Did God create evil?

[Sophrosyne]

https://carm.org/does-god-create-evil

 

[ewq1938]

If one creates an apple from nothing, then they are the origin of that apple, it doesn't matter if apples already existed or not just the same for evil.

The difference matters immensely.

 

[ewq1938]

https://carm.org/does-god-create-evil

And it is noteworthy that Carm doesn't apparently know the word Ra has a masculine and feminine form, each having it's own meaning.

 

[ewq1938]

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.]


The underlined is the meaning of the masculine. The red bolded is the feminine meaning.

 

[Sophrosyne]

And it is noteworthy that Carm doesn't apparently know the word Ra has a masculine and feminine form, each having it's own meaning.

It is noteworthy to mention that the NKJV translation doesn't use evil. I'm not going to believe you over a translator of modern Bible versions, I am more inclined to believe that it is another error in the KJV that was corrected in the NKJV version.

 

[ewq1938]

It is noteworthy to mention that the NKJV translation doesn't use evil.

Then it is ignoring Hebrew Grammar. Many new translations intentionally change things.

I'm not going to believe you over a translator of modern Bible versions, I am more inclined to believe that it is another error in the KJV that was corrected in the NKJV version.

****It's a fact about the masculine and feminine forms and what they mean. If you don't want to verify it and aren't accepting what the Strongs concordance says and believe whatever you want to, then go ahead. I always choose the truth instead. Ra is in the masculine form in the manuscripts and can only means evil, not something lesser.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not sure what you mean. What I am saying is I don't believe God introduced evil to the world, not the first creator of it but scripture does state that he creates evil. That might seem contradictory to our minds yet it's there in black and white and the entire "calamity" theory isn't valid since the word is in the masculine form in that verse.

Am not talking about, and could not because I know very little about ancient Hebrew grammar. Am saying one cannot say God is Good and at same time suggest He creates/causes/makes/sets in motion the opposite of what He is. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. So no matter what "grammer" supposedly "tells us", am saying whatever else one believes about God - if God is believed to Good it is not possible to suggest He creates the opposite of what He is, which is evil. The verse in question properly allows that God could/has/and might in the future allows existing natural evils, themselves are result of sin; like earthquakes, asteroid impacts, pestulance, famine, drought, disease ...etc. to punish the wicked. That does not mean He created those "evils" and it could not be understood as Him creating evil without compromising the thought that God is Good. Even the pagan Plato recognized as much when talking about a benevolent deity.

 

[ewq1938]

Am not talking about, and could not because I know very little about ancient Hebrew grammar. Am saying one cannot say God is Good and at same time suggest He creates/causes/makes/sets in motion the opposite of what He is. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

Well your idea about God simply isn't true. A good God can create evil. Listen to Job:

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Since Job did not sin (or lie) when saying we receive evil as well as good from God, it is a true statement.


So no matter what "grammer" supposedly "tells us", am saying whatever else one believes about God - if God is believed to Good it is not possible to suggest He creates the opposite of what He is, which is evil.

***yet God said he creates evil. He used the masculine form of Ra which means evil and does not mean lesser like calamity. We have to bend to what scripture says not disagree with it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not sure what you mean. What I am saying is I don't believe God introduced evil to the world, not the first creator of it but scripture does state that he creates evil. That might seem contradictory to our minds yet it's there in black and white and the entire "calamity" theory isn't valid since the word is in the masculine form in that verse.

The "calamity" theory has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with being able to say God is Good.

An act of God comes from the Will of God moving Him by a process in His Mind. God is Good and therefore His Will can be directed at NOTHING but Good, which is to say Himself. In order to have God creating evil, we would have to be able to say His Will shifts from its singular focus on ONLY Himself (Good) and switches to the opposite of Good, as that would be the ONLY way that His Will could then move a Him to act/ create that which is opposed to Himself(evil is opposed to Good). And yes, that should make no sense, which is why I keep saying that verse cannot mean what is being said it means. Which BTW is not really me saying that but thousands of years of people way smarter than me saying so (including the pagan Plato who apparently did not even believe in our God) and whose expression I apparently poorly attempt to mimic.

 

[ewq1938]

The "calamity" theory has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with being able to say God is Good.

The important thing is God said he creates evil. He didn't say calamity in that verse.


And yes, that should make no sense, which is why I keep saying that verse cannot mean what is being said it means. Which BTW is not really me saying that but thousands of years of people way smarter than me saying so (including the pagan Plato who apparently did not even believe in our God) and whose expression I apparently poorly attempt to mimic.

***** What Plato and anyone thinks is irrelevant. Only what God said in the Hebrew matters.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The important thing is God said he creates evil. He didn't say calamity in that verse.


And yes, that should make no sense, which is why I keep saying that verse cannot mean what is being said it means. Which BTW is not really me saying that but thousands of years of people way smarter than me saying so (including the pagan Plato who apparently did not even believe in our God) and whose expression I apparently poorly attempt to mimic.

***** What Plato and anyone thinks is irrelevant. Only what God said in the Hebrew matters.

If what Plato stated, by his God given (and he was given a lot) capability to reason, demonstrated why a deity would need be benevolent, then I think that reasoning and how Plato arrived at it is indeed very relevant to this discussion. As he reasoned and if stated correctly how I attempted to summarize, the will is what moves a rational being to act towards an end. If we maintain that God is Good, then His Will can ONLY act towards the Good - which precludes Him being able to act towards the opposite of Good (evil). So no matter what or how one renders the verse in question, if God is indeed Good it cannot be true that verse could be understood as God's Will moves Him to act/do/create evil.

So am not sure it matters whether one sees the word as meaning evil or agrees with a better rendering of calamity. What matters is that neither rendering can be said to be understood as indicating God's Will is able to move Him to do evil. That we all, and especially the wicked deserve punishment no one can deny. Neither could we rightly accuse God for administering Justly in any way He please including allowing (not creating evil) for "natural evils" to inflict suffering on the wicked, which is the real message of the verse and also why calamity makes a more proper rendering.

 

[ewq1938]

So am not sure it matters whether one sees the word as meaning evil or agrees with a better rendering of calamity.

That is an incorrect rendering of the word in that verse. It shows a lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language. It's like trying to tell us hot really means cold because you prefer it better that way.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is an incorrect rendering of the word in that verse. It shows a lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language. It's like trying to tell us hot really means cold because you prefer it better that way.

As I said and again, make it "evils" for all I care. Fine. It says God creates evils. Awesome! And if that really makes better sense in Hebrew or whatever language - great. Just understand it cannot be telling us that a Will focused ONLY on Good can move(to action) away from Good (and towards evil). Even the pagan knows that makes absolutely no sense at all (not certain but I believe Plato posited something like that any concept of a benevolent deity must have that deity absolutely be so (All Good).

So let it be rendered "evils" - that is OK and perfectly acceptable and not opposed to logic. It is the illogical leap that comes after making that determination which all our God given rational minds should object to. So let it be read "God creates evil" just don't complete the rest of the completely irrational thought attempted here by those who then take the leap from that rendering to insist that it requires such goofy thoughts about what God's Will can move Him to do.

 

[ewq1938]

As I said and again, make it "evils" for all I care. Fine. It says God creates evils. Awesome!

It's not written in the plural.


And if that really makes better sense in Hebrew or whatever language - great. Just understand it cannot be telling us that a Will focused ONLY on Good can move(to action) away from Good (and towards evil). Even the pagan knows that makes absolutely no sense at all.


****listening to pagans is a sound thing to you?


So let it be rendered "evils" - that is OK and perfectly acceptable and not opposed to logic.

*** this is what the verse says in the Hebrew:

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

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It's not written in the plural.


And if that really makes better sense in Hebrew or whatever language - great. Just understand it cannot be telling us that a Will focused ONLY on Good can move(to action) away from Good (and towards evil). Even the pagan knows that makes absolutely no sense at all.


****listening to pagans is a sound thing to you?


So let it be rendered "evils" - that is OK and perfectly acceptable and not opposed to logic.

*** this is what the verse says in the Hebrew:

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

Oh, excuse me, not being plural changes everything and somehow it suddenly becomes clear that a Will solely focused on Good can move God to create evil. Not.

When the pagan made a lot of sense, like suggesting a Good God cannot be a little evil, yeah I think that concept is very sound whether a Christian, pagan, agnostic or atheist expresses it.

What is absolutely UNSOUND is a anyone suggesting God is Absolutely Good but can create evil if He feels like it.

BTW if one is going to insist that God can create a evil (singular), then the verse in context would be expressing the equally absurd thought that He justly creates all such evils (plural) to punish the wicked implied. So the distinction singular/plural is kind of moot.

 

[ewq1938]

Oh, excuse me, not being plural changes everything

Stop being dramatic. It's a fact that it's not plural.

When the pagan made a lot of sense, like suggesting a Good God cannot be a little evil, yeah I think that concept is very sound whether a Christian, pagan, agnostic or atheist expresses it.


***good luck with that.



What is absolutely UNSOUND is a anyone suggesting God is Absolutely Good but can create evil if He feels like it.


*** I don't suggest anything. God himself said he creates evil. If you don't like it just continue to listen to pagans about God instead of what God says.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Stop being dramatic. It's a fact that it's not plural.

When the pagan made a lot of sense, like suggesting a Good God cannot be a little evil, yeah I think that concept is very sound whether a Christian, pagan, agnostic or atheist expresses it.


***good luck with that.



What is absolutely UNSOUND is a anyone suggesting God is Absolutely Good but can create evil if He feels like it.


*** I don't suggest anything. God himself said he creates evil. If you don't like it just continue to listen to pagans about God instead of what God says.

Well if I was given a choice, I would indeed rather listen to someone who believes God is Good over someone insisting He cannot be All Good.

So someone claiming those opposed to saying God is not All Good are not even Christians while wishing them luck is "listening to God"??? I see. Apparently this "God" we don't believe in lacks Charity as well as Goodness. At least it is correctly surmised that we do not believe in such a god.

 

[ewq1938]

Well if I was given a choice, I would indeed rather listen to someone who believes God is Good over someone insisting He cannot be All Good.

He is all good but he also says he creates evil. There is no conflict there.

 

[2KnowHim]

f one creates an apple from nothing, then they are the origin of that apple, it doesn't matter if apples already existed or not just the same for evil.

If that theory is true, then since God created the devil, He would be the origin of that devil, no matter if he existed before as an angel.

 

[Sophrosyne]

If that theory is true, then since God created the devil, He would be the origin of that devil, no matter if he existed before as an angel.

And if you had a child that become a mass murderer you would also be guilty of the evil that child does.... No, I don't buy that logic for a minute. While it is possible that God knew that the devil would exist prior to creating an angel he also knew everyone throughout mankind that would love him and want to be with him and decided that regardless of the flaws in all of creation that would happen it was his will to continue on with it all. God knew evil would exist, as he knew that allowing the possibility of it by choice sooner or later it would occur.