Christians contradicting God and/or the Bible

[Zzyzx]

.
The Bible quotes God as clearly saying 'I create evil'

Apologists here say 'Oh no you don't'

Then they play word definition and translation games attempting to conceal the irrationality of their claim that God does not create evil (even though they also claim that God created everything).

How can this be?

[bjs]

The 'more accurate definitions and translations' are supplied by anonymous Internet posters -- who evidently know far more than official, professional, qualified Bible translators and editors.

Right?

Isaiah 45:7 is presented by Bible translators and editors as saying "I create evil".

When translating from one language to another it is never as simple as translating a single word the same way every time. Anyone who knows a second language, especial a second language that is not based on Latin, knows that language doesn’t work that way.

For instance, the Hebrew word ra found in Isaiah 45:7 can be translated as “evil� (morally negative) or as “harm� (morally neutral) depending on the context.

If you want to argue that “evil� is the right meaning in this context then go ahead and make that case. If you are opposed to people bringing up translation issues then you are just playing games.

Apologist debaters claim to know better than those Bible translators and editors what 'God said' and claim that 'I create evil' isn't what 'God said'.

Bible translators, like all translators, know that they are giving close estimation of what was written that seeks to be accurate to the meaning of the text and readable in a different language. They also know that language is complicated more research might be needed for a fuller understanding of any given text.

We are certainly fortunate to have such eminently qualified people as members, aren't we?

Some people who post on this forum clearly do know Hebrew. This doesn’t mean they know more than the experts. It means they know that language is complicated and they seek to provide a better understanding.

then you are the only one playing games.

Yup, quoting the Bible verbatim is 'playing games' (theologically speaking).

Except that is not what you are doing. You choose as specific translation to fit what you want the Bible to say while ignoring the complexity of translating from one language to another. You have created a strawman argument.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 7 by bjs]

So here's the thing:
I give you a medical journal in German, even though it is in another language, someone whose native language is English can decipher it very well, eventually.

The same is not true of a fantasy novel.

Why not?

On the surface this seems like non-sense. A native English speaker who is willing to learn German can decipher a medical journal. He can also read a German fantasy novel. If he doesn’t know German, or have a translation app available, then he will be hopelessly lost with both books.

My point is the truth can eventually be wrangled out of a document. We have histories of dead and forgotten languages being uncovered daily, in these epic moments of history. (For those of us who believe you can learn history from outside the Bible.)

However, for fantasy novels we have much greater difficulty. We needed the Rosetta Stone and other direct translations.

So, with the Bible we have had dedicated scholars dedicating their lives to getting the Bible right for centuries...
and they failed.

Why do you say thing failed? There are quality translations availiabe that give people a good understanding of what the Bible says while recognizing that more in-depth study may be required to understand the complexity of language. Happily, the tools to understand biblical Hebrew and Greek are readily available.

This should tell you about the Bible, definitively. It's contradictions, conflicts and so on...
am I wrong?

Yes. You are absolutely wrong. I have no other way to put this. The things you wrote make little sense or are empirically false. Even if the early parts of your post were accurate (they are not), it would still be a non-sequitur to claim that they mean the Bible has contradictions, conflicts, and so on…

[Willum]

[Replying to bjs]

So I am talking about someone who does not learn German or French - you can understand it well enough to make sense out of logical writings.

Why do I say they failed?!! Because Biblical interpretation is a popular hobby, with no one being right, and because of what one very wise poster on this very board said:
Pure wisdom

Yes. You are absolutely wrong. I have no other way to put this. The things you wrote make little sense or are empirically false. Even if the early parts of your post were accurate (they are not), it would still be a non-sequitur to claim that they mean the Bible has contradictions, conflicts, and so on…

Talk is cheap, prove it - I'll start: For God so loved the world that he drowned everyone but a few incestuous surviving drunkards to repopulate the Earth.
God is all-powerful, and therefore helpless to undo the damage done in the Garden of Eden,in the first few minutes/days/years after it occurred, preferring to watch man suffer.
God is so wise that he empowered Samson, an idiotic sociopath to murder thousands.

Am I wrong?
Your turn.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

No, no, no, you answer the question, please, it isn't OUR religion, it is yours.

If you want me to answer, it'd be imaginary being don't have expectations - so it really is better if you answer ToN's question, anyway, isn't it?

I wasn't asking you to answer. I was asking what ToN to tell me what he was referring to. I can not say I agree or disagree with someone's assertion that Adonai failed to meet His goals, if I do not know what goals are being referred to.

[ttruscott]

.
The Bible quotes God as clearly saying 'I create evil'

Apologists here say 'Oh no you don't'

No, we say: "oh no it doesn't!"

Then they play word definition and translation games attempting to conceal the irrationality of their claim that God does not create evil (even though they also claim that God created everything).

How can this be?

The continued use of the word ra' to refer to YHWH is pure sophistry and constitutes "a word definition and translation game attempting to conceal the irrationality of their, the secular materialists, claim that God does create evil" when the whole context of the Bible is that HE will not do or create evil as that is unholy and HE is the most holy.

YHWH is pure light in whom is no darkness at all, 1 John 1:5, so Christians will stand against the definition of ra' in Isa 45:7 as moral evil until we see a candle lit and darkness come from it and fill the room.

[ttruscott]

Yes, Adonai created people who live in a way (ra' "evil") different from how He designed His people to live (tov "good").

ra' cannot come from good any more than foul water can flow from a spring of pure sweet life giving water. WE chose ra' by our free will.

[bluethread]

Yes, Adonai created people who live in a way (ra' "evil") different from how He designed His people to live (tov "good").

So you're agreeing that God failed to achieve His original expectations and intentions.

What do you believe those "original expectations and intentions" to have been?

I can only go by what the Bible says to draw conclusions on what God originally intended. And the Bible seems to indicate very clearly that God failed to achieve His original intentions.

Gen.6
[5] And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
[6] And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

A statement so emphatic that it was repeated.

You stopped to early. (Gen. 6:8) "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD." That said, I believe the literary style of the first six chapters of Genesis is mythological. So, the events are written in a way that advances the narrative. The narrative is optimistic, not pessimistic. That is why every reading In HaTorah ends on a positive note. It could have been stated as, it was saddening that things turned out as expected, so Adonai was set to destroy everything, but as planned, Noah . . . However, as I stated that doesn't fit the literary style or advance the narrative with regard to His people.

[bluethread]

Yes, Adonai created people who live in a way (ra' "evil") different from how He designed His people to live (tov "good").

ra' cannot come from good any more than foul water can flow from a spring of pure sweet life giving water. WE chose ra' by our free will.

Yes, the nations did things according to their own ways, and not in the ways of Adonai's people. However, Adonai is not subject to that distinction, except for when He became flesh and dwelt among us. At that time He lived according to His ways for His people.

[ttruscott]

Yup, quoting the Bible verbatim is 'playing games' (theologically speaking).

Proper exegesis must conform to the context of the Bible as a whole, and should not be used out of context to prove some obscure point which is called cherry picking. That some bible translators have indeed used the English word evil in Isa 45:7 does not make it a correct interpretation because some sects do accept that GOD does evil and that vile bias has crept into this verse as if to prove it.

Quoting their false interpretation as proof all Christians must believe this will get nowhere with Spirit filled congregations. To demand that all churches should follow the blasphemy of another is essentially futile. Even a truism so plain that it could never be questioned such as GOD does no evil, can be twisted and perverted in the war to keep the postponement of the judgement day in place by keeping the sinful elect in their sins...though such perversions mean nothing.

[bluethread]

.
The Bible quotes God as clearly saying 'I create evil'

Apologists here say 'Oh no you don't'

No, we say: "oh no it doesn't!"

I agree with that point. However, Isaiah 45 is a prophecy to Cyrus the Persian. It's purpose is to encourage Cyrus to return Israel to the Promised Land. To do that He points out that even the ways of the nations(ra') are under His control. Therefore, it is in Cyrus' interest to go with the program.