Why did God say He created evil?

[MW2017]

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.

But do you accept the fact that God created Satan, and that God is omniscient, and knew the evil that Satan would commit?

 

[CrystalDragon]

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!

I can at least forgive that because sometimes people don't feel like reading all of a thread if it's long, but they should understand a important point like that.

 

[zoidar]

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.

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.

And as for your other point, saying "You can't just forgive someone", why not?

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.

 

[CrystalDragon]

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.

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.

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.

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?).

 

[ldibart]

LinaBellus In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,
The creation that was created is naturally less than the creator in value. Think of this "less than" value, lack of Gods full worth as "evil"

A natural consequence of creation is evil ,So god created evil by creating this act of creating something makes that creation by default less than Gods full value, would you agree? If so God said it is very good his creation but not it is perfect. This very good state is not sin but a less than his full value ..that less than his full value is the evil part.

This form of evil is what God is speaking of when he declares I have created BOTH good and evil

We feel this evil when we have needs such as food we our bodies are not "full" we need and we eat.

MORE of this evil is seen by the Man .."it is not good for the man to dwell alone" NOT GOOD why he is alone in need .. many examples show this lack of full worth. Evil does not mean Sin as God cannot sin nor does he create sin.

This Evil has a purpose which is to motivate we lack and we are motivated to fill this lack. Some attempt to fill it by sinning such as Adam and eve did in taking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil .

This is how sin can come into existence and this also is how we strive to do better the want to be like God ..we understand in us what is better before we do that which is better .

Because we have God to compare us, we have conscience given by God so like the body knows when its hungry and may not eat properly we know our souls are hungry and we need to fill it properly.

Too many people think this evil =sin this meaning is where the confusion lay.

Also in the end Christ will fill the universe with his glory .. evil will be no more we will all be filled with his love. Love makes us completed.

Ephesians 4
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

What needs to be filled but that which is not full? This lack is the natural evil that is present.

 

[Heber Book List]

To mis-quote, slightly, a now famous quote: This [thread] has lots of alternative facts!

 

[ldibart]

"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.


Yes the literal is for the king of Babylon but why is God using this type of symbolism to refer to the king of Babylon. Because the king of Babylon fell into the same sin as Lucifer did.

 

[ldibart]

Yes so the only way to reconcile "I created both good and evil" and there still be a moral god is if that evil does not equal sin . God never claimed Perfect he claimed very good . there is a void between very good and perfect or creation and God .. that void is the Evil that was created in the beginning and the same evil when God says "I created both good and evil"

 

[ldibart]

"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?).[/QUOTE]

We can see a belief in God we need to point to what God is there .
The God that would need to exist would not be all forgiving because of what we have here now pain suffering death disease .. feels a bit of a stretch to think simply all loving fluffy God.

So ruling those Gods out . We look and know that if this was not some punishment the God that allowed this for no reason would be a sadist at best ..seriously ..

Skimming like this we can reach that someone did something to have all this happen and all these negative gruesome things .. If we conclude a God we would conclude he would not be the one that messed up since i would believe any God being able to do what he did would know when his creation deserves something ..this something we can feel it like a punishment aches pains sickness murders anger wars famine so on ..


what we can say about the above is mankind does most of it to themselves but we also see that disease and death has come on man naturally there we still see punishment

Now since we have a creator he apparently felt we should die for what was done. This is written in nature as we see everyday. what was worth us dying? lump it all up SIN .

this matches "the wages of sin is death"

God spoke this because that is a just punishment for sin . His nature cannot allow him to simply say 25 lashes ..If he said that then his nature would require that instead . God cannot go against his own nature this would sin and God cannot sin against himself..

Skimming along . Christ is needed to take this death for us and cover sin. HOW does it work? He earned it he even earned his name. it works like this . You cannot worship a created being angels or other created beings it is sin and stated clearly

BUT God came in the form of christ a self created being A new and perfect being from eternity from forever and of flesh of perfect flesh for sacrifice .

he is fully GOD ie worth the entire creation and fully flesh .able to sacrifice perfect flesh for imperfect flesh .

he came he needed to follow Gods laws perfectly but which means he earned everything he received for fulfilling the Law This is also how we confirm the gifts he received matches works that were done ..I will show this below for the works of the sacrifice.

the evil in mens hearts drove them to want to kill. they now commit sin and beat him and whipped him and all these actions he is put up on the cross beaten and bloody and he says a sentence ..one prophesied while he bled father forgive them for they know not what they do ..

the point is not that it was from prophesy but the WHY was it said? Because this set men free from this sin and placed it on the sin and evil that inspired men to commit the sin . It also made evil and sin become its own type of entity to be judged .

The wages of sin is death ..Jesus did not commit sin he should not have died SIN inspired by evil Broke Gods command the only thing in the universe that could break that law was sin itself!

NOW because he died repayment needs to be made so he was resurrected, this does not make up for the dying, what does, is he resurrects eternally, he put to death ,death this gives him authority over death he receives the keys to death .and he went to hell and set free captives (this is debated but not important to remove points I say he did)either way he indeed receives authority over hell and he received the keys to hell ..

NOW this still does not judge sin just sins outcome ..he receives by earning the right forgive and put to death sin.

finally the last to be destroyed created with the universe will be the evil .. that inspires Ephesian 4.9 states

9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

To make complete the natural evil of being less than God will be put to death by being filled with his glory.



Philippians 2 He earned his very name.
. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[zoidar]

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.

 

[CrystalDragon]

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.

Didn't you read my post last page that mentions very clearly why "Lucifer" is not Satan at all?

 

[ldibart]

And what work would that be for the Creator?

The Creator is Christ all things where made by him and without him nothing would have been made

The Creator is filling everything with his Glory he is working till this day still his work has been that purpose the whole time
He is making us into his image creating sons of God.
Ephesians 4
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Part of this purpose is to use the following this is his continuing to work

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[ldibart]

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 like that, however I feel there was no sin to compare . Evil is lack of something,a void that needs to be filled .. a natural state that occurred when a supremely infinite and perfect maker creates something.

This is seen in the point that Adam and Eve ate . Adam needed to have a wife "it is not good for the man to be alone" notice not good does not mean sin..

its the natural state of being less than .

So the person being created is less than the maker BUT has not committed sin , this is self evident as sin=death if simply being less than or very good was a sin then that would naturally rule out the ability of a perfect being to create anything.

NOW the environment Man was placed in was just right for THEM. which is also shown that when they fell nature too had to fall for man to be placed in a matching environment.

 

[Jezmeyah]

But do you accept the fact that God created Satan, and that God is omniscient, and knew the evil that Satan would commit?

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.

I praise God that I have come to know and believe the Love that God has toward me. I praise God for all who have done the same as I. And I pray every day that all whom I know and have met that they too come to know and believe His Love for them, for God desires that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

In all that has happened, and all that will happen, I believe that God always does what is right and just concerning all things.

 

[zoidar]

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.

 

[Heber Book List]

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.

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.

 

[OzSpen]

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?

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):

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).

Oz

Works consulted

Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask:A popular handbook on Bible difficulties. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

 

[Heber Book List]

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.

Hi there,

This has been established several times on this thread but new posts keep appearing to (doubt it or) say it all over again, as you have kindly done.

 

[CrystalDragon]

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 so they don't spread more misinformation.

 

[Heber Book List]

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.

Yes, we keep trying! The trouble is that, over the past 2000 years so, much error has crept into the teaching of theology, and its related disciplines, in colleges and Universities, which then filters down to pulpits and Bible study groups. I physically cringe at times when I hear Ordained people spouting on about something that they have got utterly wrong, but they don't realise it - and that is just the 'professional' people! What hope for their hearers?