offspring. Of course, on account of the nature of this study - it only included heterosexual individuals of a probable reproductive age.

The questions were posed with line drawings of human forms and the findings were interesting. The consensus was that people preferred a reproductive mate that was not too fat or too thin, who's body was symmetrically proportional and who's skin and hair had a healthy appearance. The next most important attribute for both genders was the appearance of the face and head. Was the face symmetrical and did the head appear to have the proper skull capacity to be associated with good intelligence. Another attribute that was some what of a surprise to the researchers, yet none the less important to both genders was the appearance of a person's hands. Hands were generally thought of in relation to a person's propensity to be industrious.

Contrary to what the western fashion industry portrays to us; men generally were not attracted to women who were too much taller than they, who's breasts were either too large or too small and who's hips appeared too narrow. Both these portions of anatomy were considered vital to reproductive capacity: a pelvis who's breadth was adequate to safely deliver a baby and breasts that would produce the appropriate amount of milk to feed the child. The "universal ratio" came out to be an hour glass figure where the waist was roughly 10 inches smaller than the bust and hips.

For women, proportion was also of notable interest. Women ranked higher in considering the size and shape of a man's head as intelligence was generally believed to be related to temperament. (An ill-tempered strong man doesn't make a good mate.) That ranked just as high for women as a man who's body appeared to be healthy and physically fit. The "ideal shape" for men was the diamond (or kite) shape; head, neck, shoulders being the top of the diamond and chest, abdomen, hips being the bottom. Interestingly enough, even in industrial societies the size and shape of man's pelvis were considered important too. Even though women in industrial societies couldn't identify why a man's ability to run well seemed important; they considered it to be an attractive attribute. In hunter gatherer type societies - obviously this was attributed to a man's ability to catch food.

Now as for the reproductive attractiveness of people who have less than perfect bodies; this is where personality became much more important. This was especially true of people born with handicapping genetic defects. Here is where perseverance and the development of a specific skill set became vital to these individuals' survival.

So as interesting as all this research was - what does it have to do with the word "good" in Genesis?

It goes to show us that what we find to be naturally "pleasing" or "attractive" is inherent in the make up of creation itself. Our inclinations and natural drives toward these things are there in us because they first existed in God. The good pleasure of God was made inherent in the world He created. (It's reflected in the reproductive process of every thing on this planet.) What is "good" gives us joy, just as the creation God had made gave Him pleasure. This goodness and joy we see extended even in areas of our lives that have nothing to do with our own sexuality. We find good pleasure in our children, our pets, our friends and family, our hobbies, the outdoors - what ever gives us pleasure.

Of course there is a "flip side" to this too. Our "good pleasure" can be corrupted into something perverse. This is where there is addiction to substances, sexual behavior, the pursuit of wealth or power and prestige.

None of these things (drugs, alcohol, sex, money, authority, respect) are evil in and of themselves; but the corrupted desire for them is. This corrupted desire is what makes evil apparent in this world. Born out of corrupted desires comes hatred, jealousy, malice, envy, strife, prejudice, greed etc. Their manifest deeds being: criminal violence, theft, lies, unjust treatment, inequality, immoral behavior etc. These culminate in death and destruction; the final say of it all being the wrath of God.

The knowledge of good and evil had a profound impact upon this universe!

Very complicated. An easier view. God created all we know and called it good. Imagine how to know what is good without there being an evil or bad. Bad is simple. Disrespecting God. Denying God. Lying to God. Living without God. Loving without God. Evil is that which is without God.

 

[fhansen]

You misunderstand the theory presented.

The appearance of darkness coincided with the initial action of God, which was God laying out the "formatting" of the universe. Thus the phrase "earth is without form and void". The "formatting" predated anything else that would be materially created subsequently. This fact eliminates the will, obedience or disobedience of any creature being the "origin of that darkness"; seeing how they did not exist yet.

The darkness was by definition "evil" because the Hebrew word there implies the state of its existence and its goal was to suppress the light of truth.

The Scripture in the beginning of John calls this darkness "god". "In the beginning was god and the Word was with GOD and the word was the GOD." This "god" (darkness) is not God because it is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal or immortal.

Satan became the "prince of" (this) "power" (of the air). Satan is the "spirit that now works in the children of disobedience" because the "darkness" is not a spirit. Spirits are created by God, as well as God being a Spirit Himself.

The darkness is not equal to God and God did not create it. It came about as a result of God's action, not God's intention. God knew this was going to happen because God is omniscient. God planned for the conquering of this evil as part of the redemption plan; so consequently once the new creation replaces this creation, they are incorruptible.

This is the best explanation I've ever encountered for the presence and origin of evil; because it does not blame God for creating evil or for creating creatures flawed with the inclination to bringing evil into existence. What God created was "very good" but it was not incorruptible and God knew that because God has the knowledge of good and evil. Evil is not capable of corrupting God by simple definition of what He is as God.

Ok, but if it exists at all, I don't know how God could've not created it and still be God. This idea seems to border on dualism. However, when the will of a created being is involved in opting for evil, then God is likewise not the direct cause of the evil at least, because He doesn't directly will it but rather allows it. Either way, nothing that exists can exist without God permitting it since otherwise some reality would be as powerful as Him, if not moreso. Also, from my understanding the Jews did not think in abstract thought, so they used words that related to some concrete reality. So, for example, their term for "nothing" was "darkness", as darkness is something they could relate to that nonetheless conveyed the sense of no-thing.

So God put a plant in the garden called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Note it is not the tree of good and evil, only the knowledge of both. Prior to eating of it, carbon based creation and humanity only knew "good". God put this tree there because He was going to use a man (Jesus Christ) to conquer the darkness and free humans and the carbon based created order from the destructive presence of the darkness.

Angels and Satan are fundamentally different creatures than carbon based life and they are outside of the redemption plan. This is why of those who fell; their fall was diabolically different than Adams. Satan had complete knowledge of the battle plan of salvation; Adam did not. This is why Adam became "totally depraved" when Satan (along with his minions) became "depraved totally".

"Total depravity" is the state of being spiritually dead in trespass and sin.
"Depraved totally" is the state of being spiritually void of any light of truth.

One is naturally still capable of good moral judgement (man), the other (Satan and fallen angels) are not.

That as the theory is different than what you'd stated of your understanding of it to be.

Yep. Anyway, we still end up back to the will IMO, whether involving created beings such as angels, or others such as humans. Humans, for whatever reason, are given time to choose, to experience good and evil and then decide which they'll opt for. Anyway, this is a teaching I've come to appreciate:

396 God created man in his image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

 

[childeye 2]

Well inherent in the question is whether or not "darkness and "evil" are actually the same concept even though they are not the same Hebrew word.

They are not the same thing in Genesis 1:2. In that scripture darkness means a person cannot see what is there. But of course there is often a type behind the words.

So I went and looked up the Hebrew word. "Darkness" comes from the root word "to make dark" or to "withhold light". So it's not actually the "light" that dispels the "darkness"; it's the darkness that tries to suppress the light. This fits in with John 1:5 when it says "Light shines into the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not." The phrase "comprehended it not" means that the darkness could not swallow up the light. And the reason for that being is that this light is God Himself.

The root word may mean to make dark. I think it just means darkness as in I can't see what's there because it's dark. It seems to me that to make dark or to suppress Light, there first has to be Light and this is not the case in Genesis.


In John 1:5, Some translations have the phrase "did not comprehend the Light" and some have could not overcome the Light. But while both would be plausible, I believe comprehend is a good translation.

In that scripture Light/dark is a dichotomy with the Light being the Christ. Therefore I take the darkness to mean being ignorant of God or not knowing Him, or being without understanding concerning God. Hence we read:

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.


I think this dichotomy in John is relevant concerning evil in this sense: The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

Well now that we have a better working definition of what the Hebrew word "darkness" means; maybe that will clear this up a bit. Verse 2 of Genesis 1 God says "let there be light and there was light". The Hebrew word "let" means "to be" or "to fall out". Then He divides the light from the darkness.


So this seems to also fit with John 1:5 about the darkness suppressing the light.

You would have to figure out who was suppressing the Light if God is the one saying let there be Light.

This works with what you said about the light of revelation revealing what can't be seen in the darkness. And this "seems" to be not about the light not being "present" but more about the darkness's efforts to suppress it. Which this also fits with "suppress the truth in unrighteousness". So thus the "darkness" isn't just an absence of light. It is a "force" that seeks to suppress truth.

I feel the need to rephrase what I am believing. I believe that angels and mankind in the beginning did not actually appreciate/comprehend/esteem God in a way that gives him a sincere worship for "Who" He is. Nor when in such ignorance do we understand how this ignorance affects "who" we are as pertains to our character. I do believe that it is unrighteous to suppress the Light/Truth, but we should remember always that the Truth being suppressed is “Who” God is as pertains to His Character.

Now your next phrase makes more contextual sense too. (The knowledge of of God through Christ to those who are in darkness.) Those who are in darkness is more than just ignorance. (They) suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Unless God intervenes to overcome the darkness with the power of His light, they don't see.


Now is their "natural unseeing" strictly of lack of knowledge (i.e ignorance)? When the Scripture declares that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven...." and declares that they are without excuse because they see in the creation the witness of God's redemption plan. Our answer to that question is "no". They aren't just existing in ignorance. They are in spiritual darkness and that darkness actively works against their understanding to keep them in ignorance - as you've put it. The "darkness" is not benign and therefore not "just ignorance".

I believe that the ignorance is innocent in the beginning as a matter of circumstance. However it’s in this void where the serpent uses the power of suggestion to introduce a false image of god that is not God and is untrustworthy. In that sense if a person accepts this image as possible, a corrupt image of god would be suppressing the Truth and would be slanderous towards God. Hence in Romans 1 there’s no excuse for suppressing the Truth because as created beings the only attributes of godliness in the creature that could declare what is trustworthy or untrustworthy would come from the Creator. So it’s a contradiction of reasoning to believe that God is untrustworthy when it’s His attributes a person would be using to believe that god may be untrustworthy.

What you're saying here is interesting from the psychological vanish point of the creature. Now do angels have "emotions" in the same sense that humans do? I don't know.

Now are angel "ignorant" of God? That would not seem to be the case seeing how there had been a point for all of them (Satan included) that they had not fallen. Now I did make a point to someone about Satan not being omniscient. So if we wanted to say angels are ignorant of certain things for the truth of their not being all knowing; that would be fair to say.

Angels do have emotions. Most of the angels did not fall, but that does not mean they knew God anymore than the ones who fell. It more likely means they trusted God despite their ignorance. In regards to the fallen angels I therefore figure that they were probably open to Satan's subtle innuendos about God's Character partly because he probably disguised them as the grass looking greener on the far side of the hill, and also because they were impressed by Satan's beauty. Hence vanity appeared where the creature began to worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Yet if we speak of Satan and comparing himself against someone else; would that someone (being Adam as another created entity) who's in the image of God - or actually God Himself? We know all sin is ultimately against God, so by implication God was the target of Satan's transgression.

In that sense I think Satan just saw Adam as a pawn to be played and he did so by deceiving Eve. Now Adam and Eve were in a very real way inseparably bound together and Satan knew that if he could "get to Eve"; Adam would go down with her. And that's exactly what happened. I think it's Timothy that talks about the women was deceived but the man was not.

What I mean by pride is being lifted up in comparison to others of lesser stature, as if God has not gifted each person and appointed their station according to His wisdom. What I mean by shame is being put down in comparison to others of greater stature, as if god has not gifted each person and appointed their station according to His wisdom.

Satan never displays humility so he was comparing himself to God and desired to be worshipped like God. So since Adam was made in the image of God, then to see Adam fall would be uplifting to him personally. If this is what you were alluding to in an earlier post then I failed to grasp that. I also believe you’re correct about Adam and Eve being bound together.

I think you are correct and it's obvious from Scripture that Satan desired to be worshiped. Where as Adam and Eve fell because she was deceived, I'm inclined to think Satan's fall was of a far more deliberate and nefarious nature. Satan did not fall out of ignorance. He was second general under the Commander in Chief with full knowledge of the entire battle plan and he deliberately flat out committed willful treason in full knowledge that it was treason.

Satan persecuted the son of God which means he rejected The True Image of God sent by God. He certainly did not see any reason to marvel at the Love and grace beheld in the Christ. I believe that Satan probably justified in his own reasoning why he felt Jesus was not as impressive as his self. Perhaps Satan even thinks he is smarter than God, if treason was his goal. But even that reasoning would be built upon the ignorance of the value of Love. There was a poster I remember once saying that Satan was like knowledge exalting it’s self over God.

If we back up in Genesis a hair, we see the very first command God gave all of carbon based life was to be fruitful and multiply. (OK boss, we got no problems doing that! LOL) The second command though to Adam and Eve was to keep and protect the garden. Adam and Eve failed to be diligent in doing that though, so as soon as the serpent appeared in the garden, alarm bells should have gone off in both of them and they should have ran strait to God and said - Hey look! What do we do with it? They didn't do that though.

So because they failed to do that, this opened the door to the deception that would overtake Eve. Adam though was not stupid. He knew Eve had been deceived and at that point he should have run to God and said "Huston! We have a problem." He didn't do that though either and so that is Adam's culpability.

Sure, in hindsight we can speculate what they should have done and we can form conjecture about what it was like to be them. That does not prove they could have done anything to prevent what happened in the moment. Why should we assume that they would fear a serpent or even comprehend a lie? I believe we should apply grace and humility here in our judgment rather than think we would have done better. If not is this not vanity? So I would not agree with this line of reasoning. In fact I believe that we all already have done the same thing as Adam and Eve in some manner in our lives with few exceptions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "go between"? People in the past always appealed directly to God in their prayers. As per the meaning of the Jacob's ladder dream. That I'd have to research. I can't say I know for sure what that means. Also as far as angels being messengers; in the Scriptures they carried messages to humans (like telling Lot to leave Sodom).

There definitely was a chain of command in the Old Testament. The story of the man who built a vineyard comes to mind. But you could be right about prayers going directly to God though I don’t know exactly how they reach Him. This makes me think about how God saw that there was no intercessor for mankind.

The penalty for sin is death, and that applies to all of humanity; so to say Jesus didn't feel we deserved death would be inaccurate.

This is true under the Old Testament and according to the law which it appears that Satan was administering. I don't believe that Jesus felt that we deserved death even as he became our advocate after taking the power of death away from Satan. He was full of grace, big on mercy, understanding and forgiveness, and he did not condemn anyone. Unlike Satan who accused the brethren day and night before the Lord and who wouldn't set the prisoners free.

 

[childeye 2]

Very complicated. An easier view. God created all we know and called it good. Imagine how to know what is good without there being an evil or bad. Bad is simple. Disrespecting God. Denying God. Lying to God. Living without God. Loving without God. Evil is that which is without God.

You're one of those wise guys. This is even simpler: God knew we would take the good for granted. That's why we're here asking why there is evil rather than asking why there is good.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Ok, but if it exists at all, I don't know how God could've not created it and still be God. This idea seems to border on dualism. However, when the will of a created being is involved in opting for evil, then God is likewise not the direct cause of the evil at least, because He doesn't directly will it but rather allows it. Either way, nothing that exists can exist without God permitting it since otherwise some reality would be as powerful as Him, if not moreso. Also, from my understanding the Jews did not think in abstract thought, so they used words that related to some concrete reality. So, for example, their term for "nothing" was "darkness", as darkness is something they could relate to that nonetheless conveyed the sense of no-thing.

This does not address the issue that darkness preexisted created entities; so therefor has nothing to do with their will.

Also, I'm a little baffled as to how you can question if evil exists? We no longer live in an uncorrupted world.

The Scripture also tells us to interpret it using itself; not ancient Hebrew culture. The passages in the New Testament give further definition to "darkness" in Genesis.

Anther poster had argued that it was not appropriate to use "step logic" when ancient Hebrew used "block logic". Only issue there is that by the time we get to the New Testament, with the influences of Greek culture; the writers of the New Testament are using "step logic". And if the Scripture is one cohesive whole; than to demand that one interpret this only through the lens of ancient Hebrew culture is erroneous.

We interpret the Scripture with the Scripture, not through what someone else thought of the Scripture.

Yep. Anyway, we still end up back to the will IMO, whether involving created beings such as angels, or others such as humans. Humans, for whatever reason, are given time to choose, to experience good and evil and then decide which they'll opt for. Anyway, this is a teaching I've come to appreciate:

396 God created man in his image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

I pretty much agree with your bold face type here. Humanity certainly has limits. I was pretty clear about spelling that out too.

The subject of "free will" as it applied to Jesus, than Adam and than the rest of us is another subject altogether.

The only human who ever lived who truly had "free will" was Jesus Christ. His will was not encumbered by a fallen nature or sin. Also having a Divine nature, He had a certain "advantage" over Adam, in that Jesus was of His Divine nature incorruptible. Adam on the other hand, so long as he obeyed, he was not corrupted. Yet there was nothing holding Adam to a portion of being incurruptable as Christ was. So in that sense, Adam's will only remained "free" as it pertained to what Adam was limited too. Adam did not have a Divine nature, which made the fall inevitable.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Very complicated. An easier view. God created all we know and called it good. Imagine how to know what is good without there being an evil or bad. Bad is simple. Disrespecting God. Denying God. Lying to God. Living without God. Loving without God. Evil is that which is without God.

You're correct; it is complicated, because it's a question that has traditionally speaking, not been adequately or easily answered. What you are saying about the rest of this, does not address that question.

 

[The Righterzpen]

They are not the same thing in Genesis 1:2. In that scripture darkness means a person cannot see what is there. But of course there is often a type behind the words.

Well, this is why we have the rest of the Scripture to explain to us what this means. It's not unto private interpretation. (I think the word means "X" and I'm sticking with my story.) This is why if we want understanding; not only do we pray for it, we also search for it. The Bereans were more noble than those in Thessaloniki because they searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so.

The root word may mean to make dark. I think it just means darkness as in I can't see what's there because it's dark. It seems to me that to make dark or to suppress Light, there first has to be Light and this is not the case in Genesis.

Actually if you look really closely at the phrase "Let there be light and the light was "letted"." is what the Hebrew actually indicates. If you "let" something happen. "Let the dog out" or "let the car through". The word "let" does not negate the existence of the dog or the car. That is the case here in Genesis. We know that's the case because light preexisted darkness because "light" comes forth as an attribute of God's character. And God being eternally existent; obviously light existed before darkness did.

In that scripture Light/dark is a dichotomy with the Light being the Christ. Therefore I take the darkness to mean being ignorant of God or not knowing Him, or being without understanding concerning God. Hence we read:

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

I think this dichotomy in John is relevant concerning evil in this sense: The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

Yet "men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil".

The leaders of Israel did not seek to kill Christ out of ignorance. They knew who He was. They knew He was the Messiah. We know this because of what Nicodemus says to Jesus. "We know you are of God because no man could do what you do if God was not with him."

The Romans on the other hand, not that they were ignorant of God from the moral perspective either. Jesus actually commands the Father to forgive the soldiers "for they know not who it is they do this to." Jesus is not declaring that the Romans don't understand who God is. Of course they know that much. They have the natural revelation of the creation.

The statement "for if the princes of this world had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"; actually has to do with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, not intellectual knowledge. We see this because there's some really interesting language in the accounts of the crucifixion that indicate that at the very least from an intellectual standpoint. The Roman's knew "something was up".

This legion that was "stationed" in Jerusalem, had been there at least 10 years. The Romans rotated legions, not individual soldiers, so when you joined the Roman army, you stayed in the same legion for your entire life. (And yes, when you joined the army, you basically joined for life.) Major perk of joining the army was that after 20 years of service, you got Roman citizenship. That was a BIG deal!

So these soldiers had been in Jerusalem for a least a couple of Passovers and they would have been (at the very least) marginally aware of Jesus's fame. The gospel accounts talk about soldiers coming to Jesus, so word of Him "got around" the army.

So the Romans (Pilate also would have been in the army.) had at the very least, peripheral awareness of what was going on.

You would have to figure out who was suppressing the Light if God is the one saying let there be Light.

The answer to that is obvious. If the only "entities" are God and darkness, God is not going to be suppressing His own intention. And the "framework" of the universe that existed at that point, had no conscience to transgress. A created thing has to have consciousness to disobey.

I don't even think we can say the "darkness" had consciousness. It is / was just sort of this nebulous destructive chaos. It'd be akin to what theory calls "dark matter" or "anti-matter". Those are real scientific theories.

I feel the need to rephrase what I am believing. I believe that angels and mankind in the beginning did not actually appreciate/comprehend/esteem God in a way that gives him a sincere worship for "Who" He is. Nor when in such ignorance do we understand how this ignorance affects "who" we are as pertains to our character. I do believe that it is unrighteous to suppress the Light/Truth, but we should remember always that the Truth being suppressed is “Who” God is as pertains to His Character.

What you are saying here in regards to appreciation or esteem; might be true, yet it would seem reasonable to conclude the manifesting of those ideas would have been part of the fall.

Yet, I'm not sure I would say so much about "comprehension". I suppose it would depend on how you'd define that? Both humanity and angels certainly had knowledge of God. Now did they "comprehend" Him in the totality of Who and What He was? As created beings they couldn't have; because of the inherit limitation of being created.

I believe that the ignorance is innocent in the beginning as a matter of circumstance. However it’s in this void where the serpent uses the power of suggestion to introduce a false image of god that is not God and is untrustworthy. In that sense if a person accepts this image as possible, a corrupt image of god would be suppressing the Truth and would be slanderous towards God. Hence in Romans 1 there’s no excuse for suppressing the Truth because as created beings the only attributes of godliness in the creature that could declare what is trustworthy or untrustworthy would come from the Creator. So it’s a contradiction of reasoning to believe that God is untrustworthy when it’s His attributes a person would be using to believe that god may be untrustworthy.

Well, keep in mind that the Scripture states Eve ate the fruit because she wanted to be wise like God was. This is why the Scripture says she was deceived. I don't believe with her, that it was she wanted to supplant God; she wanted His wisdom. Well, where do you get wisdom from? You get wisdom from asking God, not eating fruit. LOL Also if she'd asked Adam, the answer he should have given her would have been, you seek wisdom from God. The Scripture states that Adam ate the fruit out of rebellion, not out of deception.

As per "suppressing the truth"? Again, the suppression of truth commenced before there were created beings to willfully suppress it.

As far as "trusting" or not trusting God; that appears to be a component (the first step) to transgression. @Tone brought up the subject of doubt.

Doubt in and of itself is not sin; because it still provides the opportunity to seek clarification from God. Psalm 139 talks about Jesus having doubt. What did He doubt? Probably whether or not He was correctly perceiving the plan, as it was being revealed to Him through the course of His life. At least that seems to be the context of Psalm 139. Jesus apparently dreamt a lot about what His purpose was to be. The psalm talks about that too. So it would be fair to conclude that His questions, or doubts or misgivings that the psalm describes would be in relation to correctly perceiving the plan.

I'm doing a little study on Jonah now; which if Jonah has some bearing as a picture of Jesus, we see a great deal of shock in that story concerning God having mercy on the heathen. The context of the story seems to be that not only are you (Jesus) to contend with the sin of people from your own nation, but also the sin of people from every other nation. You are the Redeemer for all of those of the entire human race who become believers. If we go by context of Jonah's reaction to preaching to Nineveh; it's easy to conclude that the initial revelation of being the substitute for all these people likely absolutely overwhelmed Jesus emotionally; which we see depicted in Jonah's running from God.

Angels do have emotions. Most of the angels did not fall, but that does not mean they knew God anymore than the ones who fell. It more likely means they trusted God despite their ignorance. In regards to the fallen angels I therefore figure that they were probably open to Satan's subtle innuendos about God's Character partly because he probably disguised them as the grass looking greener on the far side of the hill, and also because they were impressed by Satan's beauty. Hence vanity appeared where the creature began to worship the creature rather than the Creator.

You'd have to provide Scripture to support the idea that angels have "emotion" in the same venue as humanity bears them.

Having "the breath of life" is what makes one a "living soul". All carbon based life has "the breath of life"; and by that, I'd conclude that plants and animals do have "souls"; they just are not in the same venue as exists in humans. The soul is also referred to in Scripture as "the heart" and we can conclude based on what happened to Jesus as part of the atonement; that the soul / heart is what houses emotions.

Now if angels don't have "the breath of life" because they are not carbon based; we could conclude they don't have souls and therefore, would not have "emotions" in the same context as humans. Satan is an entity that we see as exhibiting pride and anger; but outside of that, we see no other emotion. Satan apparently is incapable of sorrow, remorse, joy or love. He is "depraved totally".

What I mean by pride is being lifted up in comparison to others of lesser stature, as if God has not gifted each person and appointed their station according to His wisdom. What I mean by shame is being put down in comparison to others of greater stature, as if god has not gifted each person and appointed their station according to His wisdom.

Satan never displays humility so he was comparing himself to God and desired to be worshipped like God. So since Adam was made in the image of God, then to see Adam fall would be uplifting to him personally. If this is what you were alluding to in an earlier post then I failed to grasp that. I also believe you’re correct about Adam and Eve being bound together.

Again, I think this speaks more to the human condition than it speaks about angels. Does Satan compare himself to God and feeling inferior as "coming up short" or is it rather blatant open rebellion? I tend to gravitate toward the second.

Sure, in hindsight we can speculate what they should have done and we can form conjecture about what it was like to be them. That does not prove they could have done anything to prevent what happened in the moment. Why should we assume that they would fear a serpent or even comprehend a lie? I believe we should apply grace and humility here in our judgment rather than think we would have done better. If not is this not vanity? So I would not agree with this line of reasoning. In fact I believe that we all already have done the same thing as Adam and Eve in some manner in our lives with few exceptions.

I don't think it's so much a matter of judging Adam and Eve, when one has the realization and understanding that any human being put in the same predicament would have done the same thing.

And this is why I keep saying the fall was inevitable. Part of it was predicated upon the nature of humanity's limitatins and this is what makes our wills imperfect to begin with. There is no shame in pointing out that they should have consulted God for assistance. We all need to be reminded of that.

There definitely was a chain of command in the Old Testament. The story of the man who built a vineyard comes to mind. But you could be right about prayers going directly to God though I don’t know exactly how they reach Him. This makes me think about how God saw that there was no intercessor for mankind.

Omniscience pretty much covers the awareness of people's prayers. The concept of an intercessor we'd probably relate best to the idea of a criminal lawyer. The lawyer may plead to the judge for leniency once the criminal is declared guilty. Except Jesus isn't just "pleading the case"; He took on the punishment.

In that sense an intercessor does not "take prayers to God". He intercedes upon behalf of the person's guilt.

This is true under the Old Testament and according to the law which it appears that Satan was administering. I don't believe that Jesus felt that we deserved death even as he became our advocate after taking the power of death away from Satan. He was full of grace, big on mercy, understanding and forgiveness, and he did not condemn anyone. Unlike Satan who accused the brethren day and night before the Lord and who wouldn't set the prisoners free.

This is true under the New Testament too because "all judgement is given to the Son; because he is the son of man". We know by the rest of the Scriptures that all are not pardoned by the son but Jesus has the right to judge because He took on human flesh. He reserved to hold off on that judgement until after the resurrection when He received the Kingdom.

 

[martymonster]

Have you done a word study on the use of the word "evil" in the text? The word used is "רַע" which in context means "calamity". Which is fitting because God uses calamity as a means of His wrath. But His wrath is not evil. Rather, it is the instrument of His righteous judgement. This same hermeneutical principle is also applied to Amos.

In Hebrew, the passage is:
אִם־יִתָּקַע שֹׁופָר בְּעִיר וְעָם לֹא יֶחֱרָדוּ אִם־תִּהְיֶה רָעָה בְּעִיר וַיהוָה לֹא עָשָֽׂה׃
In bold is the same word found in Isaiah, "Ra'" which contextually means calamity.
There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

Yes yes, I’ve heard this explanation one hundred times before. The word means both evil and calamity, not either or, based on how you that it should be used. If God sends an army against Israel, it is an evil and a calamity, not one or the other.

 

[Tone]

I wonder if pulsars are a kind of "cosmic time keeper" or more "death star" indicators?

Scripture says our planetary sun and moon were put in to space to "rule the day" and "rule the night". So thus the "light pulse" from a pulsar could have some application of "time keeping"?

It's also surmised that light that we see from distant stars will always be what the universe looked like in the past. Which makes me wonder if what we are actually looking at is a record of the creation of the cosmos?

How many black holes are we aware of now? I know it's theorized "more than we can ever count" LOL. Yet at the point of the destruction of a star; does this represent "the edge of the universe" dimensionally speaking?

Could the "pulse" of a pulsar theoretical be "light" from the other side of the eternity of God's domaine seeping through the "black hole" in the edge of the created universe? Which is a message to us that God will eventually break the domain of the created world once the last day is upon us?

This whole OP is about the origin of the concept of evil. Which considering the end there of, being when God's glory breaks through the veil of the current created domain, thus destroying it (seeing how evil can not withstand God's power) so as to be recreated incorruptible?

Is the light emanating from these "black holes"; so we can now see the "warning shot" over the bow before the end overtakes us? "Signs in the heavens".

There's a subject for a whole other thread! LOL

This produces a very precise interval between pulses that ranges from milliseconds to seconds for an individual pulsar

It seems that, if this is connected to time itself, there is a difference between pulsars, so maybe this allowed for some relativity. In other words, there may have been a range of cosmic time that enabled...well...what we would call "time travel", i.e., an ability to hit "rewind" or "fast forward"...I know...way out, but what if the whole controversy has something to do with this "time keeping"?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes yes, I’ve heard this explanation one hundred times before. The word means both evil and calamity, not either or, based on how you that it should be used. If God sends an army against Israel, it is an evil and a calamity, not one or the other.

Is a parent disciplining their child "evil"? God's wrath is no different. Suggesting that God created evil removes one of the critical attributes that makes God "GOD". I dont know what else to say that you are wrong. But eh...if you want to worship an evil "god" that's your prerogative.

 

[martymonster]

Is a parent disciplining their child "evil"? God's wrath is no different. Suggesting that God created evil removes one of the critical attributes that makes God "GOD". I dont know what else to say that you are wrong. But eh...if you want to worship an evil "god" that's your prerogative.

Let me ask you something man, do you believe in an everlasting Hell?

 

[The Righterzpen]

It seems that, if this is connected to time itself, there is a difference between pulsars, so maybe this allowed for some relativity. In other words, there may have been a range of cosmic time that enabled...well...what we would call "time travel", i.e., an ability to hit "rewind" or "fast forward"...I know...way out, but what if the whole controversy has something to do with this "time keeping"?

Interesting question.

I don't know how pulsars would relate to time, although I agree with you that it makes some sense that they would.

Time is a linear concept that only goes in one direction. Because of entropy we can't "go backward" in time. Theoretically, if one were to fly an orbital round trip from earth to Pluto and back; it's hypothesized that they'd return "in the past" of earth because of the slowing of time the further one gets from the sun. Well theoretically it would be reasonable to conclude that if time slows the further away you move, it would speed up again the closer you return. So if you flew for 10 years, only "aged" 5 years but when you get back to earth 15 years have passed, time still goes forward for all involved; it just went slower for you in the aging process as an entity moving "back" through "time". Although time is still moving forward, it seems to do so at different speeds relative to point in the universe. (or at least that's the theory).

Now, throw God into this as a conceptualization of the atonement taking place both within and outside of time. We know that in God's domaine of existence there is no time. Jesus was "the lamb slain from the foundations of the world" Revelation 13:8 even though we know that slaying technically happened at a given time. The atonement was a "done deal" though before creation ever commenced - which is a concept a little hard to wrap our brains around.

I picture it this way. Everything God created exists in a sphere. All that exists in the sphere (laws that govern the universe, the concept of linear time, carbon based and non carbon based life) all exist in that sphere. God as an eternal entity though exists in all totality "around" (as well as His presence within) that sphere. Because of God's nature, He's able to "interject" Himself into the "created sphere" from any point to any point of linear time. This is why we see Jesus appearing in theophoric form in the Old Testament.

Interestingly though, as we surpass the ascension and Pentecost in "linear time"; we no longer see theophanies. The reason I think this is; is because once Jesus ascended into heaven in bodily form to "sit down at the right hand of God the Father", His material essence was transformed "from glory to glory". He now resides in "recreated new heavens and new earth form" (what ever that means / consists of - I don't know). So because His material essence is changed, He can not "reenter" the created realm without destroying it; because He's now "glorified". And this is why when He returns the material universe is recreated to "accommodate" His glorified presence - basically.

Now I know this "flies in the face" of Dispensationalism; (but I don't find that system of eschatology Scriptural anyway - so).

Now is there some sort of new heavens / new earth "place" that came into "use" once the ascension happened? (I.E. "the new Jerusalem") That seems to be the case.

Now did the "new Jerusalem" also come into existence as part of the initial creation? That's a good question, and I think it's plausible that it did. The reason I say that is because of things in the Old Testament such as "Enoch walked with God and was not.", God buried Moses, Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot.

It says in Scripture that Satan contended with God over the body of Moses. Why is that? Was Moses "resurrected unto glory" thus "living" in the new Jerusalem prior to the atonement having taken place in linear time? That would seem to be the implication. Same scenario would apply to Elijah.

Now note the Mt. of Transfiguration event. Who appears with Jesus? (Moses and Elijah) Could the fact that they were able to do so, have been because they were already bodily resurrected? Yet they still as created entities could "appear" within the created order and not destroy it because they themselves are created entities (although "objects of reflected glory"?) and not God? Interesting question as it applies to the new Jerusalem. I don't know the answer.

A lot of different theories can be extrapolated here.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Let me ask you something man, do you believe in an everlasting Hell?

Yes

 

[fhansen]

This does not address the issue that darkness preexisted created entities; so therefor has nothing to do with their will.

Of course it address that question. If darkness means "nothing" then the story is simply stating the obvious, that before God created, nothing existed-besides Him.

Also, I'm a little baffled as to how you can question if evil exists? We no longer live in an uncorrupted world.

I didn't question if evil exists; my point, going back to my previous posts, is that evil doesn't exist as some separate reality of its own, the way good exists, perhaps out of God's control even. God is either the God of all or He's not God. Evil is simply the absence of good, good being all that God is and all that God creates. He may allow evil, for His purposes, but does not directly will it. It can only be directly willed by created beings with free will.

The Scripture also tells us to interpret it using itself; not ancient Hebrew culture. The passages in the New Testament give further definition to "darkness" in Genesis.

Anther poster had argued that it was not appropriate to use "step logic" when ancient Hebrew used "block logic". Only issue there is that by the time we get to the New Testament, with the influences of Greek culture; the writers of the New Testament are using "step logic". And if the Scripture is one cohesive whole; than to demand that one interpret this only through the lens of ancient Hebrew culture is erroneous.

We interpret the Scripture with the Scripture, not through what someone else thought of the Scripture.

This is the first time I've heard that we shouldn't consider the author's intention in determining the meaning of his words. But, instead, consider our own speculations as superior. I actually applaud the speculations though, trying to push the envelope in understanding things better here, but there's a limit-at some point we may be just pushing our own opinion or agenda. Either way, Scripture is not "one cohesive whole". It's a mish-mash of very different writings, for very different reasons, by different people in different cultures even, gleaned from oral traditions or teachings in the case of the OT. God inspired it all in some manner but to think of it as readily understandable, as if taking into account the times and cultures and literary styles of those involved in its authorship are irrelevant is to risk playing havoc with the truth IMO.

I pretty much agree with your bold face type here. Humanity certainly has limits. I was pretty clear about spelling that out too.

The subject of "free will" as it applied to Jesus, than Adam and than the rest of us is another subject altogether.

The only human who ever lived who truly had "free will" was Jesus Christ. His will was not encumbered by a fallen nature or sin. Also having a Divine nature, He had a certain "advantage" over Adam, in that Jesus was of His Divine nature incorruptible. Adam on the other hand, so long as he obeyed, he was not corrupted. Yet there was nothing holding Adam to a portion of being incurruptable as Christ was. So in that sense, Adam's will only remained "free" as it pertained to what Adam was limited too. Adam did not have a Divine nature, which made the fall inevitable.

Fallen man is lost, wounded, cut off from his Creator. But he's not some irresponsible beast. He's limited-all created beings are-but still quite sound in mind, generally speaking, and therefore morally accountable. We know this intuitively even if we might sometimes prefer to escape the obligation that it places on us. Either way, that's just the way it is.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Of course it address that question. If darkness means "nothing" then the story is simply stating the obvious, that before God created, nothing existed-besides Him.

Except "darkness" does't mean "nothing". That Scriptures explain that to us. You are using your own thought as to what it means and not a Scriptural definition.

I didn't question if evil exists; my point, going back to my previous posts, is that evil doesn't exist as some separate reality of its own, the way good exists, perhaps out of God's control even. God is either the God of all or He's not God. Evil is simply the absence of good, good being all that God is and all that God creates. He may allow evil, for His purposes, but does not directly will it. It can only be directly willed by created beings with free will.

God would not be God if He was not omnipotent. Of course He has power over evil. Evil is a separate reality of its own. Scripture tells us that. Evil is not simply the "absence of good". Evil is a reality that exists in this world. And because it is a reality that exited before there was any created entity that had consciousness. Evil's influence is upon the will of the creature, not the other way around.

This is the first time I've heard that we shouldn't consider the author's intention in determining the meaning of his words. But, instead, consider our own speculations as superior. I actually applaud the speculations though, trying to push the envelope in understanding things better here, but there's a limit-at some point we may be just pushing our own opinion or agenda. Either way, Scripture is not "one cohesive whole". It's a mish-mash of very different writings, for very different reasons, by different people in different cultures even, gleaned from oral traditions or teachings in the case of the OT. God inspired it all in some manner but to think of it as readily understandable, as if taking into account the times and cultures and literary styles of those involved in its authorship are irrelevant is to risk playing havoc with the truth IMO.

I am not looking at my own "speculations" as superior. I am taking other passages in the Bible to determine what this passage means. That is "interpreting Scripture with Scripture". This is what we are told by God to do.

If you truly believe God wrote the Scripture, than it is one cohesive whole. Yes, it is penned within the historical contexts of the individuals who's hands God used to pen it; but God's purpose and intent of it supersedes all that.

Fallen man is lost, wounded, cut off from his Creator. But he's not some irresponsible beast. He's limited-all created beings are-but still quite sound in mind, generally speaking, and therefore morally accountable. We know this intuitively even if we might sometimes prefer to escape the obligation that it places on us. Either way, that's just the way it is.

I don't disagree with this.