But do you accept the fact that God created Satan, and that God is omniscient, and knew the evil that Satan would commit?
Upvote
0
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.
I don't believe that satan is the example that God created evil. To consider the text to be a literal statement of fact, it would imply that God is morally evil.
If that were true, then he would not be worthy to bring righteous judgement upon wicked people. And if God is evil, then it would make a liar out of Jesus who said that no one is good but God alone.
As for satan, Ezekiel 28:15 is a quote from God speaking of the one who was once the anointed angel., he was blameless.. perfect, until the day that iniquity was found in him. Satan has no one to blame for his predicament, but himself.
I've also told them that, in not so many words! People do not read all the thread before throwing in their view(s). It will never change!
4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
"Lucifer" is just a proverb-title given to a king of Babylon. Not Satan. Not a fallen angel. Not a rebellious spirit. Nothing supernatural. Nothing more or less than an arrogant king who saw himself as greater than anyone else.
And as for your other point, saying "You can't just forgive someone", why not?
Yes it's about the king of Babylon, yes, but also about Satan. Bible texts often have more than one meaning, this is one of them. Do you realize when people prophezised about Jesus, they often was talking firstly about their own situation, but it was at the same time a prophecy about Jesus.
Because forgiveness has a price. The one that forgives always has to "suffer" giving forgiveness. You let someone go free, and there is a cost for the forgiver. It's like that for you and for me, and also for God. Why the cost for mankind is blood, I don't know, but that's the way God created it, and like I said the only way God could create it because of who he is, his nature.
You only claim it's about Satan because you have had the belief in your head that it is about Satan. People have quoted those few verses (12-15) saying they're about Satan "So many have said it so it must be right". If you wipe your mind of any preconceived notions that it refers to Satan, and read the passage—the whole passage, not just 12-15—as it is, it's evident that it only refers to a Babylonian king. Saying otherwise is like applying a meaning to a character in Hamlet that Shakespeare never intended to be there in the first place.
People don't always suffer when giving forgiveness. If a child does something that was bad, but they didn't understand the full consequences of it and it wasn't malicious, the parent could forgive them with not much "suffering", if any, because it wasn't a malicious act with ill intent. It may have been out of curiosity (and for instance given Adam and Eve had know knowledge of good and evil, they might have been no more than curious children). No one on earth (who has compassion and isn't mentally ill that is), would reprimand the a child for doing something wrong by brutally slaughtering an innocent neighbor and saying "Okay, now I forgive you". If we don't have to do that as part of our nature (unless the person doing that is mentally ill), why should we assume that God—who would have to be by default not mentally ill—to have a worse version of "forgiveness"?
And why would his nature have to include requiring a blood sacrifice? I know that there were "animal blood sacrifices" in the Old Testament, but why did it have to be that way? Other "gods" of other tribes mentioned in the Old Testament (and in the other cultures of the world) had their gods have blood sacrifices, shouldn't the One True God who is said to love us have a different, less violent, more loving view than all those "false gods", rather than seeming like "just another tribal god" from the perspective of an outsider? (Speaking of, wasn't "Yahweh" also the name of a Caananite war god at one point in the distant past?).
I got not much more to say about it. By knowing God I know he can't create evil. This is a very logical explanation how evil came into the world. That's the only way it could happen, the fall of Lucifer, and the chruch has believed it for centuries. The bible says, our sins will only be forgiven by blood, by the sacrifice of a man that is without sin. Either we believe it, or we don't.
And what work would that be for the Creator?
I know what it means, that's why I mentioned it.
Exactly.
In Genesis 1, there was no need to use the word 'perfect', because everything God created was good, and there was no evil to compare the world with.
I accept the fact that God created all of the angels, and some of them rebelled against God. Even as God created mankind and some of them rebel against God's mercy in providing salvation and redemption.But do you accept the fact that God created Satan, and that God is omniscient, and knew the evil that Satan would commit?
Didn't you read my post last page that mentions very clearly why "Lucifer" is not Satan at all?
Yes, I read it. Did you read what I said that many texts in the bible has more than one meaning. The text is about the Babylon king, AND the fall of the angel Lucifer, who became Satan.
Let me give you an example. Kajfas prophezised about Jesus, but do you think that he realized what he was prophezising? His meaning was that Jesus had to die so the people, the jews could keep their customs, their way of serving God. Jesus had to go, so they could live. But at the same time it is a prophecy about Jesus death for man. Two meaninings.
"But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they planned together to kill Him."
/Joh 11:49-53
It's the same with many other texts in the bible. Do you think that David knew he was talking about Jesus in the psalms? He didn't, he talked about himself, but at the same time about Jesus. Many psalms are about BOTH David and Jesus.
“You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
/Eze 28:14
The "Babylon king" was also a cherub, an angel. A cherub is not a man.
Isaiah 45:7 says: 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'
Yet Genesis 1:31 teaches that 'God saw every thing that he made, and, behold, it was very good.' I think God declared that everything he made was perfect. So how can He say that He created evil? I thought evil was not created, that it's not a creature, but the lack of God's goodness in the world.
Romans 5:12: 'Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.' Who gets the blame for evil? If sin entered by man, then what does 'evil' refer to in Isaiah 45:7?
ISAIAH 45:7 – Is God the author of evil?
PROBLEM: According to this verse (Is. 45:7), God “creates good and evil” (kjv, cf. Jer. 18:11 and Lam. 3:38; Amos 3:6). But many other Scriptures inform us that God is not evil (1 John 1:5), cannot even look approvingly on evil (Hab. 1:13), and cannot even be tempted by evil (James 1:13).
SOLUTION: The Bible is clear that God is morally perfect (cf. Deut. 32:4; Matt. 5:48), and it is impossible for Him to sin (Heb. 6:18). At the same time, His absolute justice demands that He punish sin. This judgment takes both temporal and eternal forms (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:11–15). In its temporal form, the execution of God’s justice is sometimes called “evil” because it seems to be evil to those undergoing it (cf. Heb. 12:11). However, the Hebrew word for evil (ra) used here does not always mean moral evil. Indeed, the context indicates that it should be translated, as the nkjv and other modern translations do, as “calamity.” Thus, God is properly said to be the author of “evil” in this sense, but not in the moral sense—at least not directly.
Further, there is an indirect sense in which God is the author of moral evil. God created moral beings with free choice, and free choice is the origin of moral evil in the universe. So, ultimately God is responsible for making moral creatures who are responsible for moral evil. God made evil possible by creating free creatures, but the free creatures made evil actual. Of course, the possibility of evil (i.e., free choice) is itself a good thing. So, God created only good things, one of which was the power of free choice, and moral creatures produced the evil. However, God is the author of a moral universe and in this indirect and ultimate sense is the author of the possibility of evil. Of course, God only permitted evil, but does not promote it, and He will ultimately produce a greater good through it (cf. Gen. 50:20; Rev. 21–22).
Hi there,Lina,
The KJV translation of Isa 45:7 is not a good one when it states that God created evil.
The ESV is a better translation of ra (which the KJV translates as 'evil'): 'I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things' (emphasis added).
I have found Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe’s response to this verse to be most helpful (Geisler & Howe 1992:271-272):
Oz
Works consulted
Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask:A popular handbook on Bible difficulties. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
You are reading into the account that which is not there (eisegesis). It does not mean that the King of Tyre was, literally, an angel. Ezekiel uses the imagery of an angel to describe the King's declared greatness, before his fall. Verses 12 - 13 in the Hebrew text are set as questions: 'Were you the Seal of Perfection? Were you full of wisdom and flawless in beauty? Were you in the Garden of Eden? Yes, you walked on the mountain among the fiery stones' (refers to David and Solomon). In short, the King was trying to out-G_d, G_d, by the way he saw himself as very much equal to, or even as being better than G_d, and the way he managed the affairs of State, and so these verses are meant to be sarcastic* as are the other parts of the text, before his fate is declared.
*Some versions of the text, because of this sarcasm, are written as positive statements, not as questions, again, simply reflecting back to the King how conceited he was and, for that reason, it is put in direct contrast to the enormity of his downfall and punishment.
Thank you so much for clearing that up for them. So many people erroneously think that Lucifer is Satan that I'm getting tired of correcting them and yet I feel I have to do they don't spread more misinformation.
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?