Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct.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.
I also do not attribute sin to plants or animals -- I've never stated this.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."
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 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.
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.Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
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.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!
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.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.
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: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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.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".
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
You would have to figure out who was suppressing the Light if God is the one saying let there be Light.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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"?
YesLet me ask you something man, do you believe in an everlasting Hell?
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.This does not address the issue that darkness preexisted created entities; so therefor has nothing to do with their will.
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.Also, I'm a little baffled as to how you can question if evil exists? We no longer live in an uncorrupted world.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?