• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isaiah 45:7 does God really create evil?

satori8

satori8

Member
In the scripture it said God can create evil. But in the scriptures it says God has no darkness in him. Yet isn't this a bit contradictory that he can create evil? Like he can be angry in the bible, he can initiate wars, storms, etc. How can be both have no darkness in Him and do these things?

John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
satori8 said:
In the scripture it said God can create evil. But in the scriptures it says God has no darkness in him. Yet isn't this a bit contradictory that he can create evil? Like he can be angry in the bible, he can initiate wars, storms, etc. How can be both have no darkness in Him and do these things?

John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't say he creates evil, it says he creates chaos/calamity/disturbance. I don't think the Hebrews had an idea of "Evil" like we do, but an idea of "Wickedness" and "unrighteousness" and "profanity". If you disagree, simply look at how the word is employed everywhere else its used.

Now as for having no 'darkness", that's a different concept. If he allowed people to get away with sins and didn't set up events to compensate people for their wicked choices, that would be far more dark in my interpretation. So it's clearly a relative issue of what it means to be "Dark". Just because he gets angry at people's wickedness and sin doesn't mean he's dark. If anything, neutrality and looking past people's sins would make him dark.
 
Last edited:
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
FranklinMichaelV.3 said:
I wonder why God says that he will make your sins as white as snow rather take away?
Click to expand...

The concept is that he will cover your sins and restore you to a state of good spiritual repute. Sins cannot be taken away anymore so than memories can be deleted from your mind. They can be atoned and covered up though.
 
Enoch07

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Without chaos/evil whatever you wish to call it, there would be no opportunities for us to be a blessing to others. Part of our job as Christians is to be a blessing to other people and help them. If the world was perfect and there would be no opportunities for us to do that. KJV Matthew 25: 14-46 Is a good example if you would like to read it for yourself.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
satori8 said:
Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

~~~~~

Some definitions have used calamity in place of evil. But why would God create evil if he is wholly good?
Click to expand...

This question appears frequently in this forum. The Hebrew word rendered evil in the KJ Bible can also mean calamity and other english words. The Bible assures us that "with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone." (James 1:13) God does create calamity for the wicked, as he did when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. But God does not create evil or wickedness. "Far be it from the true God to act wickedly, and the Almighty to act unjustly!" ( Job 34:10) The Bible assures us that Jehovah is righteous, perfect, and just. (Deuteronomy 32:4,5)
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
rusra02 said:
This question appears frequently in this forum. The Hebrew word rendered evil in the KJ Bible can also mean calamity and other english words.
Click to expand...
So, assuming that "disaster," "bad times," "calamity," "evil," etc. don't mean the same thing, which is correct? On the site I consulted, where 29 versions of Isaiah 45:7 are listed, "evil" came up 11 times, more frequently (38% of the time) than any other translation. Here are the figures:
"Evil" 11 times
"Disaster" 5 times
"Woe" 4 times
"Calamity" 3 times
"Troubles" 2 times
"Disorders" 1 time
"Doom" 1 time
"Hard times" 1 time
"Bad times" 1 time
​
So what is the message here? First of all, with nine interpretations of the Hebrew word in question (ra'), there is a huge difference of opinion---hardly a good thing when one is supposed to take the Bible as the "word of god." Secondly, with "evil" coming way out ahead of the others in preference, the greater consensus of opinion suggests that this is the proper interpretation. So to claim that "evil" is necessarily wrong and that some other particular translation is correct will take a great deal of convincing argument. None of which I believe anyone here is capable of doing.
It has been claimed that the evidence that "evil" is no longer considered to be the correct translation of ra' is that "evil" only appears in the older translations of the Bible, e.g. KJV, (I haven't checked to see if this is true or not) and that the newer Bibles e.g. RSV, use other words. Trouble is, these new Bibles don't agree on what this newer translation should be, which doesn't speak well at all for their dismissal of "evil." My suspicion is that these Bibles don't use "evil" because it's become a thorn in the side of the Christian theology of god's nature, and therefore they seek a less controversial term.
 
Last edited:
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Skwim said:
So, assuming that "disaster," "bad times," "calamity," "evil," etc. don't mean the same thing, which is correct? On the site I consulted, where 29 versions of Isaiah 45:7 are listed, "evil" came up 11 times, more frequently (38% of the time) than any other translation. Here are the figures:
"Evil" 11 times
"Disaster" 5 times
"Woe" 4 times
"Calamity" 3 times
"Troubles" 2 times
"Disorders" 1 time
"Doom" 1 time
"Hard times" 1 time
"Bad times" 1 time
​
So what is the message here? First of all, with nine interpretations of the Hebrew word in question (ra'), there is a huge difference of opinion---hardly a good thing when one is supposed to take the Bible as the "word of god." Secondly, with "evil" coming way out ahead of the others in preference, the greater consensus of opinion suggests that this is the proper interpretation. So to claim that "evil" is necessarily wrong and that some other particular translation is correct will take a great deal of convincing argument. None of which I believe anyone here is capable of doing.
It has been claimed that the evidence that "evil" is no longer considered to be the correct translation of ra' is that "evil" only appears in the older translations of the Bible, e.g. KJV, (I haven't checked to see if this is true or not) and that the newer Bibles e.g. RSV, use other words. Trouble is, these new Bibles don't agree on what this newer translation should be, which doesn't speak well at all for their dismissal of "evil." My suspicion is that these Bibles don't use "evil" because it's become a thorn in the side of the Christian theology of god's nature, and therefore they seek a less controversial term.
Click to expand...

The word is often translated differently based on the context in which it is used. That is a common problem in translating the Bible. the same Hebrew word may have more than one meaning in English or another language. The number of translators that opt for a certain translation is no guarantee of correctness. Isaiah would not and did not contradict the other Bible writers who confirm God's absolute righteousness and justice. (Isaiah 6:3, 3:10)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top