Why so much wickedness and suffering ?

[Sunstone]

Why, then, is there so much wickedness and suffering? One reason is that mankind in general has rejected God as Ruler, not wanting to submit to his righteous laws and principles. Humans have unwittingly submitted to God’s Adversary, Satan, for “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) Knowledge of this fact makes it easier to understand why bad situations exist. Satan is evil, hateful, deceptive, and cruel. So we should expect the world to reflect the personality of its ruler. No wonder there is so much wickedness!

The "world" reflects the "personality" of humanity. You need look no further than our species to explain why the world is as it is.

 

[Skwim]

Well, There is no evidence to support it meaning the English definition of Evil.

So, you actually think the translators used "evil" expecting people not to use the associated definition of the word, but use the definition of some other word? Is that the way you communicate; you say North when you actually want people to think South? Give me a break, you're straining far too hard here.

So why would the verse say Peace with Evil, Instead of Good with Evil, Heck anything but peace?

Because the translators, who were not stupid people, but in fact quite bright, felt that "peace" better conveyed the intended meaning of the ancient manuscript. That you find it troublesome is unfortunate, but to explain your vexation away by asserting . . . .

Because it meant peace and disaster, Peace and Calamity. Which is the proper translation of Ra in this context.

speaks of a greater understanding of ancient Hebrew and translation skills than you have yet to demonstrate. In other words, why should I listen to you, who, as far as I can tell, are nothing more than a common believer, than to those who were chosen to translate the ancient scriptures because of their scholarly skills?

Not exactly, These words weren't written in English and different languages have words that can mean many different things. It's not complicated, You just have to go research the roots.

For which you're more eminently qualified to do than Hebrew scholars. Give me a break.

 

[Riverwolf]

So, you actually think the translators used "evil" expecting people not to use the associated definition of the word, but use the definition of some other word?

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

evil (adj.) Old English yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious, ill, wicked," from Proto-Germanic *ubilaz (cognates: Old Saxon ubil, Old Frisian and Middle Dutch evel, Dutch euvel, Old High German ubil, German übel, Gothic ubils), from PIE *upelo-, from root *wap- (cognates: Hittite huwapp- "evil").

"In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease (n.). The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in Old English, but did not become the main sense until 18c. Related: Evilly. Evil eye (Latin oculus malus) was Old English eage yfel. Evilchild is attested as an English surname from 13c.


Even this is slightly different from the modern usage of the word. And considering that the earliest complete translation of the Bible into English (the Wycliffe version) would have been done when the memory of the Black Death was still quite fresh, I don't see how it's too much of a stretch that the translators would have equated calamity/disaster with evil.

 

[Skwim]

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

evil (adj.) Old English yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious, ill, wicked," from Proto-Germanic *ubilaz (cognates: Old Saxon ubil, Old Frisian and Middle Dutch evel, Dutch euvel, Old High German ubil, German übel, Gothic ubils), from PIE *upelo-, from root *wap- (cognates: Hittite huwapp- "evil").

"In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease (n.). The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in Old English, but did not become the main sense until 18c. Related: Evilly. Evil eye (Latin oculus malus) was Old English eage yfel. Evilchild is attested as an English surname from 13c.


Even this is slightly different from the modern usage of the word. And considering that the earliest complete translation of the Bible into English (the Wycliffe version) would have been done when the memory of the Black Death was still quite fresh, I don't see how it's too much of a stretch that the translators would have equated calamity/disaster with evil.

FYI
"Although Wycliffe's Bible circulated widely in the later Middle Ages, it had very little influence on the first English biblical translations of the reformation era such as those of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, as it had been translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek and Hebrew; and consequently it was generally ignored in later English Protestant biblical scholarship"
source

​

In any case, the wording of Isaiah 45:7 in today's Bibles more often than not tells the reader that god said he created evil. If this is, in absolute fact, wrong then the Bible itself has to be judged in error, which, of course, raises the issue of what else it got wrong. What other long standing basis of faith, some perhaps vital to salvation, are leading the faithful astray?

As I see it this whole issue puts the faithful Christian between a rock and a hard place: Either 1) god is evil (what other kind of being would create evil?) or 2) the Bible is in error which means it is untrustworthy. (The cherry pickers aside of course.)

 

[Riverwolf]

FYI
"Although Wycliffe's Bible circulated widely in the later Middle Ages, it had very little influence on the first English biblical translations of the reformation era such as those of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, as it had been translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek and Hebrew; and consequently it was generally ignored in later English Protestant biblical scholarship"
source

​

Good to know. Also noteworthy, however, is that the translation of this verse in particular also contrasts the words "peace" with "evil".

But, yes, if it had minor influence on later Biblical translation scholarship, then the English version that most modern versions are based on, the King Jimmy (as my dad called it once), was independent. The Black Death may still have been a strong memory; after all, it's still a dark shadow on our modern cultural memory 700 years later. But it wouldn't have been as immediate as when Wycliffe lived.

In any case, the wording of Isaiah 45:7 in today's Bibles more often than not tells the reader that god said he created evil. If this is, in absolute fact, wrong then the Bible itself has to be judged in error, which, of course, raises the issue of what else it got wrong. What other long standing basis of faith, some perhaps vital to salvation, are leading the faithful astray?

As I see it this whole issue puts the faithful Christian between a rock and a hard place: Either 1) god is evil (what other kind of being would create evil?) or 2) the Bible is in error which means it is untrustworthy. (The cherry pickers aside of course.)

If it's wrong, the error is in the translation, not the Tanakh itself, which is properly in Hebrew. In any case, I generally trust Jewish translations more than Christian ones. Let's take a look at what a Jewish commentary (Rashi's) says on the verse:

Who forms light: for the righteous.
and creates darkness: for Babylon, and the same applies to “Who makes peace and creates evil.”
Interesting, if you ask me.

In any case, the idea that God is all evil if he creates evil, even if he creates good at the same time, is ironically derived from puritanical Christian concepts of morality, which I reject in this case. The Gods I worship also bring both prosperity and hardship. Woden, my King, is cunning and deceptive, and though I give him honor, it's not unlikely that he probably laughs at me.

This conception is hard to grasp for those stuck in puritanical Christian-derived concepts of morality, which states that any presence of "evil" overrides all "good", so that the only possibility of "goodness" can only exist where absolutely no "evil" exists. Seeing as this doesn't reflect humanity, there's no reason why it should reflect the Gods. I'm not a classical monotheist who believes in the Creater-hood of Elohim/YHVH, but this conception of "I create peace and evil" is familiar enough to me.

 

[Thana]

So, you actually think the translators used "evil" expecting people not to use the associated definition of the word, but use the definition of some other word? Is that the way you communicate; you say North when you actually want people to think South? Give me a break, you're straining far too hard here.

No, I think you're the one straining. I've given an example as to why Evil is not appropriate and doesn't fit, And you still reject it and if I can be honest very quickly and seemingly without thorough consideration.

Even if it is translated into the English definition of Evil (Which it is not) it wouldn't change anything for me, But apparently it's desperately needed ammo for you.

Because the translators, who were not stupid people, but in fact quite bright, felt that "peace" better conveyed the intended meaning of the ancient manuscript. That you find it troublesome is unfortunate, but to explain your vexation away by asserting . . . .
speaks of a greater understanding of ancient Hebrew and translation skills than you have yet to demonstrate. In other words, why should I listen to you, who, as far as I can tell, are nothing more than a common believer, than to those who were chosen to translate the ancient scriptures because of their scholarly skills?

For which you're more eminently qualified to do than Hebrew scholars. Give me a break.

Well you seem like the common Anti-Theist, But I don't hold it against you. I can practically taste your agenda, But I keep my comments respectful and engaging nonetheless.

You don't have to listen to me, But I'd appreciate it if you actually did some research into the side you don't agree with. You'll probably say you have, But I don't really think so. The research that I have done seems solid, And that is why I debate the meaning.
You seem to debate it because you want it to be so, Not because you believe it.

 

[Pegg]

If that is true, why are the least religious countries the most peaceful? And the most religious countries the most wicked?

can you list those most peaceful non religious countries?

 

[Riverwolf]

can you list those most peaceful non religious countries?

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland come to mind immediately. Sure, all but one of those technically have State Churches, but religion seems to play a far lesser role in those countries than it does in the US, with its Separation of Church and State.

 

[Bunyip]

can you list those most peaceful non religious countries?

The Most Peaceful Countries in The World | Global Finance Magazine

 

[Pegg]

The Most Peaceful Countries in The World | Global Finance Magazine

the first in the list is iceland and Iceland is predominantly a christian country with 80% being of the Lutheran state church.


Im not sure that the claim you are making is entirely correct.

 

[Pegg]

The second in the list is Denmark which is again predominantly christian. Its second largest religion is Islam.

 

[Bunyip]

The second in the list is Denmark which is again predominantly christian. Its second largest religion is Islam.

Iceland Among Top 10 Most Atheist Countries - The Reykjavik Grapevine

 

[Pegg]

Iceland Among Top 10 Most Atheist Countries - The Reykjavik Grapevine

that survey says
Icelanders proved themselves to be 57% religious, 31% ‘not religious,’ and 10% atheist. The remaining 2% didn’t know how to respond.

The majority are religious even according to the survey.

But I dont think those sorts of surveys are anything to go by. Its best to go by the census because that asks everyone the same questions, not just a small sample.

 

[Bunyip]

that survey says
Icelanders proved themselves to be 57% religious, 31% ‘not religious,’ and 10% atheist. The remaining 2% didn’t know how to respond.

The majority are religious.

The poll in that citation showed a 17% drop in those identifying as religious in only 7 years, and one of the highest proportions of what apologists call 'strong atheism' on earth.

Not sure what your point is, I know what the study shows. It lists Iceland as one of the 10 most atheist countries.

 

[Pegg]

The poll in that citation showed a 17% drop in those identifying as religious in only 7 years, and one of the highest proportions of what apologists call 'strong atheism' on earth.

Not sure what your point is, I know what the study shows. It lists Iceland as one of the 10 most atheist countries.

Im not the one trying to make a point, just following up on the claim you made about the most irreligious nations being the most peaceful.

I think some of those sorts of surveys can be misleading because they randomly call a very small number of people and base their figures on that small survey sample. Its not a survey which included every household...they probably only called about 1,000 people.

 

[Bunyip]

Im not the one trying to make a point, just following up on the claim you made about the most irreligious nations being the most peaceful.

I think some of those sorts of surveys can be misleading because they randomly call a very small number of people and base their figures on that small survey sample. Its not a survey which included every household...they probably only called about 1,000 people.

I think that survey was 50,000 people - did you look, or did you must make up the objection that it was a small sample off the top of your head?

 

[Pegg]

I think that survey was 50,000 people - did you look, or did you must make up the objection that it was a small sample off the top of your head?

yes that was off the top of my head... so i checked the article again and it said :

WIN-Gallup International polled 51,927 people in 40 countries worldwide.

If you divide 51,927 by 40, its 1,298 people surveyed in each country (if thats how they did it)

But like I said, these polls are not the best source of this information...the countries census data is far more accurate.

 

[Riverwolf]

the first in the list is iceland and Iceland is predominantly a christian country with 80% being of the Lutheran state church.

Well, I do stand corrected on one matter. I didn't realize Iceland also had a State Church.

Thing is, the presence of a State Church doesn't seem to have any effect on the religiousness of the people who live there.

 

[Riverwolf]

But like I said, these polls are not the best source of this information...the countries census data is far more accurate.

How do you figure?

After all, these polling methods are able to accurately predict votes in Presidential elections.

 

[Pegg]

Well, I do stand corrected on one matter. I didn't realize Iceland also had a State Church.

Thing is, the presence of a State Church doesn't seem to have any effect on the religiousness of the people who live there.

All a 'state church' really means is the political parties of that country have favoured the most popular religion and have included that particular religion in its political decision making because the majority of people support it.