shinobi909

I found this whilst on this webpage <a href="http://www.mindprod.com/biblestudy.html" target="_blank">http://www.mindprod.com/biblestudy.html</a>

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -Isaiah 45:7

Use that one in your next argument.

Vinnie

We had a small thread on this a while back. Evil needs to be defined. Does that speak of disaster as it is defined in other version like the NIV? Moral-ethical evil? Does it mean some atoms or superstrings were created inherently evil? Or just large collections of them? Is a sword evil in itself? Or is the real "evil" when a person "chooses" to stab someone with it? Is God the originator of evil? If so, when God supposedly created evil, was that act evil??? How can animated stardust be evil in itself? If moral-ethical evil is an "action" how can "evil" be "created"? That would be nonsensical because in that context evil is "done", not "created"--and it is so by the very definiton of the term.

So, if you "use that one in your next argument" don't think that sloppy exegesis (merely quoting Isaiah 45:7 eisegetically in the KJV) is going to get the job done.

This issue came up in another thread recently.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000313" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000313</a>

Anyways, for one Christian perspective on that passsage, I recommend
<a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iamwrong1.html" target="_blank">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iamwrong1.html</a>

Vinnie

Michael Ledo

Of course God created evil where else would it come from? If everything comes from God, so must evil, either directly or indirectly, if we assume God is the creator of all things.

As religion evolved so did the metaphysical dualistic nature of God. At a point in time, society could no longer accept the fact their god did evil, so they created or borrowed and alter ego or evil counter part to do all the bad work.

Satan was taken from the Babylonians. Daevas or devils were stolen from Zorastrian religion. Lucifer was the Roman light bringer or morning Venus. Lucifer is an actual a mistranslation in the book of Isaiah into the Greek. It should actually be "light bringer".

wordsmyth

I thought Lucifer was referred to as "Son of the Morning Star" or "The Morning Lord" or something similar???

Radcliffe Emerson

Lucifer in the morning star passage is NOT Satan. Lucifer is called the King of Babylon, which in that passage was a human king.

excreationist

Yeah, "Lucifer" (Latin for "morning star") seems to refer to the King of Babylon (see Isaiah 14:4,12-15)
For more info on passages that are believed to refer to Satan see <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat3.htm" target="_blank">Biblical passages about Satan;
Satan's attributes</a>
For a historical perspective about the development of Satan see <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm" target="_blank">Satan: Early History 300 BCE to 100 CE</a>

Marduk

From the Tao came the Ying
From the Ying came the Yang
From the Yang and the Ying came the YingYang
From the YingYang came the myriad of all things

plantingaquinasus

Michael Ledo,

Your post is filled with so many assertions and assumptions it left my head spinning!! Before I give you my reply let me just say that before you throw out the usual 'they got it from somewhere else' routine supply some evidence instead of just leaving me with nothing but bald assertions. Fortunatley I did some research regarding the topics you raise and would bet my bippie you would run into the same earth-shattering evidence that I ran into if you'd done your homework. It just seems as though the atheists (not all, but most I've read) have probably read a couple articles dealing with the issues from some liberal-fringe point of view and think they've found a pot of gold!!!


Now if you had done a little research into the deep issues of the problem of evil and how it relates the 'origin' of it; when you blurt out your 'Of course God created evil, where else would it come from' assertion. The reasons for your faulty conclusion is that everything comes from God either directly or indirectly and you put 1 and 1 together and POOF since God is the creator of all things, then God made evil. Hmmm I think I smell a misunderstanding of the meaning of a thing. Is evil a thing? If something is created indirectly, does the thing that did the creating actually responsible for how/when/why the thing in question originated? First, evil is...intentions and intentional acts (both being 'acts' or 'personally directed events' and not 'things') of
intelligent agents, that violate the God-derived principles of love, fairness, or loyalty. Second, no, 'acts' and 'events' are not 'made'--they are 'done'. God made and created 'things' and 'agents', not their 'acts' or 'events'...He 'did' His own 'acts' (of course), but other agents 'do' their own 'acts'. So God did not 'make evil' (the phrase is meaningless and nonsensical)

WOW!!! With this type of 'spill it on the counter' assertion who needs evidence!! I might as well just say 'Nuh, uh' and get it over with! I guess I'll just say, since you made the assertion, provide the evidence. I know its a complex issue, so if you have a website to direct me too, that'll be fine.

Did you know that your 3 revolutionary discoveries could alter the course of contemporary religious studies. Congradulations!!! Your famous!! Woops! Oh man I forgot you have to actually provide evidence for your assertions, because, as I I've already said, your opposition could repond with the ole' Nuh-uh. Again, if you have a web-site, it doesn't matter. All the points you've made, by the way, I have throughly studied and reviewed both sides of the issue and have found all 3 of your 'revolutionary discoveries' to be inadequate based on Counter-simplicity: Job is the oldest book in the Bible and has Satan around 1900-1500 BC, before the Jews were more than a few family
members. Set down, Ledo! It is nothing like the evil Zoro god Ahriman, who is a dualistic equal to Ohrmazd the good god, rather than a subordinate. In regard to devils were stolen from Zorastrian
religion. I quote J.P. Holding is 'sort of' relating to the issue that I think worth mentioning, "This temptation involved an attempt to persuade Zoro to
renounce the "good religion" of Mazdeism and worship evil spirits -- no bread to stones, no leaps from towers, just talking back
and forth with Zoro quoting Persian scriptures. Jackson and Waterhose indicate no location for this; it could have been the
wilderness, but it might have been MacDonald's in Tehran. The story has some roots to the 2nd century BC [Wat.Z, 54] but it
bears at best a superficial similarity to the temptation of Jesus."

I could go further, but I'm tired. Let me just say that when you dip just your toe of curiosity into an ocean of resourceful information and evidence and then conclude some outlandish theory one can only suggest doing a dive. The water maybe cold, but, I assure you, its there; and about 100 feet deep.

Vinnie

""""""""First, evil is...intentions and intentional acts (both being 'acts' or 'personally directed events' and not 'things') of
intelligent agents, that violate the God-derived principles of love, fairness, or loyalty. Second, no, 'acts' and 'events' are not 'made'--they are 'done'. God made and created 'things' and 'agents', not their 'acts' or 'events'...He 'did' His own 'acts' (of course), but other agents 'do' their own 'acts'. So God did not 'make evil' (the phrase is meaningless and nonsensical) """""""""

Sounds an awful lot like something I read from Glenn Miller at the Christian thinktank.

Vinnie

Michael Ledo

You never went deep enough. I bet you have brown eyes too. Satan in the book of Job is a lower case. There are many meanings for the word "Satan" in Hebrew, if you have done your homework, or even bothered to look in an concordance, the very simplist and basic if Bible study.

In this case "satan" means adversary, or prosecuting attorney. Edwin M. Good, professor of religious studies at Sanford University writes, "The Hebrew reads "the satan," the definite article showing that then word is a TITLE, not a proper name. The term occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible meaning a legal opponent. He is certainly NOT the devil, who in Jadaism had various names, "Satan" among them, while Christianity Satan to others. In Job 1-2 and Zerharuah 3, "the satan" is a member of the divine court whose job is to maintain law and order, a kind of district attorney who brings malefactors to justice."

This is not an atheist author, but a Christian author. This is not new nor revolutionary, but very very old knowledge, fundies opt to ignore. This is neither my assertion or assumption, but the accepted interpretation by the scholars of the Hebrew language.

I suggest you pick up "Harper's Bible Commentary" at your local Bible thumping book store. They all seem to carry it. You will find it in there.

I would agree the creation of evil is a tough concept to grasp, as would be sin, but both seem to be creatable items according to the Bible. If you believe this idea to be stupid, then your criticism is of the Bible which makes these statements and not of me. I am simply attempting to interpret the meaning od the phrase, in its given context and frequent use throughout the Bible. Strong's defines the Hebrew word "ra" used in this case as "bad" or "evil" coming from a root word meaning "to spoil". Other definitions included, "adversity, affiction, and calamity". The word used in Isaiah 45:7 is clearly to be in juxtaposition to the word "good" since in that same statement "light" and "darkness" are mentioned accordingly. Gideon prefers the translation, "peace and calmity". Of course if God can not create evil, because it is not a tangible object, he also can not be thre creator of goodness for the same reason. Hence God can not be neither good nor evil. Since this goes against the basic teachings of the Bible, I would have to conclude the real meaning is that god creates evil. You might want to define that "evil" as "calamity", but it is basically the same. If Is 45:7 was the only Biblical passage which mentions God and evil in the same breath, I would say you have a valid point, however there are several other references of God causing trouble. In Chr 18:22 the Lord speaks evil against me. Micah 1:12 "Evil came down from the Lord" In 1 Sam 16:16 "the EVIL spirit from God was upon thee". If the evil spirit came from God, didn't he create it? Would seem to be the logical conclusion.

The change in attitudes from God doing evil to Satan doing evil can be seen in the Bible itself, if you ever bothered to read it. Scolars contend Samuel/Kings is older than Chronicles. And there is much internal evidence for this, even the fundies don't dispute it. Chronicles was once part of or one book with Ezra and Nehemiah and was later divided up. The story line ends at the time of the greek occupation and was written during this time. Jaddua, (Neh 12:11) was a high priset during the time of Alexander the Great. An anachronism occurs in 1Chr 29:7 where "drams" is the currency in David's time. These were actually "darics" (see Strong's), money used by the Persians in 520 BC.

Anyway back to the point- In the older version 1Sam 24:1 God ordered David to perform a census (prelude to war an evil thing). In the later version 1Ch 21:1 it was Satan who provoked David to perform the census, not God. Hmmmm. Seems Satan came into being sometime after Kings was written, but before or during the Greek occupation. This isn't rocket science work.

I don't know want your problem is with the etomolgy of the word devil from daevas.

Strong's defines Lucifer or "heylel" in Hebrew as "the morning star". Lucifer was the morning star in Roman mythology. It was the planet Venus. Another title for Lucifer was the "light bringer" because the morning star would preceed the dawn. The translation as Lucifer is incorrect in that it refers to a later Roman god. Again I use the Christian preferred Concordance to prove my point.

Barbara walker writes on the origin of Satan (Woman's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets) that "satan first appears in the Bible as one of the 'sons of God' (bene ha-elohim)" but "Bible translators always sigularized the plurals to conceal the fact that the biblical Jews worshipped a pantheon of multiple gods" Hnece Satan became a son of God.

"This 'son of god' was identified with the lightning serpent Lucifer by the words of Jesus, who claimed to have seen Satan descending into earth as lightning (Luke 10:18). This repeated Persian myths concerning Ahriaman, the lightning-serpent cast from heaven to the underworld by the god of light."

These are not revolutionary discoveries which will alter the cousre of religious history, they are in fact the accepted contempary notions of modern religion history scholarship.