GOD CREATED EVIL, Period!

[OzSpen]

Zeena,

Hrrm? Are you defending the use of 'flesh' rendered as 'sinful nature' in the NIV?

Because that's is not the meaning, nor the Spirit of the Author.

If it were many passages would read totally differently!

Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon (pp. 750-752) gives these meanings for sarx:
1. Lit. of the material that cove3rs the bones of the human animal body.
2. The body itself, viewed as substance.
3. A man of flesh and blood.
4. Human or mortal nature, earthly descent.
5. Corporeality, physical limitation(s), life here on earth.
6. The external or outward side of life.
7. In Paul's thought esp. the flesh is the willing instrument of sin, and is subject to sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the sarx.
8. The sarx is the source of the sexual urge, without any suggestion of sinfulness connected with it.

Therefore, sarx as sinful nature would harmonise with #7 given by Arndt & Gingrich.

 

[Zeena]

Only God can change his mind. Well, perhaps there is still a degree of free will remaining. After all, Adam was spared a direct cursing.

It is a relief to my soul to hear you say that, thank you very much for your consideration of me..

Yes, the freedom to chose remains with us this day, as it was in Adams. otherwise God would be lieing in saying we have the choice to chose.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

 

[Zeena]

Zeena,

Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon (pp. 750-752) gives these meanings for sarx:
1. Lit. of the material that cove3rs the bones of the human animal body.
2. The body itself, viewed as substance.
3. A man of flesh and blood.
4. Human or mortal nature, earthly descent.
5. Corporeality, physical limitation(s), life here on earth.
6. The external or outward side of life.
7. In Paul's thought esp. the flesh is the willing instrument of sin, and is subject to sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the sarx.
8. The sarx is the source of the sexual urge, without any suggestion of sinfulness connected with it.

Therefore, sarx as sinful nature would harmonise with #7 given by Arndt & Gingrich.

These are all definations based on mans understanding and possibly even preconceptions.

LET the Word speak for Himself!

Sarx is sarx is sarx.
And to change it around to have various meanings when it is one word is doing injustice to the language.

How is this not confounding knowledge for the unlearned?!?

Why should newborns be forced to study according to a Lexicon to find the real meaning behind the veil men place on the Word of God? The Word of God is simply stated, there is no reason to confound it.

 

[Zeena]

Jeremiah 17:10 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.

Ezekiel 18:30-32
Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

James 4:8-10
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

God is omniscient.

Yes, The Allmighty God is omniscient, all powerful. BUT, there are some things He will not do, such as sin.

I admit, God did not create evil.

Praise God, for He is Holy and Pure, Righteous and True!

No lie is with Him and with him evil finds no place.
FAR be it from God to do wickedly!

Job 34:10
Therefore hearken unto me ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.

However, He did take away free will.

You've since recanted, so I leave this as is.

Note that Adam and Eve were spared a direct cursing, but fell under the general curse of pain, sorrow, and death.

It's not Adam & Eve that was cursed, but the ground, as stated in the Scripture.

What Adam & Eve experienced after refusing to take the Lord at His Word were the effects, the consequences of their decision.

When you stub your toe; is it because you are cursed or is your pain due to a bad decision? Same difference.

Galatians 6:7-8
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

 

[Hismessenger]

I would ask a couple of questions for all to consider in this matter. First do you believe that the word of God is true and cannot be made void. And if you believe that then When His word says that Christ was ordained as savior from the foundations of the world, What do you think the outcome would have been If Adam and Eve did not fall according to Christ being ordained from the foundation of the world. Let me put it a way which is clear for all to understand. If Adam and Eve had not fallen and God has said that Christ is the savior of the world, what would that have done to the word of God.

hismessenger

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Hismessenger]

I believe that the Bible was written by people. That doesn't make it a less spiritual book;

So if you don't believe the bible you must not believe any of the historic record that man has wrote either. Even though the historic record confirms much of the biblical record as well. Two witnesses which say that the bible is true and all else speculation.

hismessenger

 

[OzSpen]

dark-in-the-whale,

The Old Testament is not at all historically verifiable. The stories, parables, and poetry of the OT teach in another way. The Rabbis used stories to teach. They still do: it's called Midrash.

Archaeologist, Alfred J. Hoerth, begs to differ and he has written an entire book to refute such a view, Archaeology & the Old Testament(Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998).

There are many ways to interpret the Bible that do not involve literal interpretations. They are just as valid, just as spiritual as the literalist verson.

If there are many ways to interpret the Bible, does that mean that I can choose my own way and in a postmodern way, deconstruct the text?

The problem with the Literalist version is that it reduces the meanings of the Bible, turns them into impossible inconsistencies, removes the imagination as a spiritual tool, and gives credence to some pretty vicious ideas especially concerning women. No decent person would treat a woman the way that Leviticus or Deuteronomy suggest.

It seems as though you don't like a literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the text because it removes your imagination as a spiritual tool for you to impose on the text whatever you want it to say with your allegorical or postmodern deconstructionist hermeneutics.

Both you and I agree that the way a woman was treated in the OT (Leviticus & Deuteronomy) is not the way we would treat a woman in the 21st century. However, that is not a cause to throw out a literal, historical, grammatical, cultural interpretation and make it mean what I want it to say in my allegorical interpretation.

 

[Breckmin]

Yes, God did not create evil. I never said that He created evil in my post http://www.christianforums.com/t7328646-33/#post53837235 I said free will was a delusion and that God creates peace and calamity and disaster.

That is the whole problem.

We have a double meaning with the word "evil" and this double meaning
needs to be identified.

God DOES sunergei with the choices of men and the natural forces of nature
to bring forth calamity and circumstances of so called "evil" and this
is scriptural in the book of Isaiah.

But God does NOT create sin and disobedience. These come as the
result of volition (choices).

 

[OzSpen]

dark-in-the-whale,

Well, does this Archeologist have evidence that a rib was removed from Adam to make Eve? That the snake spoke? That a angel drove them out of the garden?
That the world's geological evolution was in sync with Biblical time? That the sea parted to let Moses through? That a burning bush spoke to him? These kind of things are no verifiable. Jonah swallowed by a whale and then spit out? Satan comes down to test Job? This is myth.

For you to ask questions like that, you don't have a clue about the scientific discipline of archaeology.

Your labelling it as myth is a statement about your view of the supernatural. So are you a naturalist who doesn't believe in the supernatural?

Have you read the book yourself?

I most certainly have. I have a personalal copy of the book by archaeologist, Alfred J. Hoerth, Archaeology & the Old Testament(Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998).

God wouldn't have given us an imagination unless he wanted us to use it. An imaginative reading of the Bible is not a fanciful reading of the Bible. An imaginative reading is a reading with vision, with a sensitivity to the many layers of meaning, to the meanings to be found in myth, parable, poetry and narrative. Think about it.

An imaginative reading of the Bible is a fanciful (as opposed to factual), mythical imposition on the text. It makes you say what you want it to say. Your presupposition is that the Scriptures contain or are myth.

You make this assertion but you have not demonstrated to us that the Scriptures are myth. Please tell us what criteria you use to determine that the Scriptures are myth.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Hismessenger]

Red Sea Crossing

Here is a sight for historical verification of the red sea crossing

hismessenger

 

[OzSpen]

dark-in-the-whale,

Show me some evidence that the waters parted for Moses. Or that Christ turned water into wine.

You obtain that through examining the historically reliable evidence of the OT & NT. See:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1
Can you trust the Bible? Part 2
Can you trust the Bible? Part 3
Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

See also,
Evidences for the historicity of the Bible
Books that defend the historicity of the Bible

"According to New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg,

“…97-99% of the New Testament can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt, and no
Christian doctrine is founded solely or even primarily on textually disputed passages.” (Craig Blomberg and William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 194.}

You say:

Myth is not a bad word, or one that invalidates spirituality; it is merely another function of cultural memory.

What I can't seem to get across is that I am a very spiritual person who happens not to be a Biblical literalist. I don't think it's necessary to be a literalist in order to draw spiritual sustenance form
the Bible.

You still haven't responded to what I asked of you. Please define the criteria you use to determine that any document is a myth.

Interpreting the Scriptures as literal, historical, grammatical & cultural does not tear the fork out of being a spiritual person. However, reading the Bible as it was intended by the author (without imposing an allegorical, mythical or deconstructionist meaning on it) is primary in understanding any non-fictional document.

Does your archeologist claim to have evidence that Christ turned water into wine? I don't think so. Even if he had the actual jug, he couldn't do that.

A course in Archaeology 101 might help you to understand what can and cannot be discovered through archaeology.

 

[OzSpen]

dark-in-the-whale,

Show me some evidence that the waters parted for Moses. Or that Christ turned water into wine.

You obtain that through examining the historically reliable evidence of the OT & NT. See:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1
Can you trust the Bible? Part 2
Can you trust the Bible? Part 3
Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

See also,
Evidences for the historicity of the Bible
Books that defend the historicity of the Bible

"According to New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg,

“…97-99% of the New Testament can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt, and no
Christian doctrine is founded solely or even primarily on textually disputed passages.” (Craig Blomberg and William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 194.}

You say:

Myth is not a bad word, or one that invalidates spirituality; it is merely another function of cultural memory.

What I can't seem to get across is that I am a very spiritual person who happens not to be a Biblical literalist. I don't think it's necessary to be a literalist in order to draw spiritual sustenance form
the Bible.

You still haven't responded to what I asked of you. Please define the criteria you use to determine that any document is a myth.

Interpreting the Scriptures as literal, historical, grammatical & cultural does not tear the fork out of being a spiritual person. However, reading the Bible as it was intended by the author (without imposing an allegorical, mythical or deconstructionist meaning on it) is primary in understanding any non-fictional document.

Does your archeologist claim to have evidence that Christ turned water into wine? I don't think so. Even if he had the actual jug, he couldn't do that.

A course in Archaeology 101 might help you to understand what can and cannot be discovered through archaeology.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Red Sea Crossing

Here is a sight for historical verification of the red sea crossing

hismessenger

Not entirely sure how a discussion of the problem of evil turned to historical verification of the Red Sea crossing, but that page is full of nonsense. Try Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt for a better source.

Incidentally, this entire argument about "evidence" misses the point. It is one thing to say "we can't historically verify this event." That doesn't mean the event happened or didn't happen, it simply means we aren't able to empirically examine the matter, at least at this time. Because a Christian epistomology rejects that only empirical naturalism may be used to know truth, this does not present a problem. It is entierly different, however, to say that absence of evidence means the event didn't happen. In history, especially archaeology, to use an argument from silence is to invite intellectul disaster.

 

[dark-in-the-whale]

Not entirely sure how a discussion of the problem of evil turned to historical verification of the Red Sea crossing, but that page is full of nonsense. Try Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt for a better source.

Incidentally, this entire argument about "evidence" misses the point. It is one thing to say "we can't historically verify this event." That doesn't mean the event happened or didn't happen, it simply means we aren't able to empirically examine the matter, at least at this time. Because a Christian epistomology rejects that only empirical naturalism may be used to know truth, this does not present a problem. It is entierly different, however, to say that absence of evidence means the event didn't happen. In history, especially archaeology, to use an argument from silence is to invite intellectul disaster.

I believe the issue was non-literal vs. literal readings of the Bible in which the question came up about what could be historically verified and what could not. My argument is that much of the Bible was not ever intended to be read literally, and there is considerable scholarship to this effect. Much of the Bible is myth, story, parable, poetry etc., was never intended as historical record. I'm familiar with what IS verifiable in the Bible and have no argument with that.

See Rev. Klyne Snodgrass "Stories With Intent, A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus." See Martin Buber's study of the Bible. That much of the Bible is not literal does not make it less holy, less spiritual. In fact, a literalist interpretation of the Bible reduces its multi-leveled message. It also puts the reader in the position of agreeing to some really awful things, like Leviticus and Deuteronomy's recommendations about the treatment of women. There may be some people crazy enough to want to stone women for adultery, but I would like to think that most Christians, even literalists, would not approve. So, this is not a wandering argument: it is a suggestion that the idea of whether or not God created evil is a dead idea. The book of Genesis is a myth.

 

[Hismessenger]

Thanks for clarifying the red sea thing but it all comes back to this. The word says that ALL things were created by Him for Him and in Him. Tell me what all doesn't cover according to our understanding. All means everything in my definition. Who can say otherwise and show it with the word. If it is in this creation, it had a purpose for which He created it akin from our understanding of why.

hismessenger

 

[bricklayer]

God is either absolutely sovereign or absolutely not.
Were chance to exist, God would be subject to it,
He would therefore not be sovereign.

Nothing happens by chance. There is no chance.
Everything happens by God, and everything means everything.

 

[Zeena]

Thanks for clarifying the red sea thing but it all comes back to this. The word says that ALL things were created by Him for Him and in Him. Tell me what all doesn't cover according to our understanding. All means everything in my definition. Who can say otherwise and show it with the word. If it is in this creation, it had a purpose for which He created it akin from our understanding of why.

hismessenger

There is absolutly NOTHING that God did not create.
Thing is, AFTER men are created, they go astray, from their youth


Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

I know "I" sinned and was and are (and will be) in need of my Saviour..

How about you?