Theory on the origin of evil

[martymonster]

God created evil, just like he has stated. There is nothing that exists, which God did not create.

 

[-Sasha-]

I think of evil as a "thing we can do", rather than a "thing which exists". An action created from our reasonings, not an object tangibly acquired. I think this is what people mean when they say "evil doesn't exist".

"Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

An example... A man can take things which exist, a hammer with nails and wood, and form them into a house which also now exists after the actions. Even so, "carpentry" doesn't exist in the way which the tools or materials or the house does. It is an intentional action, set into motion via internal reasonings in regards to utilizing objects, assigning purposes to those objects, and ordering them in a particular manner. The same can be said about evil. We look upon existing real objects, and use our reason to decide how to utilize them, but in this case the use is against God's will. The evil is "created" within our own selves, not obtained from a external source. Once we have created this evil reasoning in our own heart/mind, we often perform actions on tangible objects/people using it as our basis for action. The actual murders, the lies, the adultery, etc. are the equivalent to the house which the carpenter built. But just as the house itself is not a thing called "carpenter", the myriad actions coming forth from evil reasonings are not themselves a thing called "evil", but just as the house is a fruit of the mans ideas about how to use a hammer on wood and nails (his carpenter ideations), murder is the fruit of mans ideas about how to use a knife on a person (his evil ideations). The ideations themselves, before even being acted out on tangible objects or people, are evil. "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Also, the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or the fact that God already knew what evil was prior to the fall, does not mean that evil must have already been. From Psalm 139: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." God knows of things which have not yet come to pass.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Correction: The question of the Op is where did evil come from? Darkness represents an absence of light. Hence we cannot see in the dark.

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.

I'm not sure how what I said was received so as to imply I was assuming that angels didn't know they were created. I simply meant to imply that the angels had something to learn about God which would be revealed in mankind.

Thank you for the clarification. I was a little confused at the implication of what you'd written; but now that I know what you meant, what you'd said makes more sense.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the darkness since the Light of revelation is going to reveal what cannot be seen in the darkness. Keeping in mind that the Knowledge of God is about the knowing of His Person as in knowing Him personally. Hence the knowledge of God through His Christ is a revelation to those who were in ignorance/darkness. Your asking where the darkness came from is like asking where the ignorance came from. Suppose I introduced you tp someone you didn't know. Where did the ignorance of not knowing them come from?

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.

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".

Again, the darkness is ignorance. All angels share the same ignorance of God. Satan was the most beautiful and gifted of the angels according to scripture. This is what made him the most vulnerable to vanity. It does not make sense that vanity would first appear in the lesser endowed angels in comparison to others who were more gifted. It makes more sense that it would appear first in the most gifted and beautiful angel.

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.

I agree with you that Satan was the first entity to fall and it would not make sense for "vanity" to appear in a lesser angel.

Vanity is about pride and about shame. Vanity is measuring one's self in comparison to others. Notice that when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened they were ashamed they were naked whereas before they were not. Their innocence of such things had gone.

What you are saying here is certainly true psychologically speaking. Depending on your definition of "pride"; and vanity is certainly about shame. Keen observation there and I'm glad you pointed that out.



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 became vain because he took for granted his gifts that God had given him, (in vainglory), He gradually began to feel he had deserved them or earned them and also became unthankful accordingly. Essentially Satan began to desire worship. The other angels beneath him would begin to feel put down by him as if forced to acknowledge his status in a personal way. Nonetheless, through gaining a following, he apparently convinced a third of the angels to follow him. The way darkness/ignorance of God is related to this, has to do with understanding that God is not a boss at the top getting to tell everybody else what to do. God is at the bottom upholding all things and is a servant to all. Hence if the tyrant type of image of God is believed upon, vanity will promote a dog eat dog self serving world.

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.

Adam was content until it was suggested that he was too stupid to know how he was being played. Adam sinned because he listened to the woman rather than trusting his own judgment.

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.

I don't think so. I think its' the same envy that wants to see innocence destroyed in others. A young person who has had sex tends to brag and treat the virgin like the virgin is immature and missing out on something.

I think "destroying innocence in others" only applies to those who are innocent, which sometimes does stem from ignorance. Those who are truly innocent though don't have the capacity to know when they are being played. Little kids who are sexually abused have not the developmental capacity to understand what is happening to them; and this is why that sort of crime is so vial. Satan is cunning and vial in that regard. Nothing and no-one is off limits. And from a human perspective, I think this is why God was very selective of what human parents Jesus was born to; because He needed the protection of wise adults as He developed.

Angels were the go between God and mankind. Consider Jacobs ladder with the angels going up and down the ladder from heaven to earth and visa versa. And also consider that the angels administered the Old Testament, hence messengers.

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, he offered himself as a sacrifice for our sins, but not because he felt we deserved to die. This is a different subject which has much to do with culpability and being deceived.

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.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I think of evil as a "thing we can do", rather than a "thing which exists". An action created from our reasonings, not an object tangibly acquired. I think this is what people mean when they say "evil doesn't exist".

"Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

An example... A man can take things which exist, a hammer with nails and wood, and form them into a house which also now exists after the actions. Even so, "carpentry" doesn't exist in the way which the tools or materials or the house does. It is an intentional action, set into motion via internal reasonings in regards to utilizing objects, assigning purposes to those objects, and ordering them in a particular manner. The same can be said about evil. We look upon existing real objects, and use our reason to decide how to utilize them, but in this case the use is against God's will. The evil is "created" within our own selves, not obtained from a external source. Once we have created this evil reasoning in our own heart/mind, we often perform actions on tangible objects/people using it as our basis for action. The actual murders, the lies, the adultery, etc. are the equivalent to the house which the carpenter built. But just as the house itself is not a thing called "carpenter", the myriad actions coming forth from evil reasonings are not themselves a thing called "evil", but just as the house is a fruit of the mans ideas about how to use a hammer on wood and nails (his carpenter ideations), murder is the fruit of mans ideas about how to use a knife on a person (his evil ideations). The ideations themselves, before even being acted out on tangible objects or people, are evil. "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Also, the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or the fact that God already knew what evil was prior to the fall, does not mean that evil must have already been. From Psalm 139: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." God knows of things which have not yet come to pass.

How does your above theory explain hurricanes?

 

[fhansen]

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. He knew that what ever action He took; it would bring this theoretical opposite of Him into 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 had from God was to take care of the garden and not to eat the fruit off this tree. 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!

God created everything and so everything in existence is good. Augustine actually put it this way, "The only possible source of evil, is good." What this means is that moral evil, aka "sin", is simply a detraction from or perversion of something already in existence, and this can only occur as an act of free will made by rational created beings. Evil is not generally done for the sheer sake of evil, but instead is committed in the pursuit of something good, or perceived to be good at the time. So we're driven by three main desires, the desire for self-glory (pride), desire for pleasure (various lusts of the flesh), and the desire for wealth, possessions. These are more or less outlined in 1 John 2:16. And all of these "disordered desires" as they've been called, usually under the rubric of "concupiscence", often motivate people to harm others in one way or the other in their quest for fulfillment. Love is forfeited at the altar of selfish desire.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You said evil cannot exist if there is no good to corrupt.

What about hell?
All evil...no good.

Is a soul in Hell not still made in the image of God?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How does your above theory explain hurricanes?

In logical form:
1. Some suffering is brought on directly by our own free choice. The choice to abuse my body can result in sickness.


2. Some suffering is brought on indirectly by free choice. The choice to be lazy can result in poverty.


3. Some physical evil to others can result from our free choice, as in the case of spouse or child abuse.


4. Others suffer indirectly because of our free choice. Alcoholism can lead to poverty of one’s children.


5. Some physical evil may be a necessary byproduct of a good process. Rain, hot air, and cool air are all necessary for food and life, but a byproduct of these forces is a tornado.


6. Some physical evil may be a necessary condition for attaining a greater moral good. God uses pain to get our attention. Many have come to God through suffering.


7. Some physical suffering may be a necessary condition of a greater moral good. Just as diamonds are formed under pressure, even so is character.


8. Some physical evil is a necessary concomitant of a morally good physical world. For instance, it is good to have water to swim and boat in, but a necessary concomitant is that we can also drown in it. It is good to have sex for procreation and enjoyment, even though it makes rape possible. It is good to have food to eat, but this also makes dying of food poisoning possible.

At this point you could ask, "Why then is a physical world is necessary? Why did not God make spirits, who could not hurt their bodies or die?" The answer is: God did; they are called angels. The problem is that, while no angel can die of food poisoning, neither can they enjoy a prime rib. While no angel has ever drowned, neither has any angel ever gone for a swim or went water skiing. No angel has ever been raped, but neither has any angel ever enjoyed sex or the blessing of having children ( Matt. 22:30 ).

In this kind of physical world, we simply must take the concomitant evil along with the good. Eventually, of course, Christian theists believe God will redeem us from all physical evil too, giving us immortal and incorruptible bodies. But if we had those before we were morally ready for them, we would not have made the necessary moral progress toward being suited to them.

 

[Cis.jd]

Respectfully that's not the issue. I'm saying he was deceived. I'm saying the info he was basing his decisions on was false. His words in Mein Kampf are clearly carnal vanity.

Your argument is based on religious beliefs though, therefore it is in an issue. You believe in the existence of satan and all the christian dogma's that have been passed down which makes you conclude that Hitler's actions where all rooted from being deceived by the devil. i'm not going to argue whether I completely reject the existence of the devil, but there is just way too many holes about him and I don't think using hitler as some form of evidence of the devil being the root of an evil man's actions.

As i said, look at nature and just see how violent it is. Yet this violence isn't evil to these animals because that is how they where designed and that is how they survive which helps keep the world in it's motion.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

God created evil, just like he has stated. There is nothing that exists, which God did not create.

Believing that to be true requires the denial of God's Omni-benevolence.

 

[-Sasha-]

How does your above theory explain hurricanes?

It's a weather phenomenon. Do you think weather is evil?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Can you provide an example as to why it is not scripturally sound? Scripturally speaking?

Here is my "theory" on evil.

I read the information you posted about the question of evil and what people stated about it in the past.

Now the question of why God doesn't stop evil etc. is a different issue than where did evil come from.

We've established 7 truths so far:

There is only one God.
God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and immortal.
God did not create evil.
Evil does not predate creation.

The Hebrew word "Darkness" implies a "thing" or "condition" that actively seeks to suppress light and truth. "Darkness" is not simply the absence of light.

Evil is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal or immortal.

Truth, light and goodness come from God; so He directs their ultimate end.

A few problems with some of the following assumptions:

Evil and good are not equal in power. It's not a "yin / yang" situation. Good will ultimately overtake and conquer evil.

If God allows evil, He's either not omnipotent or all loving. God is not on a human timetable to deal with evil as humanity dictates. He allows evil to take its course for the point of His purposes. Ultimately God's purpose is to show forth His goodness and glory.

Since God allowed evil, He is not omniscient or omnipresent. God knew of and planned for evil's presence. Knowledge of something does not make an entity the creator of it. The fact that God conceived of and executed a plan to address the issue of evil, proves both His omniscience and omnipotence.

Just because God acted does not mean that there has to be an equal and opposite reaction.

Just because God acted does not prove there was not an opposite reaction. I've yet to find a better explanation as to why evil came into existence.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I don't see how this informs us how to interpret Gen 1. this passage too is written in block logic.

Holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. If Isaiah 28 is speaking of building understanding "line upon line... precept upon precept"; the lines and the precepts come out of the Scripture.

For example: there are texts in the New Testament that talk about "light" and "darkness". These texts help us understand Genesis.

The Bible is its own dictionary, commentary and interpreter. If you have a question as to what something in the Bible means, you will find the answer somewhere else in the Bible. Now it may take digging to find it, but it's there.

and what of the people 3500 years ago? You claim I don't give anyone a chance to interpret it correctly but what about those 3500 years ago? what chance did they have? Was God not responsible with this text to them or was this just meant for those 3500 years in the future? Why would the meaning of the text change 3500 years ago vs today?

The text is meant for people of all time; not only those 3500 years ago. The point I was making about your assessment that we must understand how people thought about it 3500 years ago; is that not everyone through time has had access to that information and frankly there are things unique and distinct about the culture that have been lost to time.

For example: If you were to compare what people 200 years ago thought things in Moses's day were like; you'd see that their understanding was far more limited than our understanding today. Why is that? That is because we have more information, which has been provided generally by science and archeology.

The OP is not really about salvation so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I don't care what language you are using if we isolate the creation account I don't think that's enough scripture to show salvation even though the text in itself is a type of salvation allegory. you have to have a pretty firm grasp of the covenants to pick up on this allegory itself. This isn't about if you don't know Hebrew/Greek you can't have salvation but if we are looking for answers outside of text (and salvation) then we need to dive deep into the text otherwise you're just using it as a prooftext.

Yet the Scripture declares that the creation itself bears enough information outside of the written word for people to understand and come to salvation. This is how they are "without excuse" as well as how those who "have not the law" are a "law unto themselves" when they do by nature the things in the law.

Now someone who had not the written revelation of Scripture will have a more difficult time deciphering what the witness of creation means; but Scripture does declare that it is knowable.

The message of the book is about salvation. That was the purpose for which it was written.

God does, but written scripture does not, it is static and remains in a static position so whatever it was it still is and the meanings are not dynamic. There is no "new revelation" in scripture there is only the same revelation newly found. The idea it points to (salvation) transcends culture but before we understand that idea we must interpret the nontranscendent words and to do this we must enter the space of the ancient 3500 years ago.

If God wrote the Bible, why would the Bible not transcend time? The examples used were fixed in time; but that does not mean that the text is not dynamic.

but you are answering something never asked. in a vacuum, the creation account does present a void in a preexistent state (in step logic) but since the purpose of the text has nothing to do with who created the void, any question regarding it is going to be in error. block logic doesn't ask this question nor was it an issue for the ancient mind. Within block logic, the information it presents is only a concern within the block and the point it's making, everything outside the point has no meaning. If we force it to work outside the block, it will have wide conflicts and be unreconcilable. We see this today when people force a literal 6-day creation and each day completely literal. This creates all kinds of conflicts because the literal account is forced and all we do is end up defending something that has nothing to do with the account.

"a void in a preexistent state". Are you saying here that there was something present before God created the universe? If that's what you are implying, that's obviously an oxymoron because something present, by definition would imply that it was created. And if created? This obviously required God did so.

And why can't the 6 days be literal? Just because of "block logic"?

block logic is how it is written because it is how Moses thought and how the Israelites processed information. Block logic/step logic is not about what is right or wrong it is about how the information is organized and presented. Once we know how it's organized we can better understand it's meaning.

Yet "block logic" is not the only logic used in Scripture. Once you get past the Babylonian captivity and into the New Testament, you are now into "step logic" because of the influence of Greek philosophy on the people who wrote the New Testament.

The apostle Paul did not think like Moses did because Paul lived 1500 years later and he was culturally influenced by western (Greek) thought.

The Greek of the New Testament as a style of language, is different than Hebrew. Hebrew is a language of descriptors where as the Geek is closer to modern western language and more a language of word nuance.

There is a reason why the Scripture was written over the course of some 2000 years. (Or at least 1500 years; providing there weren't "precursor" texts to Genesis and Job. We know from the record of other ancient texts that predate the Bible that these stories existed at least as oral history in the predeceasing cultures.) That reason is for the joining of these two styles of thought. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament; and this is how the Scripture becomes a cohesive whole.

God transcends these things, he uses God-logic and I'm not even going to pretend to know how that works. words however are fixed in the context they are written in. when truth is buried we must dig through the context which very much involves how the audience thought and processed information.

The Scriptures themselves explain to you how "God logic" works. Again, the language is fixed in time but the truth is not. If you believe God is omniscient, than He would have had to understand that philosophical use of linguistic style and thought would morph with time. And if you don't think God compensated for that; than your perception of Him is too small.

 

[The Righterzpen]

God created everything and so everything in existence is good.

God did not create evil, yet evil exists and evil by definition is not "good".

Evil is not generally done for the sheer sake of evil, but instead is committed in the pursuit of something good, or perceived to be good at the time.

So do you believe Satan was "in pursuit of something good" when he transgressed? Do you believe that Satan having the knowledge that he had; perceived his transgression as "good"?

1 John 2:16 describes that of this world (lust of the eye, lust of the flesh and pride of life; yet those are not the only desires present and in operation in this world.

Desire in and of itself is not sin. Alignment of those desires to God's will is what is required. Jesus desired that the cup pass from Him. It did not though and He still did the Father's will.

 

[Tone]

In physics we have "the law of entropy" Entropy is things going from a state of order to a state of chaos. This decay is the work of this perpetually destructive evil existence that God superseded with His creative work. This evil got it's foot hold in God's creation when Adam transgressed

After participating in another discussion and then coming back here to read the OP (which I'm almost finished doing!), new thoughts are forming in my mind, as to the origin of evil. I think I know what that entropy or decay is...it is doubt...or, maybe more accurately, the potential to doubt. And how did it first gain a foothold within the heart of the evil one? I think that first toe, if you will, inched in quite differently than the way we usually imagine it. Picture a creature being nudged ever so slightly,with the feeling that somehow, he is not worthy of acclaim...the pull of decay...

 

[Tone]

It is of my opinion that there is probability life on other planets. If the world God has redeemed is singular (meaning our world), reason would have it that what ever life may be elsewhere either is not prone to sin or does not hold the capacity to be redeemed.

Have your read C.S. Lewis' The Space Trilogy - Wikipedia? I've only read Perelandra (The Space Trilogy, #2) by C.S. Lewis, but he gives a really believable account of how other worlds may be, in fact, the story is about a character named "Ransom" who is on assignment to a newly formed world and he has to aid the Adam and Eve counterparts there. Not to mention The Chronicles of Narnia - Wikipedia, in which he also depicts parallel universes. His Space Trilogy is geared more towards an adult audience...I got to read the other two books of the trilogy soon.

 

[martymonster]

Believing that to be true requires the denial of God's Omni-benevolence.

No, it requires you to believe what he says, and an understanding of how he is working.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Tree of Life

I went back and corrected the language in the OP. If you are interested in reading it and giving me feedback as to whether or not it's clearer than before - I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[Tone]

This "light" was the fact that God was stronger than the evil

(Vs 3) The whole of the world (created universe) came through the channel of Him (the Word) and apart from Him not a single of any created thing which existed at it's height as a universe, did so without Him.

The Light is to be channeled--something that the unchannel (evil) cannot do.

*And that the evil one is so bent on becoming...void...

 

[Tone]

even in the presence of their fallen state

It must be so. Amen.

 

[The Righterzpen]

After participating in another discussion and then coming back here to read the OP (which I'm almost finished doing!), new thoughts are forming in my mind, as to the origin of evil. I think I know what that entropy or decay is...it is doubt...or, maybe more accurately, the potential to doubt. And how did it first gain a foothold within the heart of the evil one? I think that first toe, if you will, inched in quite differently than the way we usually imagine it. Picture a creature being nudged ever so slightly,with the feeling that somehow, he is not worthy of acclaim...the pull of decay...

I think you're right in a certain point that the first "toe hold" was likely doubt. Yet I don't believe doubt was the "darkness" that came into being as the reaction to God's action.

In psalm 139 we see that doubt can exist without sin. Doubt is a possibility for any created entity who has not omniscience in its created state. Doubt requires a decision to be made though. Does one go down the "rabbit trail" that doubt creates of their own lack of knowledge; or do they ask God for clarification? Those are the two choices.

Psalm 139 is a Messianic psalm that gives us a lot of information about the internal processing of Jesus as to His understanding and perception of Himself in this world. It's an extremely fascinating psalm when dissected. In this psalm though, He talks about His doubts. Now what would Jesus doubt - we'd ask ourselves.

I'm not sure, I have some guesses based on other sections of Scripture. One thing we do see is that Jesus was not omniscient in the flesh. His Divine nature was omniscient; yet the fullness of that knowledge was not readily apparent to His human mind. If He wanted to know something, He still had to ask, just as the rest of us do.

Now why was He not omniscient in the flesh. That had to do with being an appropriate sacrifice and not having an "advantage" over Adam in the nature of His humanity.

You follow me on this one?