Butttt, ya gotta look into what they meant

[Skwim]

Too often Biblical apologists excuse troublesome aspects of the Bible by asserting the Bible doesn't mean what it says. This can be a single word, phrase, or concept.

An example is asserting that the word "evil" as it occurs in Isaiah 45:7 (I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.) really means something else, eg. calamity, disaster(s), bad times, woe, or whatever. Trouble is, if evil, or any one of the other renderings of the Hebrew source word "ra" is incorrect, then why are Bibles with this error still being published? One would think any instruction book guaranteeing the survival of one's soul would be darn certain to get it as right as possible. My suspicion is that it can be traced to marketing greed; if it sells don't mess with it. Needless to say, other publishers do mess with the Bible to give the public what it wants: something new.

Whatever the case, the good Christian, usually relying on the recommended Bible version of their faith is then left with an understanding of a passage that may, in truth, be erroneous. God didn't really create evil, just bad times. And this is where apologists like to step in with their "Yup." "If you look up the original Hebrew (or Greek, as the case may be) word you'll see that it isn't "evil" at all, but X." However, any alternative suggestion is more likely to be in step with the apologist's particular beliefs rather than an impartial assessment. And make no mistake, these alternatives are not equivalencies. Evil is not the same as disaster.

So, one is left no better off than before. X may mean a ,b, c, d, or Þ Hardly an endorsement for the infallibility, inerrancy, or truth (take your pick) of a book said to be "god's word." Could god do no better than leave his important message in the hands of incompetents who so butchered it that it doesn't mean what it says? If anything, one would expect a caring god would make sure his word was clear and unquestioningly accurate, down to the last tittle---for all time and all readers. Why burden a struggling creation with promises rendered in misleading prose?

But it gets worse. If X isn't Þ, then maybe Y isn't € and Z isn't Œ, meaning that crucial passages could well be wrong. Perhaps "virgin" (parthenos) as it occurs in Matthew 1:23 should really read: "a marriageable maiden" or " one's marriageable daughter," two alternative meanings. Crucial to your brand of Christianity? Maybe Maybe not. But if it is, one has to admit that in light of the Bible's "mistakes" it may bring a crises of faith---putting it as dire as I dare.

My point here isn't to put down anyone's beliefs, but to expose the nature of the Bible as I see it, and to curtail arguments that one shouldn't take the Bible at its word, but what he, she, or it says it is. If the Bibles of today don't mean what they say then why don't they say what they mean?

Want to argue Biblical issues? Sorry, but I can only debate based on what is said in black and white, not on what anyone believes is a better interpretation.

 

[ChristineES]

You don't need to defend your view of the Bible, you just need to remember that is what it is: Your view.

 

[freethinker44]

I started a thread a while ago that was similar to this. It was about how they claim we are taking scripture out of context when we bring up a damaging verses. Doesn't matter what it is, rape, slavery, whatever, they say, "Oh, that's taken out of context." My question is, what context would ever make rape or slavery acceptable?

Anyways, that thread didn't get much attention. The few responses I got people acted like they didn't know what I was talking about, as if it doesn't come up in every single debate when a skeptic brings up some horrific quote from religious text.

To address the OP, I had a friend who was against alcohol because he said it wasn't Christian. Of course I pointed out that Jesus turned water into wine, and he said "wine" didn't mean alcohol it was really just grape juice, because it was translated improperly.

 

[Dude]

My point here isn't to put down anyone's beliefs, but to expose the nature of the Bible as I see it, and to curtail arguments that one shouldn't take the Bible at its word, but what he, she, or it says it is. If the Bibles of today don't mean what they say then why don't they say what they mean?

Why ask a question you already have the answer to?

Why make people squirm to answer your question with ten tons of bs that you'll just reject anyway?

Why are you so needy?

 

[Levite]

Too often Biblical apologists excuse troublesome aspects of the Bible by asserting the Bible doesn't mean what it says. This can be a single word, phrase, or concept.

An example is asserting that the word "evil" as it occurs in Isaiah 45:7 (I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.) really means something else, eg. calamity, disaster(s), bad times, woe, or whatever. Trouble is, if evil, or any one of the other renderings of the Hebrew source word "ra" is incorrect, then why are Bibles with this error still being published? One would think any instruction book guaranteeing the survival of one's soul would be darn certain to get it as right as possible. My suspicion is that it can be traced to marketing greed; if it sells don't mess with it. Needless to say, other publishers do mess with the Bible to give the public what it wants: something new.

Whatever the case, the good Christian, usually relying on the recommended Bible version of their faith is then left with an understanding of a passage that may, in truth, be erroneous. God didn't really create evil, just bad times. And this is where apologists like to step in with their "Yup." "If you look up the original Hebrew (or Greek, as the case may be) word you'll see that it isn't "evil" at all, but X." However, any alternative suggestion is more likely to be in step with the apologist's particular beliefs rather than an impartial assessment. And make no mistake, these alternatives are not equivalencies. Evil is not the same as disaster.

So, one is left no better off than before. X may mean a ,b, c, d, or Þ Hardly an endorsement for the infallibility, inerrancy, or truth (take your pick) of a book said to be "god's word." Could god do no better than leave his important message in the hands of incompetents who so butchered it that it doesn't mean what it says? If anything, one would expect a caring god would make sure his word was clear and unquestioningly accurate, down to the last tittle---for all time and all readers. Why burden a struggling creation with promises rendered in misleading prose?

But it gets worse. If X isn't Þ, then maybe Y isn't € and Z isn't Œ, meaning that crucial passages could well be wrong. Perhaps "virgin" (parthenos) as it occurs in Matthew 1:23 should really read: "a marriageable maiden" or " one's marriageable daughter," two alternative meanings. Crucial to your brand of Christianity? Maybe Maybe not. But if it is, one has to admit that in light of the Bible's "mistakes" it may bring a crises of faith---putting it as dire as I dare.

My point here isn't to put down anyone's beliefs, but to expose the nature of the Bible as I see it, and to curtail arguments that one shouldn't take the Bible at its word, but what he, she, or it says it is. If the Bibles of today don't mean what they say then why don't they say what they mean?

Want to argue Biblical issues? Sorry, but I can only debate based on what is said in black and white, not on what anyone believes is a better interpretation.

The thing is, it's not always that simple.

It's not that quite often, people shift meanings or eisegetically read in certain things to support their foregone conclusions: they do, that does happen. But that doesn't account for all, or perhaps even most, of the legitimate debate over meanings in the text.

I can only speak to the Hebrew Bible-- I don't have enough Greek or sufficient knowledge of the origins and early context of the Christian scriptures to be able to say anything about them in this regard. But the Hebrew Bible is extraordinarily complex. It is written in a language extremely given to multiple meanings, where quite often words have several possible definitions (occasionally even including polar opposites of a concept). It is written using considerable idiom, colloquialism, and other linguistic constructions that reflect a culture vastly different from any that read it today, and even greatly different in some ways from its own descendant culture. And what is more, it is largely written in poetry, and is replete with word-play. Add to this that it seems to have been deliberately constructed to provide for multiple meanings and interpretations of content over and above the inherent linguistic tendency to multiple potential meaning.

There is no translation that adequately renders the Hebrew in all its nuances, all its potentialities, all its subtle multiple meanings and many levels. Not a non-Jewish translation, not a Jewish translation, not an academic translation. Every single translation, no matter how excellent in some respects, is deeply flawed in other respects, or simply insufficient in some respects.

Imagine, if you will, the difficulty of the average American in reading and understanding Shakespeare: not just in getting the gist, but in getting all the jokes and puns, getting the historical and cultural references, getting the wordplay, being able to understand and appreciate Shakespeare's word choices for reasons of euphony, assonance, for resonance with other literature (like the Bible as he would've known it), for rhythm, and for the thousand other subtle artistic strokes each play is lovingly and lavishly gifted with. Even those Americans who are educated enough to follow the plays well are going to miss some of those things: they don't know enough of the context, they aren't familiar enough with the way that Elizabethan English worked, etc. And that's with educated people who speak the same language (technically) as Shakespeare, whose culture more or less is a product of the culture that produced Shakespeare. Now imagine the same issues magnified by reading Shakespeare as a speaker of Cantonese, in Cantonese translation. You not only have those issues, but the problem that the vast majority of the translations available to you were produced by people who either had only read Shakespeare in translation, or who had learned English in a classroom, without any immersion living in an anglophonic culture-- many of whom had never met more than a few English speakers in their lives. Even if you can find a translation done by someone who actually speaks both Cantonese and English, thus avoiding some of the previous problems, you're still dealing with something richly, essentially English, written in an English very different from what is spoken today, and deeply contextualized by a far different worldview, which is trying to be rendered into a language utterly at variance from English: a language that works differently in just about every way, from formation to syntax to grammar to the styles of speech and writing, to the aesthetics of rhythm, resonance, humor, and poetry.

And that's dealing with a work only a few centuries old, with far fewer cultural shifts in the context.

Of course there's going to be debate. And of course there's going to be disagreement. But none of it can be boiled down to: "Why can't it just say what it means?"

Because aside from all the problems of translation, there's also the problem of worldview and doctrine. Too many of the readers of the text either have forgotten or don't know or don't want to know that the text is supposed to be open to multiple interpretations. It's not supposed to be black-and-white easy-peasy.

Things that are that simplistic don't usually last down the ages: they become irrelevant or archaic or boring or something else.

While I don't believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are literally the "words of God," I do believe that much of the Torah was inspired by revelation. Yet that doesn't make it either free of error or free of human interpolation. And more importantly, it doesn't change the fact that to whatever degree God gave/spoke/transmitted/inspired any or all of the Torah, we're talking about God. It makes no sense to think that the most complex and difficult being in existence would be given to handing out ideas that are simplistic and clear to the understanding of nine year olds. Nor does it makes sense that an eternal being, with a deeper understanding of "time" than we will ever likely know, would give out teachings that would be apt to stagnate in a relatively short period of time. I think He would give complex, difficult teachings, with infinite interpretability, which require the active engagement and involvement of human beings to clarify and re-clarify, keeping the material fresh and piquant over thousands of years.

 

[Skwim]

Why ask a question you already have the answer to?

It's a debate tactic to provoke a response; you know, like in a religious debate forum. Sheesh!

Why make people squirm to answer your question with ten tons of bs that you'll just reject anyway?

Now, now, no name calling. I'm sure a lot of the responses won't be BS at all, yours excepted. However, you are correct that more likely than not I will reject BS answers.

Why are you so needy?

I was made in god's image. God needs love, adoration, worship, and no other gods before him. Fortunately, my needs aren't quite so momentous. I only need a decent gin & tonic, a good woman, and great jazz piano (I already have a nice home, car, and sufficient money. )

 

[Skwim]

There is no translation that adequately renders the Hebrew in all its nuances, all its potentialities, all its subtle multiple meanings and many levels. Not a non-Jewish translation, not a Jewish translation, not an academic translation. Every single translation, no matter how excellent in some respects, is deeply flawed in other respects, or simply insufficient in some respects.

And why are such flaws allowed to remain? Why not fix that which needs fixin'? And if there's a question about a certain text why not note it as such? Why allow a questionable word/passage to come off as a certainty?

Imagine, if you will, the difficulty of the average American in reading and understanding Shakespeare: not just in getting the gist, but in getting all the jokes and puns, getting the historical and cultural references, getting the wordplay, being able to understand and appreciate Shakespeare's word choices for reasons of euphony, assonance, for resonance with other literature (like the Bible as he would've known it), for rhythm, and for the thousand other subtle artistic strokes each play is lovingly and lavishly gifted with.

A reasonable consideration, except that works of art are expected to remain as created. People typically don't mess with Shakespeare, Dali, or Bach. However, the Bible, basically book of instruction---inspiring people to avoid hell and get into heaven---better serves people by cultivating its utility. Want to better serve people, then use the best tools available.

Of course there's going to be debate. And of course there's going to be disagreement. But none of it can be boiled down to: "Why can't it just say what it means?"

Why not, at least to the point of best effort? Put together a Bible that lays it on the line. "THIS is the current term that best expresses the intent of its author." The Hebrew ra in Isaiah 45:7 isn't meant to be read as "evil," "disaster," "bad times," or even "calamity," BUT "WOE!" And if this is in question then it should be noted as such, right there in the text. IMO this would be a far more honest and forthright exposition.

Because aside from all the problems of translation, there's also the problem of worldview and doctrine. Too many of the readers of the text either have forgotten or don't know or don't want to know that the text is supposed to be open to multiple interpretations. It's not supposed to be black-and-white easy-peasy.

I'm well aware of how the Bible is approached and used. Many don't want or care to take the time to figure it out, while others revel in the Bibles ambiguity, giving them the opportunity to craft whatever "truth" they need to make their belief system work. But should this be reason enough to keep Bible publishers from "doing the right thing"? From a profit standpoint it very well might.

Things that are that simplistic don't usually last down the ages: they become irrelevant or archaic or boring or something else.

I don't think I agree (haven't given it any thought) but I do know that complexity doesn't necessarily = better. And I have to question the implication that clearer = simplistic = boring is a death knell of sorts.

It makes no sense to think that the most complex and difficult being in existence would be given to handing out ideas that are simplistic and clear to the understanding of nine year olds.

Why not? You're really begging the question here, but to reply in seriousness; If anyone is capable of imparting a truth in the best, least ambiguous, and most efficient manner I would think it would be the god of Abraham. This isn't quantum physics or the ecliptic alignment of CMB anisotropy problem. It's simple This-is-that-and-those-are-them.

 

[Levite]

And why are such flaws allowed to remain? Why not fix that which needs fixin'? And if there's a question about a certain text why not note it as such? Why allow a questionable word/passage to come off as a certainty?

Because we don't alter the text itself. We add commentary, instead, where all the questions and complexities are teased out and dealt with-- often at great length.

If we change the text every time someone has a different interpretation, pretty soon we end up with a million Torahs, and nobody has any common ground from which to even frame discussion any longer. It would be chaos.

Why not? You're really begging the question here, but to reply in seriousness; If anyone is capable of imparting a truth in the best, least ambiguous, and most efficient manner I would think it would be the god of Abraham. This isn't quantum physics or the ecliptic alignment of CMB anisotropy problem. It's simple This-is-that-and-those-are-them.

I don't think it's begging the question. I think it's a difference of presumption as to what the purpose of the text is.

Your critique is framed from the presumption that the purpose of the text is to convey fact X, probably some specific action that God wants us to do, or some specific lesson that He wants us to take away.

But what if the purpose of the text is to create discussion, to provoke questions, to inspire the creation of more texts related to it-- to begin a process?

Sure, if God wanted a clear way to say to us, "Take two steps forward and three steps back every Sunday afternoon," I'm sure He could make it abundantly simple, clear, and unmistakable. But I think that His agenda is to provoke a much more complex, long-term, ramifying process of discussion, debate, social experimentation, literary and spiritual movements, and who knows what else that results in new works, ideas, evolving philosophies, interpersonal dialogue, spiritual revelations, and also probably some inevitable harsh lessons from one another, that in the end will enrich us with experience, and lead us-- slowly, generation after generation, millennium after millennium, no doubt with many retrogressions and diversions-- closer to wisdom, compassion, empathy, and spiritual awareness and openness.

 

[Skwim]

Because we don't alter the text itself. We add commentary, instead, where all the questions and complexities are teased out and dealt with-- often at great length.

I understand the position, but are these commentaries truly read and digested as intended, or simply passed over? While I know you don't have an unequivocal answer, what's your impression?

If we change the text every time someone has a different interpretation, pretty soon we end up with a million Torahs, and nobody has any common ground from which to even frame discussion any longer. It would be chaos.

And while I agree that changing the text that often would be troublesome, how about coming out with a revision every two years or whatever? Or are Jewish scholars so divided that they too can't agree on god's message.

Your critique is framed from the presumption that the purpose of the text is to convey fact X, probably some specific action that God wants us to do, or some specific lesson that He wants us to take away.

To convey message X, be it a fact, promise, order, wish, moral, or whatever.

But what if the purpose of the text is to create discussion, to provoke questions, to inspire the creation of more texts related to it-- to begin a process?

If that's the purpose then god has succeeded quite well, but at the expense of losing followers. I would never follow a supreme being who created evil, and consigns those who don't measure up to a punishment most of us find unconscionable.

Sure, if God wanted a clear way to say to us, "Take two steps forward and three steps back every Sunday afternoon," I'm sure He could make it abundantly simple, clear, and unmistakable. But I think that His agenda is to provoke a much more complex, long-term, ramifying process of discussion, debate, social experimentation, literary and spiritual movements, and who knows what else that results in new works, ideas, evolving philosophies, interpersonal dialogue, spiritual revelations, and also probably some inevitable harsh lessons from one another, that in the end will enrich us with experience, and lead us-- slowly, generation after generation, millennium after millennium, no doubt with many retrogressions and diversions-- closer to wisdom, compassion, empathy, and spiritual awareness and openness.

Okay.

 

[rusra02]

Too often Biblical apologists excuse troublesome aspects of the Bible by asserting the Bible doesn't mean what it says. This can be a single word, phrase, or concept.

An example is asserting that the word "evil" as it occurs in Isaiah 45:7 (I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.) really means something else, eg. calamity, disaster(s), bad times, woe, or whatever. Trouble is, if evil, or any one of the other renderings of the Hebrew source word "ra" is incorrect, then why are Bibles with this error still being published? One would think any instruction book guaranteeing the survival of one's soul would be darn certain to get it as right as possible. My suspicion is that it can be traced to marketing greed; if it sells don't mess with it. Needless to say, other publishers do mess with the Bible to give the public what it wants: something new.

Whatever the case, the good Christian, usually relying on the recommended Bible version of their faith is then left with an understanding of a passage that may, in truth, be erroneous. God didn't really create evil, just bad times. And this is where apologists like to step in with their "Yup." "If you look up the original Hebrew (or Greek, as the case may be) word you'll see that it isn't "evil" at all, but X." However, any alternative suggestion is more likely to be in step with the apologist's particular beliefs rather than an impartial assessment. And make no mistake, these alternatives are not equivalencies. Evil is not the same as disaster.

So, one is left no better off than before. X may mean a ,b, c, d, or Þ Hardly an endorsement for the infallibility, inerrancy, or truth (take your pick) of a book said to be "god's word." Could god do no better than leave his important message in the hands of incompetents who so butchered it that it doesn't mean what it says? If anything, one would expect a caring god would make sure his word was clear and unquestioningly accurate, down to the last tittle---for all time and all readers. Why burden a struggling creation with promises rendered in misleading prose?

But it gets worse. If X isn't Þ, then maybe Y isn't € and Z isn't Œ, meaning that crucial passages could well be wrong. Perhaps "virgin" (parthenos) as it occurs in Matthew 1:23 should really read: "a marriageable maiden" or " one's marriageable daughter," two alternative meanings. Crucial to your brand of Christianity? Maybe Maybe not. But if it is, one has to admit that in light of the Bible's "mistakes" it may bring a crises of faith---putting it as dire as I dare.

My point here isn't to put down anyone's beliefs, but to expose the nature of the Bible as I see it, and to curtail arguments that one shouldn't take the Bible at its word, but what he, she, or it says it is. If the Bibles of today don't mean what they say then why don't they say what they mean?

Want to argue Biblical issues? Sorry, but I can only debate based on what is said in black and white, not on what anyone believes is a better interpretation.

I believe you are aware that a word in Hebrew may have more than one correct meaning, depending on the context. This is true of the word translated "evil" in some Bible translations, and "calamity" in others. A translator into another language has the task of deciding the most accurate equivalent expression of the word being translated. But if we assume "evil" is the correct translation of Isaiah 45:7, is evil always the same as wrongdoing? No.
Gods enforcing of the penalty for sin, namely, death, has proved to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind. Other evils or calamities brought by God are the Flood of Noah's day, the ten plagues on Egypt and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. These events, while great calamities or evils, were not wrongdoing. they were expressions of Jehovah's righteous judgments, I believe. The Bible has been endlessly criticized because it doesn't meet someone's preconceived notions of what it should contain. I feel sure the Bible is "inspired by God and beneficial." Since God's thinking is heaven high above ours, more than a little humility and modesty are appropriate before drawing unwarranted conclusions about God's Word. (Isaiah 55:8,9 2 Timothy 3:16,17)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

An example is asserting that the word "evil" as it occurs in Isaiah 45:7 (I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.) really means something else, eg. calamity, disaster(s), bad times, woe, or whatever. Trouble is, if evil, or any one of the other renderings of the Hebrew source word "ra" is incorrect, then why are Bibles with this error still being published?

In this case the apologists are correct. Poor translations persist much like your intransigence persists. Nevertheless our understanding of Biblical Hebrew has improved over the years and the overwhelming majority of translations informed by this progress have recognized that 'evil' is inappropriate in this verse. Compare, for example, the translations offered by the KJV and NKJV. Similarly, note that ...

The Revised Version, Standard American Edition of the Bible, more commonly known as the American Standard Version (ASV), is a version of the Bible that was released in 1901. ...

The ASV was the basis of four revisions. They were the Revised Standard Version, 1971 [1946–52], the Amplified Bible, 1965, the New American Standard Bible, 1995 [1963–71], and the Recovery Version, 1999. A fifth revision is in the making, the World English Bible. The ASV was also the basis for Kenneth N. Taylor's Bible paraphrase, The Living Bible, 1971.

- source

... and compare the translations found in the ASV and NASB.

Attempting to take petty potshots at apologists without knowing what you're talking about is a good way to end up shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Agnostic75]

I can only speak to the Hebrew Bible-- I don't have enough Greek or sufficient knowledge of the origins and early context of the Christian scriptures to be able to say anything about them in this regard. But the Hebrew Bible is extraordinarily complex. It is written in a language extremely given to multiple meanings, where quite often words have several possible definitions (occasionally even including polar opposites of a concept). It is written using considerable idiom, colloquialism, and other linguistic constructions that reflect a culture vastly different from any that read it today, and even greatly different in some ways from its own descendant culture. And what is more, it is largely written in poetry, and is replete with word-play. Add to this that it seems to have been deliberately constructed to provide for multiple meanings and interpretations of content over and above the inherent linguistic tendency to multiple potential meaning.

There is no translation that adequately renders the Hebrew in all its nuances, all its potentialities, all its subtle multiple meanings and many levels. Not a non-Jewish translation, not a Jewish translation, not an academic translation. Every single translation, no matter how excellent in some respects, is deeply flawed in other respects, or simply insufficient in some respects.

In your opinion, does the Old Testament condemn all same-sex behavior?

 

[Levite]

In your opinion, does the Old Testament condemn all same-sex behavior?

It says nothing about lesbian relations. And I personally believe that there is adequate room in the wording and construction of the two verses in Leviticus that seem to condemn male homosexual sex for possible interpretation that is much more narrow. My own supposition is that it is not intended to condemn all male homosexual sex, but male homosexual sex done within the context of idol worship, as the verses come in a section outlining forbidden practices of idol worshippers in Egypt and in Canaan.

 

[Agnostic75]

It says nothing about lesbian relations. And I personally believe that there is adequate room in the wording and construction of the two verses in Leviticus that seem to condemn male homosexual sex for possible interpretation that is much more narrow. My own supposition is that it is not intended to condemn all male homosexual sex, but male homosexual sex done within the context of idol worship, as the verses come in a section outlining forbidden practices of idol worshippers in Egypt and in Canaan.

Thanks.

 

[Skwim]

I believe you are aware that a word in Hebrew may have more than one correct meaning, depending on the context.

Just as in English. . . .

This is true of the word translated "evil" in some Bible translations, and "calamity" in others.

Yes, the Hebrew word ra. I've already acknowledged that. . . .

A translator into another language has the task of deciding the most accurate equivalent expression of the word being translated. But if we assume "evil" is the correct translation of Isaiah 45:7, is evil always the same as wrongdoing? No.

You're not making any sense. Regardless of what the source word is translated into, the resultant will typically carry its common meaning. The English word "tree" translated from the Spanish árbol will carry the English definition: "A plant having a permanently woody stem or trunk . . . ."

The Bible has been endlessly criticized because it doesn't meet someone's preconceived notions of what it should contain.

I don't really care what it contains, just don't try to convince me that every version has the same truth, because they can't. Not with one version saying X, another saying Y and a third saying Z. Evil ≠ disaster ≠ woe. And as far as I'm concerned, you don't get to redefine any given word so as to conform to your belief--at least not one I'm going to buy.

Want to claim the Bible is infallible, inerrant, or true (take your pick) then don't expect me to buy into your argument that you can turn any of its terms, phrases or passages into whatever you want them to mean.

Nevertheless our understanding of Biblical Hebrew has improved over the years and the overwhelming majority of translations informed by this progress have recognized that 'evil' is inappropriate in this verse. Compare, for example, the translations offered by the KJV and NKJV. Similarly, note that ...

The Revised Version, Standard American Edition of the Bible, more commonly known as the American Standard Version (ASV), is a version of the Bible that was released in 1901. ...

Nice. Improvement is always good; however, there are many, many folk who still abide by older, less accurate (?) versions. and will argue from that position while maintaining the prerogative of amending scripture where they see fit.

The ASV was the basis of four revisions. They were the Revised Standard Version, 1971 [1946–52], the Amplified Bible, 1965, the New American Standard Bible, 1995 [1963–71], and the Recovery Version, 1999. A fifth revision is in the making, the World English Bible. The ASV was also the basis for Kenneth N. Taylor's Bible paraphrase, The Living Bible, 1971.


... and compare the translations found in the ASV and NASB.

Nice, but has it helped?

Here are the top 10 American Bible sales of 2012 by version. The terms in quotation marks are translations of the Hebrew ra in Isaiah 45:7

1. New Living Translation "Bad Times"
2. New International Version "Disaster"
3. King James Version "Evil"
4. New King James Version "Calamity"
5. English Standard Version "Calamity"
6. Common English Bible "Doom"
7. Holman Christian Standard Bible "Disaster"
8. New American Standard Bible "Calamity"
9. Reina Valera 1960 "Adversity"
10. New International Readers Version "Hard Times"
source
​

Seven (7) different translations in only 10 versions. Hardly anything approaching unanimity. And while "evil" is not the translation of choice among the top 10, the variety of alternatives suggests that there has been more of an effort to get away from "evil" than to find the best translation. In any case, we still have the following Bibles using "evil" in Isaiah 45:7

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Geneva Study Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"I am Jehovah, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I Jehovah am the author of all these things."
​

Attempting to take petty potshots at apologists without knowing what you're talking about is a good way to end up shooting yourself in the foot.

"Petty potshots" & "without knowing what you're talking about" Nice ad homs; and no more meaningful than anything else you've posted here. Kind of disappointing because I know you're better than this.