If God knew beforehand why did he go through with it?

[Willamena]

<cough!> A six month old child doesn't 'sin', and pestilence, disease and earthquakes aren't a consequence of free will.

Pestilence, disease and earthquakes aren't sins! And why do you think a six month old doesn't sin? (rhetorical question) It''s not like it's a choice. Where "free will" enters the picture is in taking responsibility and acquiring guilt for a sin. Yes: adults do that better than children.

 

[Willamena]

If God is all good and all powerful the argument cannot be made that a particular existence requires suffering since the concept of heaven demonstrates that existence without suffering is possible.

But we're not "in heaven," we're "on earth," which existence allegedly isn't dependent upon conditions "in heaven." Apparently, we are here for a reason. If the appearance of earth is made to resemble heaven, wouldn't that eliminate the reason for being on earth? Perhaps even the reason for an earth?

(And I could compose an argument for it, but no doubt it would go the way of previous arguments in conflicting with the image of "God" that is necessary to make the PoE argument work for you. )

And it cannot be argued that God lay under some necessary compunction to bring this world into being – unless we want to compromise his omnipotence. Also, as there is no contradiction in conceiving a world without pain and suffering, a world without pain and suffering is therefore perfectly logical.

More importantly, it's not necessary to make that argument as it doesn't counter the points made about PoE.

There's no contradiction in conceiving a world without pain and suffering for you (it's aesthetic --logic has nothing to do with it). I suspect that's because the concept of dependence is being ignored.

 

[cottage]

Pestilence, disease and earthquakes aren't sins! And why do you think a six month old doesn't sin? (rhetorical question) It''s not like it's a choice. Where "free will" enters the picture is in taking responsibility and acquiring guilt for a sin. Yes: adults do that better than children.

Pestilence, disease and earthquakes all equal suffering. The child with leukaemia hasn’t sinned, and yet it suffers. The problem of evil is pain and suffering, not some quasi-moral-religious law. And you have a very odd understanding of the free will defence, as it applies to the PoE.

 

[cottage]

But we're not "in heaven," we're "on earth," which existence allegedly isn't dependent upon conditions "in heaven." Apparently, we are here for a reason. If the appearance of earth is made to resemble heaven, wouldn't that eliminate the reason for being on earth? Perhaps even the reason for an earth?

My argument is not just for a world without suffering (although that is logically possible) but to point out that the world doesn’t have to exist at all. And it isn’t ‘apparent’ that ‘we are here for a reason’, which is why we’re having this discussion; and even if there were a compelling reason I can tell you the words ‘God’ and ‘evil’ would still be seen together in the explanation.

(And I could compose an argument for it, but no doubt it would go the way of previous arguments in conflicting with the image of "God" that is necessary to make the PoE argument work for you. )

Please, let’s hear it?

More importantly, it's not necessary to make that argument as it doesn't counter the points made about PoE.

I’m not countering the points, I’m arguing in favour of them! The problem of evil is the inconsistent triad and its three premises, at least one of which must be false. You’ve argued that evil is necessary (‘suffering is useful’, I believe you’ve said). I replied that suffering is not necessary for this world or any world, as per the demonstration that I gave.

There's no contradiction in conceiving a world without pain and suffering for you (it's aesthetic --logic has nothing to do with it). I suspect that's because the concept of dependence is being ignored.

And what may I ask is heaven (or any other supposed afterlife utopia), if not a world without suffering? Also you can’t make an argument from dependence without running slap bang into the contradiction or dropping a premise in the triad. Just as there is no contradiction in conceiving a world without evil there is no contradiction in conceiving God and evil: it’s only that pesky term ‘all good’ that causes the problem.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sure you can make an adequate case for that with the homeless man but I prefer the term 'helping' and feel it's more apt. As for serving the body, while again I'm sure you can make a case for it, I'd say since it's mine and it's just a body fueling or maintaining would be more accurate verbs.

They're not different, in truth. Servants are needed in mansions and castles, because the residents can't possibly maintain them themselves while living their own lives.

You can, however, use whatever term you like. A rose called by any other name would smell just as sweet, after all. :yes:

 

[cottage]

None of what you say applies to the Free Will defense. The Free Will defense argues that Adam and Eve were free to fall or free not to fall. They had an authentic choice. As for the free will of their descendents, only a fool thinks that all our decisions are free. And it may just be that our free will is constrained by a nature we have inherited according to which we are bound to sin. So we are free not to sin in the sense that on each occasion, we have an authentic choice; but given our fallen state, we are bound to sin sooner or later. Usually sooner.

As for the angry God establishing authority, you are wrong on both counts. Certainly God was angry with the sin, but anger does not characterize God. Love does. Thus Adam and Eve did not die immediately, and given the consequences of sin, death is a mitigator (imagine having immortality in a world of sorrows). He promised to redeem the world through the seed of the woman, which is a way of allowing humanity to play a crucial role in their own salvation. Indeed, the only one in the story who has no hope is the serpent.

Notice also that Adam and Eve retreated from God and sewed fig leaves together for coverings when their loss of innocence permitted them to 'realize" they were naked. They felt shame. But fig leaves are an inadequate covering, so God provided an adequate covering for them.

Leading up to the scene of judgment, notice that God tenderly calls out to Adam, "Where are you?" God knew where he was, of course, but he was inviting Adam to return to him. If he had, instead of blaming God, "It was this woman YOU GAVE ME," he would have been restored.

It's a selective reading that results in your conclusion, not the text itself, my friend.

My argument is that God caused the evil that exists in the world, whereas you’ve been insisting that he’s passive in that respect, permitting rather than actively bringing it into being. I give as an example two biblical passages that confirm this and you accuse me of selective reading! (People usually call me their ‘friend’ after they’ve become frustrated or angry; in other words, meaning the exact opposite. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. )

What you write in defence of God and evil is actually a pretty damning indictment. Mitigation is not acquittal, and so to speak of ‘Adam not dying immediately’ and ‘God providing adequate covering’ for A & E is extremely small beer, as is his promises of redemption. Even Almighty God cannot undo what is done. The serpent, presumably one of God’s own creatures, is cursed for all time. That God’s vindictiveness should extend to such a creature means we shouldn’t be surprised by what follows with A & E; after all, doesn’t God say elsewhere in the Bible ‘for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me’?

The free will defence is a response to the problem of evil, with or without the story of Adam and Eve. Fundamentalists/BACs may take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but a great many Christians do not, and for them A & E and the Noah’s Ark are not understood literally. In any case, if Adam and Eve’s actions were known then God failed at the starting gate to be an omnipotent, loving deity. And on the subject of love we see he is remiss in this respect time and again in passages in the Old Testament, where he threatens and kills. So the Bible only serves to restate the problem of evil and suffering - and it soundly confirms the conclusion.

 

[Dunemeister]

My argument is that God caused the evil that exists in the world, whereas you&#8217;ve been insisting that he&#8217;s passive in that respect, permitting rather than actively bringing it into being. I give as an example two biblical passages that confirm this and you accuse me of selective reading! (People usually call me their &#8216;friend&#8217; after they&#8217;ve become frustrated or angry; in other words, meaning the exact opposite. I&#8217;ll give you the benefit of the doubt. )

Thanks for the doubt.

I don't say God is actually passive. What I say is that evil exists through his permission AND he has adequate reasons for permitting it. What reasons are those? I don't exactly know. But I happen to know God, that he loves what he has created and will redeem it.

And I stand by my accusation of selective reading. The whole story is required to come away with the portrait of God being painted. To read only an isolated few words (or even just an isolated chapter or even book) is to come away with a distorted view. It's called context and narrative; they matter.

What you write in defence of God and evil is actually a pretty damning indictment. Mitigation is not acquittal, and so to speak of &#8216;Adam not dying immediately&#8217; and &#8216;God providing adequate covering&#8217; for A & E is extremely small beer, as is his promises of redemption. Even Almighty God cannot undo what is done. The serpent, presumably one of God&#8217;s own creatures, is cursed for all time. That God&#8217;s vindictiveness should extend to such a creature means we shouldn&#8217;t be surprised by what follows with A & E; after all, doesn&#8217;t God say elsewhere in the Bible &#8216;

for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me&#8217;?

No, you're right. Mitigation is not acquittal. Adam was not (and never will be) acquitted. He's guilty. The promised punishment was commuted and God provided protection against some of the natural side-effects of sin. These two acts point to God's love for Adam, not some angry indifference.

The Free Will defense, as it pertains to A&E (as we're calling them) means that God permitted them the free choice to rebel. They were not free to choose the consequences, and God warned them what they would be. So they rebelled in the knowledge of what would happen. I'm really at a loss why God is at fault for their sin.

So God permitted them to rebel, and he instituted a program that would ultimately redeem the world. No, that doesn't take away what has been done. Adam can't unsin. Cain can't unmurder Abel. What's done is done. But God can punish Cain and compensate Abel (and those who were disadvantaged by the loss of Abel, particularly A&E). He can reward those who remained faithful despite persecution and/or hardship -- one might think of Noah in this connection.

None of this paints a picture of a vindictive God. If God were vindictive, he would have slain A, E, and the serpent in one fell swoop and started over (if he wanted to). If he were vindictive, he would have hounded A&E for the rest of their days. Clearly he didn't.

And once again, your selective reading gets the better of you. You can't expect to understand a text by only reading half of it (and interpreting it in a literal fashion which is obviously out of place). Here's the whole thing (Exodus 20:4-6):

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

So there is punishment for "three or four generations" of those who reject God but steadfast love for "a thousand generations" of those who love God. That hardly sounds vindictive. And it also points to the fact that the passage isn't meant to be literal. Speaking of three or four versus a thousand is a picturesque way of emphasizing God's desire to bless rather than curse. This is simply the way you talk to a bronze age semi-nomadic nation. Today we'd probably express it differently.

It also seems to me that God's reticence to punish is what stands out the most in scripture. The flood came only after the whole world had become corrupt and there was but one righteous family on the earth left. The same could be said for the inhabitants of Sodom. He tends to mitigate his own punishments either unilaterally or in response to prayer. It's as if God hates to punish and only does it because ultimately it has to be done. He'd much rather shower his people with blessing.

And indeed, isn't that what you're accusing him of? The fact that evil persists means that evil is going unpunished. What does this mean? Does it mean God can't or won't deal with it? Perhaps. Or perhaps he is reluctant to punish and would rather give us the time and space to repent so that he need not punish.

The free will defence is a response to the problem of evil, with or without the story of Adam and Eve. Fundamentalists/BACs may take the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but a great many Christians do not, and for them A & E and the Noah&#8217;s Ark are not understood literally. In any case, if Adam and Eve&#8217;s actions were known then God failed at the starting gate to be an omnipotent, loving deity. And on the subject of love we see he is remiss in this respect time and again in passages in the Old Testament, where he threatens and kills. So the Bible only serves to restate the problem of evil and suffering - and it soundly confirms the conclusion.

 

[Humanistheart]

They're not different, in truth.

That's a matter of opinion, but this would be an discussion for another thread

 

[Riverwolf]

That's a matter of opinion, but this would be an discussion for another thread

Indeed.

 

[cottage]

Thanks for the doubt.

I don't say God is actually passive. What I say is that evil exists through his permission AND he has adequate reasons for permitting it. What reasons are those? I don't exactly know. But I happen to know God, that he loves what he has created and will redeem it.

I have no disagreement whatsoever with you that God might have reasons for permitting evil, because it is entirely irrelevant. My argument isn’t that he cannot be an all-good God because he resorts to evil in the Bible, but because of the factual existence of suffering. Passages in the Bible only serve to confirm the contradiction, as you do yourself with your above statement.

And I stand by my accusation of selective reading. The whole story is required to come away with the portrait of God being painted. To read only an isolated few words (or even just an isolated chapter or even book) is to come away with a distorted view. It's called context and narrative; they matter.

Of course I shall select the parts of the text that support the Problem of Evil thesis! A single example where God threatens, uses, or justifies evil makes my argument, and thus any former or subsequent expressions of love or benevolence are rendered meaningless. The contradiction needs to be demonstrated only the once.

No, you're right. Mitigation is not acquittal. Adam was not (and never will be) acquitted. He's guilty. The promised punishment was commuted and God provided protection against some of the natural side-effects of sin. These two acts point to God's love for Adam, not some angry indifference.

The Free Will defense, as it pertains to A&E (as we're calling them) means that God permitted them the free choice to rebel. They were not free to choose the consequences, and God warned them what they would be. So they rebelled in the knowledge of what would happen. I'm really at a loss why God is at fault for their sin.

So God permitted them to rebel, and he instituted a program that would ultimately redeem the world. No, that doesn't take away what has been done. Adam can't unsin. Cain can't unmurder Abel. What's done is done. But God can punish Cain and compensate Abel (and those who were disadvantaged by the loss of Abel, particularly A&E). He can reward those who remained faithful despite persecution and/or hardship -- one might think of Noah in this connection.

You make God sound as if he struggles with indecision and uncertainty. The punishment God promised was ‘commuted’, and you speak of God providing protection against ‘some of the natural side effects of sin’(whatever that means), as if he’s having second thoughts. And what about this gem: God can ‘compensate Abel and those who were disadvantaged.’ And God was apparently so merciful and loving that he ‘instituted a programme’ that would [eventually] redeem the world. Let the world suffer, God will ease the suffering when he’s good and ready.
As for the ‘free choice to rebel’, it was no such thing! If God knew they were going to rebel then it was ordained that they would do exactly that, as surely as they would walk in circles had he’d nailed one of their feet to the floor. They rebelled because they were damaged goods, as God knew full well, but he chose to let events take their course and then punished them for it. Benevolent? Merciful? Compassionate? Loving? Wise and just? Noooo!

None of this paints a picture of a vindictive God. If God were vindictive, he would have slain A, E, and the serpent in one fell swoop and started over (if he wanted to). If he were vindictive, he would have hounded A&E for the rest of their days. Clearly he didn't.

Here you’re using vindictive to mean what suits your argument. A vindictive person doesn’t have to be a killer or someone forever consumed with evil intent. Vindictiveness can also be spiteful, petty or fleeting.

And once again, your selective reading gets the better of you. You can't expect to understand a text by only reading half of it (and interpreting it in a literal fashion which is obviously out of place). Here's the whole thing (Exodus 20:4-6):

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

So there is punishment for "three or four generations" of those who reject God but steadfast love for "a thousand generations" of those who love God. That hardly sounds vindictive. And it also points to the fact that the passage isn't meant to be literal. Speaking of three or four versus a thousand is a picturesque way of emphasizing God's desire to bless rather than curse. This is simply the way you talk to a bronze age semi-nomadic nation. Today we'd probably express it differently.

As a matter of fact I didn’t read half of it; I read all of it, but quoted the part that demonstrates the vindictive nature of God. And I’m bemused by the way to seek to quantify God’s love and set it against his vindictive curses. And by the way, curses are vindictive. Also you need to make up your mind whether you are defending God’s actions or dismissing them as not literal. Is this passage also not meant to be taken literally: Revelation: v21-23 “I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds." There is loads more where that came from.

It also seems to me that God's reticence to punish is what stands out the most in scripture. The flood came only after the whole world had become corrupt and there was but one righteous family on the earth left. The same could be said for the inhabitants of Sodom. He tends to mitigate his own punishments either unilaterally or in response to prayer. It's as if God hates to punish and only does it because ultimately it has to be done. He'd much rather shower his people with blessing.

This is absurd. We’re discussing Almighty God, the Supreme Being, and here you are telling me that God ‘hates to punish but it has to be done’ and that his own creation frustrates his wish to bless them!

And indeed, isn't that what you're accusing him of? The fact that evil persists means that evil is going unpunished. What does this mean? Does it mean God can't or won't deal with it? Perhaps. Or perhaps he is reluctant to punish and would rather give us the time and space to repent so that he need not punish.

What I’m ‘accusing him of’ is being the cause and sustainer of evil and suffering.
And ‘evil going unpunished’, how does that explain the existence of suffering outside of moral evil?

A proper response would be appreciated, if you don’t mind?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

This question is for all you who are believers in God

These question has been lingering over my head for a very long time.

If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world? Why did he create Lucifer knowing he would become Satan? Why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he knew Adam and Eve would be tricked by the serpent?

If you are believer in God and you know the answer, do let me know as to be honest im racking my brain over the concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his creations demise and let it happen anyway?

The answer lies in how you understand suffering.

It is of my opinion, that as we walk around stepping on ants and so forth all day long, we don't think much of it. Maybe if we notice it we do think about it, but much different, than if we step on a human being. So our sense of what suffering is, could be REALLY different, than what it is to God.

To me that is the place to start tackling this issue. I will leave you with that, as you will need to work out the rest as you go, or ask more questions if you must.

Good luck.

 

[idea]

This question is for all you who are believers in God

These question has been lingering over my head for a very long time.

If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world? Why did he create Lucifer knowing he would become Satan? Why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he knew Adam and Eve would be tricked by the serpent?

If you are believer in God and you know the answer, do let me know as to be honest im racking my brain over the concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his creations demise and let it happen anyway?

Does it say God &#8220;created&#8221; mankind? Read again &#8211; it says he &#8220;formed&#8221; us then &#8220;breathed&#8221; life into Adam &#8211; placed life in, not created it.

Isaiah64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

The potter did not make the clay &#8211; however we can use our free agency &#8211; and we do have agency &#8211; to allow Him to mold us, and to become His creation &#8211; His children.

Hebrew Word Studies

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Meaning: To build a nest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]God is not the Creator, claims academic - Telegraph[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]God is not the Creator, claims academic[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]God is cleaning up a mess He did not create...[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]The word "create" should not be in the Bible - it's a mistranslation. Should read "transform".[/FONT]

 

[idea]

The answer lies in how you understand suffering...

imperfection/evil was not created, but it is allowed. It is allowed so that we can have free will, and so we can learn, gain an appreciation for things.

 

[cottage]

imperfection/evil was not created, but it is allowed. It is allowed so that we can have free will, and so we can learn, gain an appreciation for things.

Learn for what purpose? And why must we gain an appreciation for things? There is a distinction to be mad between moral evil, natural evil, physical evil, and metaphysical evils. How does the Free Will Defence answer that?

 

[idea]

Learn for what purpose? And why must we gain an appreciation for things? There is a distinction to be mad between moral evil, natural evil, physical evil, and metaphysical evils. How does the Free Will Defence answer that?

not just about free will. Good does not exist without evil. good is a relative term... relative terms don't exist without their opposites - theory of relativity

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first&#8211;born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath bcreated all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi2:11 - 16)

 

[AK4]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]God is cleaning up a mess He did not create...[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]The word "create" should not be in the Bible - it's a mistranslation. Should read "transform".[/FONT]

This and all that you put is unscriptural. God did not create? Well i guess we have to throw out this verse

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Yes its evil, not calamity or anything else, its evil. Besides this verse you would have to throw out many many more where it says all is out of/from God and that He created [not transformed] all.[/FONT]

 

[idea]

We can't gain a full enjoyment of things without a full appreciation of them...

example - glass of water...
sitting at home on the couch watching a movie, someone gives you a glass of water. "What - why are you giving me this? well, OK" - and the water sits there on the side table untouched....

go without water for a bit - on a desert - worst case scenerio etc. etc. - now same person gives you the same glass of water, only now you appreciate it... forever after you appreciate it, enjoy it, love the taste of it... through the experience of going without, water now gives you great joy and pleasure, as where before it did not...

To gain the fullest amount of pleasure/joy out of a thing, we must first experience the opposite.


7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 54:7)

considering the infinite sea of eternity which stretches out before and after us... a small moment of misery seems a small price to pay to gain an eterntiy of joy - joy which is only achieved when we gain an appreciation of what good is....

 

[idea]

This and all that you put is unscriptural. God did not create?

again, it is mistranslated - the word should be translated "transform" not "create"

Well i guess we have to throw out this verse

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [/FONT]

God "transforms" evil. He does not create it. He transforms darkness into light, transforms evil into good. He transforms things.

I form the light, and transform darkness: I make peace, and transform evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Again, God is cleaning up a mess He did not make.

 

[idea]

Our birth was not our beginning&#8230;
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

This man had the ability to sin before he was born - again, our birth was not our begining... our spirit lives after we die, our spirit lived before we were born.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
(New Testament | John9:2 - 3)

We existed before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:


Ecc 12: 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

&#8220;return&#8221; means coming to a state that we have previously been to &#8211; not &#8220;come&#8221; as if it were our first experience, but &#8220;return&#8221;

We are as old as God is.
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

The potter did not make the clay &#8211; he transforms what already exists&#8230;

 

[AK4]

it is mistranslated - the word should be "transform" not "create"



God "transforms" evil. He does not create it. He transforms darkness into light, transforms evil into good. He transforms things.

I form the light, and transform darkness: I make peace, and transform evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Evil didnt just come to be by itself, ultimately it came out from God otherwise this "evil" was some sort of god itself to create itself. Strongs definition of the hebrew word bara

1. to create, shape, form
2. (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
   1. of heaven and earth
   2. of individual man
   3. of new conditions and circumstances
   4. of transformations
3. (Niphal) to be created
   1. of heaven and earth
   2. of birth
   3. of something new
   4. of miracles
4. (Piel)
   1. to cut down
   2. to cut out
5. to be fat
   1. (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Sorry transform doesnt fit this definition and for that fact the word "bara" is almost always tranlated create. Are you denying God creating Jesus? Are you God is not a creator but a transformer? Come on now