*** 11th fact *** about GOD - revealed by the LAST End Time Prophet Matt Marriott

[Baggins]

/

 

[Baggins]

/

 

[juvenissun]

Ahhh, redefining the language is so much fun.

I can't wait to hear what your definition of 'is' is.

Anything can, and should be defined.

IS means the situation when time stopped.

Don't just ask, respond. Otherwise, I am teaching, which I don't mind to do at all, but a little boring.

 

[MaxP]

In that case god must be a liar becuase he says he did in the Bible.

I am confused now.

Where?

 

[Chalnoth]

Isaiah 45:7

 

[Hespera]

Anything can, and should be defined.

IS means the situation when time stopped.

Don't just ask, respond. Otherwise, I am teaching, which I don't mind to do at all, but a little boring.

Pity the poor children that you teach.

That error riddled paragraph you wrote about how you used so much red correcting student's (sic) papers was hilarious.

Too bad Clinton didnt use your definition for what the meaning of the word "is" is.


Q: Is there a sexual relationship between you and ms lewinski?

A The situation when time stopped is that she had uh my um, let's see how will i phrase this exactly, i mean it IS not there now but...



By the way this is very big news that time stopped. Was this just in your locality, and did it stop during the neolitihic or what?

 

[MaxP]

Isaiah 45:7

You're reading the KJV.
A more accurate translation reads:
I form the light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.

The word that is translated as “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.”
Other versions do not use the word evil.

 

[JBJoe]

Anything can, and should be defined.

IS means the situation when time stopped.

Don't just ask, respond. Otherwise, I am teaching, which I don't mind to do at all, but a little boring.

Ah, Juvenissun... how much you have to learn. What's wrong with this definition? Well for one you don't even mention it is a form of the irregular verb "to be." A singular definition like you gave simply doesn't work; you don't even seem to realize that in many languages there is more than one verb for "to be" because it means more than one thing. For example in Spanish there are two different verbs depending on whether you are referring to essence ("he is tall") or condition ("he is sad").

So that leads us back to your repeated request:

So, one more time, use your own words, what is evil?
We have to know what it is, so we can say if God creates it or not.

Which is exactly what you should NOT do. Because then you are imposing your own opinion on that of professional linguists and translators who have studied the lexicon of both languages. What you need is not your own definition, but the formal definition in both languages that the professionals would have used. So what does websters have to say about "evil"?

1 a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b: a cosmic evil force
2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

And what did Strong's give?

Well, consulting Strong's, the noun ra` (rah), translated as "evil" in Isaiah 45:7, is defined as: "evil; distress, misery, injury, calamity,"

So, in fact, the translation as performed by professionals is exactly correct. And when you said:

In that case, I have no problem with the Bible verse. God does create distress, misery, injury, and calamity.

You were simply contradicting yourself. Or put another way: you were ignorant. Which, by the way, does not mean:

one is too lazy to get enough information so he can start to think

But rather one who simply is unaware or uneducated of the facts.

You backed yourself into a corner and made a tirade over an ignorant position. Isaiah 45:7 is translated correctly.

 

[Chalnoth]

You're reading the KJV.
A more accurate translation reads:
I form the light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.

The word that is translated as “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.”
Other versions do not use the word evil.

And your point is?

 

[JBJoe]

You're reading the KJV.
A more accurate translation reads:
I form the light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.

The word that is translated as “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.”
Other versions do not use the word evil.

So why was Strong's translation of ra' incorrect?

Other versions both do and do not use the word "evil." Young's Literal Translation does.

 

[MaxP]

So why was Strong's translation of ra' incorrect?

Other versions both do and do not use the word "evil." Young's Literal Translation does.

The actual Hebrew word does not mean "evil."

 

[Washington]

You're reading the KJV.
A more accurate translation reads:
I form the light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.

The word that is translated as “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.”
Other versions do not use the word evil.

Yeah sure.

What I find amusing is how the various versions of the Bible have tried to distance their interpertation of god's remark from the notion of evil.

(New International Version)
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

New American Standard Bible)
The One (A)forming light and (B)creating darkness,
Causing well-being and (C)creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

(The Message)
I form light and create darkness,
I make harmonies and create discords.
I, God, do all these things.

(Amplified Bible)
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity);

(New Living Translation)
I create the light and make the darkness.
I send good times and bad times.
I, the Lord, am the one who does these things

(English Standard Version)
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and(A) create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.

(Contemporary English Version)
I create light and darkness,
happiness and sorrow.
I, the LORD, do all of this.

(New King James Version)
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

(New Century Version)
I made the light and the darkness.
I bring peace, and I cause troubles.
I, the Lord, do all these things.

(Holman Christian Standard Bible)
I form light and create darkness, (A)
I make success and create disaster; (B)
I, the LORD, do all these things.

(New International Reader's Version)
I cause light to shine. I also create darkness.
I bring good times. I also create hard times.
I do all of those things. I am the Lord.

(Today's New International Version)
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
​

So, here we have ra,' not interperted with its primary meaning, "evil," but as a less onerous and more PC friendly

"disaster"
"hard times"
"troubles"
"calamity"
"sorrow"
"bad times"
"discords"
​

All of which indicates there's a whole lot of disagreement as how best to replace the onerous "evil" with a less damning and embarassing term, which kind of puts a spear of doubt through the heart of the Christian claim of Biblical reliability. "Gee, did god create diaster or just sorrow?" "Maybe it was simply hard times."

Yet there are those versions that aren't afraid to call a spade a spade.

(King James Version)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(21st Century King James Version)
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the LORD, do all these things

(American Standard Version)
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

(Young's Literal Translation)
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'

(Darby Translation)
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things

​

Take your pick people. After all that's why there's a gazillion Christian denominations: It's a do-it-yourself religion.

 

[JBJoe]

The actual Hebrew word does not mean "evil."

So what is the correct translation of Genesis 2:9?

And be careful because the actual Hebrew word ra' appears to have been translated as "evil" in pretty much every English translation of the bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah, Juvenissun... how much you have to learn. What's wrong with this definition? Well for one you don't even mention it is a form of the irregular verb "to be." A singular definition like you gave simply doesn't work; you don't even seem to realize that in many languages there is more than one verb for "to be" because it means more than one thing. For example in Spanish there are two different verbs depending on whether you are referring to essence ("he is tall") or condition ("he is sad").

So that leads us back to your repeated request:

Which is exactly what you should NOT do. Because then you are imposing your own opinion on that of professional linguists and translators who have studied the lexicon of both languages. What you need is not your own definition, but the formal definition in both languages that the professionals would have used. So what does websters have to say about "evil"?



And what did Strong's give?



So, in fact, the translation as performed by professionals is exactly correct. And when you said:



You were simply contradicting yourself. Or put another way: you were ignorant. Which, by the way, does not mean:



But rather one who simply is unaware or uneducated of the facts.

You backed yourself into a corner and made a tirade over an ignorant position. Isaiah 45:7 is translated correctly.

So please tell me one more time, what is "evil". I assume you should not say that "evil" is evil. Is that a fair restriction?

 

[juvenissun]

So what is the correct translation of Genesis 2:9?

And be careful because the actual Hebrew word ra' appears to have been translated as "evil" in pretty much every English translation of the bible.

It is good for you to mention Gen 2:9, because it is the key, and is also the answer.

Gen 2:9 is, in fact, the answer to the meaning of evil, because there is a contrast called good. No matter how do you define the good, the evil is the exact opposite. We do not know what evil is, unless we know what good is. The definition of evil is based on the definition of good.

So, God creates evil, is equal to that God creates good. God does not have to create evil on a separate account. God creates good, then WE created evil.

 

[JBJoe]

So please tell me one more time, what is "evil".

It's in the very post you replied to.

 

[Hespera]

It is good for you to mention Gen 2:9, because it is the key, and is also the answer.

Gen 2:9 is, in fact, the answer to the meaning of evil, because there is a contrast called good. No matter how do you define the good, the evil is the exact opposite. We do not know what evil is, unless we know what good is. The definition of evil is based on the definition of good.

So, God creates evil, is equal to that God creates good. God does not have to create evil on a separate account. God creates good, then WE created evil.

Well there you have it folks. The bible says god created evil, but JUV says, no, "we" created evil.

so sayeth the Prophet of Definitions. All hail.

 

[JBJoe]

It is good for you to mention Gen 2:9, because it is the key, and is also the answer.

Gen 2:9 is, in fact, the answer to the meaning of evil, because there is a contrast called good. No matter how do you define the good, the evil is the exact opposite. We do not know what evil is, unless we know what good is. The definition of evil is based on the definition of good.

So, God creates evil, is equal to that God creates good. God does not have to create evil on a separate account. God creates good, then WE created evil.

Putting aside the tremendous logical errors in there... Was the translation in Isaiah 45:7 correct or not? If not, why is the translation in Genesis 2:9 correct?

 

[MaxP]

So what is the correct translation of Genesis 2:9?

And be careful because the actual Hebrew word ra' appears to have been translated as "evil" in pretty much every English translation of the bible.

In that context, yes. In the context of Isaiah, it is meaning physical calamity.

 

[MaxP]

Yeah sure.

What I find amusing is how the various versions of the Bible have tried to distance their interpertation of god's remark from the notion of evil.So, here we have ra,' not interperted with its primary meaning, "evil," but as a less onerous and more PC friendly

"disaster"
"hard times"
"troubles"
"calamity"
"sorrow"
"bad times"
"discords"
​

All of which indicates there's a whole lot of disagreement as how best to replace the onerous "evil" with a less damning and embarassing term, which kind of puts a spear of doubt through the heart of the Christian claim of Biblical reliability. "Gee, did god create diaster or just sorrow?" "Maybe it was simply hard times." Take your pick people. After all that's why there's a gazillion Christian denominations: It's a do-it-yourself religion.

The actual definition of ra -

ra'a

; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral) -- 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. (Incl. Feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).

It means evil, but as in a physical evil, in the context of the Isaiah.