Does God create evil?

[URAVIP2ME]

There were many creation stories in the Ancient Near East, Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian and others. The one that Genesis follows very closley is the Enuma Elish (which is considerably older than the book of Genesis). Most biblical scholars recognize that the Jewish author/authors of the book of Genesis was retelling the stories to remove the polytheistic attributes of the story to make it conform to the monotheistic beliefs of the ancient Jewish people. Just because someone referred to a story doesn't mean they took it as fact. Could they not be using it as a parable?

What does the age of the writing of Genesis have to do with time frame?

Adam did not write Genesis. Moses wrote Genesis long after Adam was gone.
Genesis [5v1] indicates that Moses had access to Adam's 'book of the generations' available for Moses to reference at Moses time frame.

Why would the temple records be a parable or illustration?
Jerusalem was the actual seat of government.
Those records probably would have also been used for tax purposes.
Because of the records including Jesus genealogical line the people according to Luke [3v15] were in expectation for the Messiah to appear.
In other words, the people expected at that time to be on the look out for the Christ to come on the earthly scene.

 

[esmith]

What does the age of the writing of Genesis have to do with time frame?.
Adam did not write Genesis. Moses wrote Genesis long after Adam was gone.
Genesis [5v1] indicates that Moses had access to Adam's 'book of the generations' available for Moses to reference at Moses time frame..

So now you are saying that Adam, who in your belief was the first man, could write? Also that Moses is the author of Genesis? If so, why did Moses use two different names for God in the two generation stories?

Why would the temple records be a parable or illustration? Jerusalem was the actual seat of government.

During what time period are you talking about?

Those records probably would have also been used for tax purposes. Because of the records including Jesus genealogical line the people according to Luke [3v15] were in expectation for the Messiah to appear.
In other words, the people expected at that time to be on the look out for the Christ to come on the earthly scene.

I thought that Joseph did not "know" Mary and Jesus was born from a virgin. If you believe this, how could Joseph be the father of Jesus. If you say Joseph adopted Jesus, you have a problem. Jewish law says that tribal ancestry has to come directly through the father by biological means. Another problem is using Luke to attempt to trace the genealogy of Jesus it goes from David to Nathan but the bible in II Samuel 7:12-13 and I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:7-7 says the messiah must be a descendant of King David through his son Solomon. Slight error there. Don't try by using Matthew either because Matthew uses the cursed King Jeconiah as a path. Jeconiah was cursed by God and none of his decedents could sit on the throne.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So now you are saying that Adam, who in your belief was the first man, could write? Also that Moses is the author of Genesis? If so, why did Moses use two different names for God in the two generation stories?
During what time period are you talking about?
I thought that Joseph did not "know" Mary and Jesus was born from a virgin. If you believe this, how could Joseph be the father of Jesus. If you say Joseph adopted Jesus, you have a problem. Jewish law says that tribal ancestry has to come directly through the father by biological means. Another problem is using Luke to attempt to trace the genealogy of Jesus it goes from David to Nathan but the bible in II Samuel 7:12-13 and I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:7-7 says the messiah must be a descendant of King David through his son Solomon. Slight error there. Don't try by using Matthew either because Matthew uses the cursed King Jeconiah as a path. Jeconiah was cursed by God and none of his decedents could sit on the throne.

Of course Adam could write. Adam even coined named for the animals according to Gen 2vs19,20

Moses is given the credit for writing the first five Bible books and the Mosaic law is named after Moses.

What two different names for God [YHWH] are you referring?

First century time period would be the time of Christ.

Yes, Joseph was Jesus foster father. That gave Jesus the 'legal' right to David's throne. Just like an adoption gives the child the legal rights.
Mary gave Jesus the 'fleshly' right.

Jesus records are traced through both Mary and Joseph.

At [1st Chron 3vs15-17; Ester 2v6; Jeremiah 24v1; 27v20; 28v4; 29v2] I see nothing about Josiah's grandson, Jeconiah, being cursed by God and none of his descendants could sit on the throne.

 

[esmith]

Of course Adam could write. Adam even coined named for the animals according to Gen 2vs19,20.

Talk and write are two different abilities. Where did you come up with this "Book of Adam" anyway

Moses is given the credit for writing the first five Bible books and the Mosaic law is named after Moses..

Sorry, most Biblical scholars agree that there were various authors for the Torah/Five Books of Moses.

What two different names for God [YHWH] are you referring?

In the first creation story God is referred to (original Hebrew text) as Elohim (God) and Yahweh (Lord God) in the second.

First century time period would be the time of Christ.

And just what kind of Temple records would you be referring to during this time?

Yes, Joseph was Jesus foster father. That gave Jesus the 'legal' right to David's throne. Just like an adoption gives the child the legal rights.
Mary gave Jesus the 'fleshly' right..

NO. Jewish law states must be blood. For example , a pries (Kohain) is someone born to another priest. If a priest adopts a boy who is the son of someone who was not a priest, that child does NOT become a priest through adoption.

Jesus records are traced through both Mary and Joseph.

No where in the NT does the geology of Mary shown.

At [1st Chron 3vs15-17; Ester 2v6; Jeremiah 24v1; 27v20; 28v4; 29v2] I see nothing about Josiah's grandson, Jeconiah, being cursed by God and none of his descendants could sit on the throne.

Jeremiah 22:28-xx Jehoachin cursed by God (Jehoachin was also known as Coniah a shortened form Jeconiah
II Chronicles 22 says must come through Solomon

I direct your reading to the following: http://www.messiahtruth.com/jesusgen.html

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Talk and write are two different abilities. Where did you come up with this "Book of Adam" anyway
Sorry, most Biblical scholars agree that there were various authors for the Torah/Five Books of Moses.
In the first creation story God is referred to (original Hebrew text) as Elohim (God) and Yahweh (Lord God) in the second.
And just what kind of Temple records would you be referring to during this time?
NO. Jewish law states must be blood. For example , a pries (Kohain) is someone born to another priest. If a priest adopts a boy who is the son of someone who was not a priest, that child does NOT become a priest through adoption.
No where in the NT does the geology of Mary shown.
Jeremiah 22:28-xx Jehoachin cursed by God (Jehoachin was also known as Coniah a shortened form Jeconiah
II Chronicles 22 says must come through Solomon

What does Genesis 5v1 say?_____________________

Sovereign Lord: Adhonai
The true God: ha Elohim
The true God: ha El
The true Lord: ha Adhohn

All of the above are titles not a personal name.
YHWH is the tetragrammaton or four letters that stand for God's personal name.

Please note in KJV at Psalm 110v1 that two [2] LORD/Lord's are mentioned.
Where LORD is in capitals is where the tetragrammaton stood.
Lord with lower case letter stands for Jesus.

The Jerusalem temple records.
Yes blood. Mary provided the fleshly [blood] descent.
Luke chapter three is Jesus genealogy through: Mary.
Joseph was Heli's son-in-law that is why Joseph fits in there.
Please notice the lines diverge after Zerubbabel.
Matthew through: Joseph's paternal line
Luke through: Mary's maternal line.

Thanks for bringing to my attention Jer 22.
How does not sitting on the throne of David prove a curse?
'Coniah' had seven sons [1st Ch 3vs16-18]
Just because they did not succeed him as king does that make a curse?

Apparently Ezekiel [1v2] began writing in the 5th year of Coniah's captivity.
After his release from prison he was given a nice position of favor.
2nd Kings 25vs27-30; Jeremiah 52vs31-34.

Apparently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marrigage, or he was just brought up by Shealtiel after his father Padaiah's death, and he became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
Shealtiel could have been the son-in-law of Neri.-1Ch 3v17.
[1Ch 3vs17-19; Ezra 3v2; Luke 3v27].

 

[esmith]

What does Genesis 5v1 say?_____________________

This is the record of the begetting of Adam. Nothing said about a writing.

Yes blood. Mary provided the fleshly [blood] descent.
Luke chapter three is Jesus genealogy through: Mary.
Joseph was Heli's son-in-law that is why Joseph fits in there.
Please notice the lines diverge after Zerubbabel.
Matthew through: Joseph's paternal line
Luke through: Mary's maternal line.

Again Tribal affiliation can not be passed down through a Female. Also,genealogy of Luke through Mary does not go through Solomon as it must.


:

1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. (KJV)​

So we see, any man who would sit on the throne must not only be a descendant of King David, but specifically a descendant of David’s son, Solomon. This requirement was made even more stringent in the days prior to the Babylonian exile. Jeconiah, King of Judah, was a wicked king, and his actions pushed G-d too far. G-d punished Jeconiah, also known as Jehoiachin or Coniah:

Jeremiah 22:24 [As] I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; [25] And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand [of them] whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. [26] And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. [27] But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. [28] [Is] this man Coniah a despised broken idol? [is he] a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? [29] O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. [30] Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (KJV)​

This devastating curse effectively removes all descendants of Jeconiah from the royal line. So from the verses listed above we see that anyone who would sit as king must be descended from King Solomon but not descended from King Jeconiah. We see that this curse is binding, because after Jeconiah was deposed, instead of the throne being handed to his son, it passed to Zedekiah, his uncle. No descendant of Jeconiah ever held the throne, or ever can hold the throne. His grandson, Zerubbabel, held power granted by G-d, but was never king.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

esmith-

Yes, no son sat on the throne, but that did not make any of his sons not sons.

1Ch22v9 Since the name Solomon means a man of calming restfulness / peaceable,
then Jesus would be the Greater Solomon.

Matthew mentions Solomon [Jesus paternal line], while Luke begins or continues with Nathan [Jesus maternal line]

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is the record of the begetting of Adam. Nothing said about a writing.

esmith, isn't a record writing?

Genesis 5v1: Moses wrote part of Genesis from the 'book of generations'.

....the 'book' of the generations of or by Adam...

Don't books have words? Aren't words in books down in writing?

Genesis chapter 2v4 to 5v1 is Adam's history or the generations [begetting] of the people mentioned there apparently recorded in Adam's 'BOOK of generations'.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

esmith-

After Jer. chapter 22, what does Jeremiah 52 verses 31 to 34 say?
also, 2nd Kings 25 verses 27 to 30 ,
and Ezekiel 1 verse 2

 

[esmith]

After Jer. chapter 22, what does Jeremiah 52 verses 31 to 34 say?

Basically it is an attempt to end Jeramiah and Kings on an optimistic note, where the release of Jehoiachin is meant to foreshadow the broader return to Zion and reestablishment of the Davdic monarch. Jehoiachin did not return to Jerusalem but died in Babylon.

also, 2nd Kings 25 verses 27 to 30 ,

v28: Spoke kindly: The Hebrew translates a technical expression in Babylonian that means to "reach an agreement, conclude a negotiation". The narrative refers to a legal grant recognizing a change in status that had far reaching implications for Jehoianchin and the exiles. Lack of any death notice may suggest that this final note was appended before the death of Jehoiachin.

and Ezekiel 1 verse 2

The book of Ezekiel attempts to justify the tragedy of Babylonian exile by arguing that it was a divine punishment for the people's sin and by pointing to God's mercy in the future restoration. It contends that God intends to uphold the covenant with Isreel for the sake of the sanctity of the divine name by restoring a remnant of the people to the land of Israel and placing a new Temple at its center.

All verse 2 says this happens after the destruction of the Temple and the some of the people of Israel have been exiled to Babylon

I would like to take this time to say that I am trying to belittle or denigrate your religious beliefs. As a young person brought up in a Christian home( over 69 years ago) I used to believe in the Christian doctrine. After not attending church for over 50 years my wife and I started going again. I started reading the bible to try and understand it. I have taken over 60 hours of seminars by Professors of religious study at various universities. These seminars were on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Tanakh/Old Testament, the New Testament, and the book of Genesis, and Lost Christianities. From my readings and these seminars I have come to have a better understanding of the Bible. I am not saying what I have read or heard is correct, all I am saying is that I have serious questions on the Christian beliefs in Jesus. However, I still have an open mind and still thinking. I am using the Jewish Study Bible and the NIV Study Bible plus the Five Books Of Moses: The Schocken Bible Volume 1; translated by Everett Fox

 

[horizon_mj1]

I think that if you are truely interested in reading more about biblical writings, may I suggest the Lost Books of the Bible. There were several books omitted during the English translation that fill in several blanks left by the Bible.

 

[bnabernard]

I think that if you are truely interested in reading more about biblical writings, may I suggest the Lost Books of the Bible. There were several books omitted during the English translation that fill in several blanks left by the Bible.

did God create evil? nature answers the question quite simply, I mean who in thier right mind would throw a bucket of hydrogen and oxygen on a fire to put it out?

Bernard (hug)

 

[Ray W]

God is Love, love is good. the absence of God is hatred, hatred is evil. So it's not a creation, it's a opposite and equal reaction to something. If good is water in a bowl we know and can see what "good" is. Our bowl is the scriptures. Anything outside of that bowl would be evil, evil only exists because there is a bowl that separates them. And the absence of something is not a creation at all in my opinion. I hope that made some sense.

 

[Andywelikandy]

It is impossible for Almighty God to create evil. Evil can not come out of Almighty God. Here's the verse in proof: James ch. 1: 13 When someone is tempted, he shouldn’t say that God is tempting him. GOD CAN"T BE TEMPTED BY EVIL, and God doesn’t tempt anyone. 14 Everyone is tempted by his own desires as they lure him away and trap him. 15 Then desire becomes pregnant and gives birth to sin. When sin grows up, it gives birth to death.

Now this does not mean that God did not ALLOW evil in this world and also among angels in heaven. When Lucifer rebelled against God in heaven He (God) did not stop it. In stead He drove Satan and one third of angels who joined Lucifer, on to planet earth. God could not kill Lucifer to stop the rebellion because no spirit is subject to death. So He drove Lucifer down to earth with the rebellious angels and Lucifer became Satan and his followers were named demons or evil spirits.

If someone wants to say that Almighty God created evil, that's no problem. Why? Because everything created in the universe was created by Almighty God. "The buck stops on God's desk."

 

[bnabernard]

So they kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven basically means no change?
Or maybe it;s a request for another place to send the spirits, never blooming asked for them to come here in the first place.

bernard (hug)

 

[Awoon]

This is in no way meant to be inflammatory, it is only my own logic and opinions. I do welcome other opinions on the matter.

The view held by Christian theology is that God did not create evil. You may argue this point using scripture to support either side. However that argument is but a symptom of a much larger problem which is choice and “free will”.

The concept among Christians is that sin, suffering, and evil deeds began with the “original sin”. The original sin was supposedly Adam and Eve’s disobedience, which is incorrect. The original sin started with Satan first, and then Adam and Eve second.

Using biblical logic we can see that God did not stop Satan from disobeying, he merely punishes or will punish Satan. God allowed Satan a choice. Satan in turn proposed that choice to Adam and Eve. Through their actions suffering and evil entered the world of man. The suffering and evil did not originate in reality with Adam and Eve. It originated when God allowed Satan a choice. Satan was supposedly the first creature to disobey. It is only in the world of humans that Adam and Eve were responsible for evil spreading, but Satan, using his option given by God, created evil.

Ultimately God allows choice or "free will".

The bible shows Satan created evil when he exercised his free will to oppose God. That choice that Satan took was offered to him by God. Both God and Satan are necessary ingredients in the creation of evil.

This is the most important concept and the origin of Gods involvement with the creation or allowance of evil.

If God created everything then he also created choice, or “free will”, and the ability to act upon that choice, as Satan demonstrated, which creates evil. He allows the capacity for disobedience and sin. Evil is a choice that was made by Satan given to him by God. Satan could never have made that choice if God hadn’t given it to him or allowed it in the same way God gave it to Adam and Eve. God must have created and allowed the ability for the two options prior to Satan’s choosing.

The problem is as follows. In a world with options, someone will take those options. It is in the free will and choices that exists good or bad. In order for the world to be without bad things, the option must be removed or blocked.

Mostly the objection to this idea is that people think without the option to disobey you aren’t truly free, and God of course wants us to be free. God does not want to force us to obey him. This is faulty logic simply because we are not, and have never been, as humans, truly free. I can not transform myself into a dinosaur. I am limited by the laws of physics, nature, and biology. We are not and have never been, as humans, truly free.

This is not a bad thing. Without the option of exercising evil you are no more limited in any capacity than you were before, in fact you would be better off without that option. You have unlimited other options, why would the removal of the ability to choose evil be equated to slavery? Do we truly need the choice to produce evil things for us to be “free”?

God is very busy in punishing the wicked. Punishment is a negative thing full of sorrow, guilt, and suffering. God participates in punishment, pain, and suffering. He also continues the evil by allowing the choice for disobedience in turn causing him to create Hell, destroy cities, and bring death as righteous punishment.

My real point is not to challenge the authenticity of the Christian God's existence, but to point to the idea that people do not know the God they choose to worship. Also that the bible is full of problematic theologies and concepts which create these imbalances in the image we create of God.

The short answer to the question on both counts is yes. Through choice God creates evil. If God created everything, then anything that is possible, or anything that exists, must have been created by God.

"GOD," "LOGOS," is the Mental Faculty of the Universe. MIND ENERGY Creates Everything visible and invisible.

 

[bnabernard]

God is Love, love is good. the absence of God is hatred, hatred is evil. So it's not a creation, it's a opposite and equal reaction to something. If good is water in a bowl we know and can see what "good" is. Our bowl is the scriptures. Anything outside of that bowl would be evil, evil only exists because there is a bowl that separates them. And the absence of something is not a creation at all in my opinion. I hope that made some sense.

However as the water is hydrogen an oxygen the you have the makings of a hydrogen bomb?

bernard (hug)

 

[Mountain_Climber]

This is in no way meant to be inflammatory, it is only my own logic and opinions. I do welcome other opinions on the matter.

The view held by Christian theology is that God did not create evil. You may argue this point using scripture to support either side. However that argument is but a symptom of a much larger problem which is choice and “free will”.

The concept among Christians is that sin, suffering, and evil deeds began with the “original sin”. The original sin was supposedly Adam and Eve’s disobedience, which is incorrect. The original sin started with Satan first, and then Adam and Eve second.

Using biblical logic we can see that God did not stop Satan from disobeying, he merely punishes or will punish Satan. God allowed Satan a choice. Satan in turn proposed that choice to Adam and Eve. Through their actions suffering and evil entered the world of man. The suffering and evil did not originate in reality with Adam and Eve. It originated when God allowed Satan a choice. Satan was supposedly the first creature to disobey. It is only in the world of humans that Adam and Eve were responsible for evil spreading, but Satan, using his option given by God, created evil.

Ultimately God allows choice or "free will".

The bible shows Satan created evil when he exercised his free will to oppose God. That choice that Satan took was offered to him by God. Both God and Satan are necessary ingredients in the creation of evil.

This is the most important concept and the origin of Gods involvement with the creation or allowance of evil.

If God created everything then he also created choice, or “free will”, and the ability to act upon that choice, as Satan demonstrated, which creates evil. He allows the capacity for disobedience and sin. Evil is a choice that was made by Satan given to him by God. Satan could never have made that choice if God hadn’t given it to him or allowed it in the same way God gave it to Adam and Eve. God must have created and allowed the ability for the two options prior to Satan’s choosing.

The problem is as follows. In a world with options, someone will take those options. It is in the free will and choices that exists good or bad. In order for the world to be without bad things, the option must be removed or blocked.

Mostly the objection to this idea is that people think without the option to disobey you aren’t truly free, and God of course wants us to be free. God does not want to force us to obey him. This is faulty logic simply because we are not, and have never been, as humans, truly free. I can not transform myself into a dinosaur. I am limited by the laws of physics, nature, and biology. We are not and have never been, as humans, truly free.

This is not a bad thing. Without the option of exercising evil you are no more limited in any capacity than you were before, in fact you would be better off without that option. You have unlimited other options, why would the removal of the ability to choose evil be equated to slavery? Do we truly need the choice to produce evil things for us to be “free”?

God is very busy in punishing the wicked. Punishment is a negative thing full of sorrow, guilt, and suffering. God participates in punishment, pain, and suffering. He also continues the evil by allowing the choice for disobedience in turn causing him to create Hell, destroy cities, and bring death as righteous punishment.

My real point is not to challenge the authenticity of the Christian God's existence, but to point to the idea that people do not know the God they choose to worship. Also that the bible is full of problematic theologies and concepts which create these imbalances in the image we create of God.

The short answer to the question on both counts is yes. Through choice God creates evil. If God created everything, then anything that is possible, or anything that exists, must have been created by God.

As I see it you have pressed up and off of a faulty premise, that God allowed Satan the choice to sin.

I sincerely hope this twisted world is not so completely corrupted that it cannot understand there is a difference between my child choosing to play in the street and me allowing my child to play in the street.

The child usurped authority to itself to play in the street for which it should hope that it only has to deal with me rather than the other possible consequences.

God does not know absolutely every detail of everything before many things happen. The Omniscience doctrine is but another false doctrine when it is stretched to God having to know even everything we will devise in our hearts before we devise it.

And it is on the basis of what we devise (create) in our hearts as is shown by what we choose to do, that God judges us. That is why he waits to see our works and then judges us for our works.

This all seems so clear and simple to me now, but I remember what it was like when that Omniscience doctrine and free-will doctrine worked together to tie my mind up and blind me.

 

[bnabernard]

Yes, it certainly relates that the experience of a child playing in the street can lead to a number of consequences bad and good, and it follows that the experienced father would be aware of the perils and the pleasures.

The negative argument would suggest a denial of pleasure, disregarding the cost, a denial of self taught pleasure as opposed to a pleasure planned by the father and calculated risk free and who knows, greater pleasure.

One might say disobedience can lead to missing out, however it's common for one involved in their own state to believe it the best.

bernard (hug)

 

[George-ananda]

This is in no way meant to be inflammatory, it is only my own logic and opinions. I do welcome other opinions on the matter.

The view held by Christian theology is that God did not create evil. You may argue this point using scripture to support either side. However that argument is but a symptom of a much larger problem which is choice and “free will”.

The concept among Christians is that sin, suffering, and evil deeds began with the “original sin”. The original sin was supposedly Adam and Eve’s disobedience, which is incorrect. The original sin started with Satan first, and then Adam and Eve second.

Using biblical logic we can see that God did not stop Satan from disobeying, he merely punishes or will punish Satan. God allowed Satan a choice. Satan in turn proposed that choice to Adam and Eve. Through their actions suffering and evil entered the world of man. The suffering and evil did not originate in reality with Adam and Eve. It originated when God allowed Satan a choice. Satan was supposedly the first creature to disobey. It is only in the world of humans that Adam and Eve were responsible for evil spreading, but Satan, using his option given by God, created evil.

Ultimately God allows choice or "free will".

The bible shows Satan created evil when he exercised his free will to oppose God. That choice that Satan took was offered to him by God. Both God and Satan are necessary ingredients in the creation of evil.

This is the most important concept and the origin of Gods involvement with the creation or allowance of evil.

If God created everything then he also created choice, or “free will”, and the ability to act upon that choice, as Satan demonstrated, which creates evil. He allows the capacity for disobedience and sin. Evil is a choice that was made by Satan given to him by God. Satan could never have made that choice if God hadn’t given it to him or allowed it in the same way God gave it to Adam and Eve. God must have created and allowed the ability for the two options prior to Satan’s choosing.

The problem is as follows. In a world with options, someone will take those options. It is in the free will and choices that exists good or bad. In order for the world to be without bad things, the option must be removed or blocked.

Mostly the objection to this idea is that people think without the option to disobey you aren’t truly free, and God of course wants us to be free. God does not want to force us to obey him. This is faulty logic simply because we are not, and have never been, as humans, truly free. I can not transform myself into a dinosaur. I am limited by the laws of physics, nature, and biology. We are not and have never been, as humans, truly free.

This is not a bad thing. Without the option of exercising evil you are no more limited in any capacity than you were before, in fact you would be better off without that option. You have unlimited other options, why would the removal of the ability to choose evil be equated to slavery? Do we truly need the choice to produce evil things for us to be “free”?

God is very busy in punishing the wicked. Punishment is a negative thing full of sorrow, guilt, and suffering. God participates in punishment, pain, and suffering. He also continues the evil by allowing the choice for disobedience in turn causing him to create Hell, destroy cities, and bring death as righteous punishment.

My real point is not to challenge the authenticity of the Christian God's existence, but to point to the idea that people do not know the God they choose to worship. Also that the bible is full of problematic theologies and concepts which create these imbalances in the image we create of God.

The short answer to the question on both counts is yes. Through choice God creates evil. If God created everything, then anything that is possible, or anything that exists, must have been created by God.

I think you are carrying these Abrahamic concepts to their logical conclusions. I think it shows the concepts are far from perfect because they can produce some of the intuitively wrong conclusions above. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

I feel eastern (Indian/Vedic) thought avoids these conclusions with a different set of assumptions and uses more sophisticated concepts.