Just scan for Bible book names, then. It can't be that much of a strain
By the way, you AGAIN failed to respond to my biblical citations, in this case Gen. 6. You ignored it and instead decided to investigate Proverbs 16 and 1 Sam. 15. Again, you unwittingly supported one of my contentions in the previous post, namely, that within the Bible BOTH the idea that God controls evil activity AND the responsibility of man (or other powers distinct from God) for evil activity.
I don't believe I ever said anything even close to that. Perhaps I got this thread confused with the other one in hamartiology we both posted on recently. We are talking about the origins of evil here, yes?
You don't have to restate your position. You just have to prove that the Bible everywhere agrees with you. Since I have already recognized that certain texts teach this theology, citing texts that do so does not in any way minimize my criticism of your own position, namely, that it does not take into account the OTHER side of the issue as it is represented in our sacred literature.
These aren't in the same chapter. They aren't even in the same book, or written by the same person, or in the same century. So why try to harmonize the two? Why not admit that Proverbs 16 teaches one thing (which, by the way, is merely proverbial wisdom, and not intended to provide an statement of absolute truth), while 1 Sam. has a different view on the matter?
1 Sam. certainly does not take one side or the other, but in fact uses the spiritual dethronement of King Saul as a classic event that poses the question, Is God in control or did God make a mistake? 15:29 is the key text in your favor (which you strangely omitted from your argument!). Samuel says,
And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.
Clearly the two are in tension with each other. However, since the second is spoken by a character (even a prophet!) and the first is simply recorded by the narrator, interpretation would normally grant precedence to the first, NOT the second. Every character, even a prophet, is only granted "limited knowledge," while the biblical narrator typically assumes the position of omniscience, and certainly does so here. Unless you can come up with a complex literary argument in favor of reversing the regular priorities in this pericope, I'm afraid that, yet again, you have unwittingly made my argument for me.
Again, this constitutes ONE view of the MANY that may be extrapolated from the great mass that is our sacred literature.
This spiritual elitism does nothing to strengthen your case. You are merely tossing out random "esoterism" verses to deny my right to argue intellectually and logically. If you cannot demonstrate from the Bible that, according to the Bible, evil does not exist in its own right, or counter my many arguments and citations to the contrary, you should not enter in debate at all, but rather merely consider yourself a prophetic voice which does not have to deal with the rigors of literary interpretation and theological exposition. Instead you have chosen to mislead me into believing that you were debating.
If I could make one recommendation -- In the future, do not debate about issues that for you are not debatable. I know that for you it is not debatable because, in the end, you were forced to play the "I am spiritually enlightened and you are not" card, which apparently trumps all logic and even common sense. I don't care whether for you it is debatable or not debatable -- that is your religious right -- but it is irresponsible to argue about something when you're not able to change your mind about it. Rather, debate about those issues which are light enough for you that you can discuss them candidly and critically. Please think about it.
This are my final thoughts on the matter. Feel free to post your reply and take the last word, if you are so inclined.