• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is God the source of evil?

Keith Martin said:
And?

Remember that the title of this thread is, "Is God the Source of Evil?"

Remember also the truism that correlation is not causation. That certain words have similar meanings or may have been mistranslated does not, by itself, even begin to speak about what caused or created evil.
Click to expand...
Your right, the post was completely off topic. A good sister thread to this one would be "what is evil and what is good?" Defining those I think would help with this thread and I am curious of people's thoughts on it. I'll try and not derail this thread any further.
 
It’s kind of like saying that God can only create light, but not darkness, which in this verse in Isaiah 45 he asserts that he does both. In fact, it says that he created both darkness and “ra’”. You can choose to play semantics with cherry picking the parts of ‘ra’ you’d prefer it to be talking about, but to say that the translation is wrong makes no sense to me. The comparison is between good and bad with both instances. And in both instances, God claims origin of creation for both instances of bad.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
It’s kind of like saying that God can only create light, but not darkness, which in this verse in Isaiah 45 he asserts that he does both. In fact, it says that he created both darkness and “ra’”. You can choose to play semantics with cherry picking the parts of ‘ra’ you’d prefer it to be talking about, but to say that the translation is wrong makes no sense to me. The comparison is between good and bad with both instances. And in both instances, God claims origin of creation for both instances of bad.
Click to expand...
Shalom doesn't mean good as in a moral since therefore he isn't comparing to ra in the moral sense if that makes any sense. Comparing shalom or peace to evil is like comparing apples to oranges. it really doesn't make sense. That is why the newer translations most often translate Ra to calamity it looks like. It better fits the thought in Hebrew. God brings light and dark, peace and calamity.
 
Soldier's Psalm said:
I was just wanted to clarify what the actual word used here meant because the meaning can be lost in translation and whole theologies can be built on the poor translation. I have seen it used a lot in an attempt to say God produces both good and evil and therefore produced Satan evil which becomes a slippery slope. In the English we don't have a good word to translate here but un-peace or perhaps anti-peace would be a better fit. Ra can mean evil as we use the word evil but It is bouncing it off the word Peace that pulls its anti-peace meaning out.
Click to expand...

Would 'chaos' be a better translation?

Well maybe not given...

Verifyveritas76 said:
Strongs doesn’t support your assertion in the slightest

from ; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).

adj
  1. bad, evil
    1. bad, disagreeable, malignant
    2. bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
    3. evil, displeasing
    4. bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
    5. bad (of value)
    6. worse than, worst (comparison)
    7. sad, unhappy
    8. evil (hurtful)
    9. bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
    10. bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
      1. in general, of persons, of thoughts
      2. deeds, actions n m
  2. evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
    1. evil, distress, adversity
    2. evil, injury, wrong
    3. evil (ethical) n f
  3. evil, misery, distress, injury
    1. evil, misery, distress
    2. evil, injury, wrong
    3. evil (ethical)
Click to expand...

But that is a pretty broad set of definitions from sad/unhappy/unkind, to distress/misery/calamity to evil.

Many of those would fairly describe what God allowed to happen to Job; yet it wasn't evil.

Although, to the modern American Christian: sad/unhappy/unkind/hurtful/distress/misery ARE evil. But that's because they have niceness as the highest virtue. God on the other hand sees value in suffering.
 
Soldier's Psalm said:
Shalom doesn't mean good as in a moral since therefore he isn't comparing to ra in the moral sense if that makes any sense. Comparing shalom or peace to evil is like comparing apples to oranges. it really doesn't make sense. That is why the newer translations most often translate Ra to calamity it looks like. It better fits the thought in Hebrew. God brings light and dark, peace and calamity.
Click to expand...
And yet ra is the Hebrew word behind evil in its earliest usage.
God created a tree to be in the midst of the garden which he called the knowledge of good and “ra”

In this passage, shalom and owr are good, and chosen and ra are bad/evil.

I get your point that shalom is typically a state of mind/being=good. The point you’re failing to prove IMO is that ra could not be evil in this passage. Though it is true that ra is translated correctly multiple times as calamity, or sadness or disease etc, those seem to be the exception to its most common and earliest use, evil/bad

P.S. Just ran across this in Romans 16:20 in reply to the assumption that Peace should not be contrasted with evil.
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
 
@Soldier's Psalm has moved the discussion of good and evil and what do they mean to a different thread, @Verifyveritas76, and I know you know that, but I'm beginning to interpret the ongoing insistence on discussing alternate meanings of Hebrew words to be just another way to imply that God couldn't have created evil, as if anything that exists in the Universe couldn't have been part of His Creation just because He didn't give it the name that is now in common usage. I applaud your valiant efforts to correct @Soldier's Psalm's misconceptions, but, to me, the distraction of definitional distinctions is just the equivalent of an oratory smoke screen. At least in this discussion. Along the way in the 8 pages that this discussion has encompassed, more than enough scriptural evidence has been presented that God did create evil (not to mention good, and shalom, and rain clouds, and silly putty, and gluten-free egg nog). I don't discount the justifications behind the motivation to deny His omnipotence, but denial doesn't prove anything.

It's probably time to stick a fork in this one.
 
Keith Martin said:
@Soldier's Psalm has moved the discussion of good and evil and what do they mean to a different thread, @Verifyveritas76, and I know you know that, but I'm beginning to interpret the ongoing insistence on discussing alternate meanings of Hebrew words to be just another way to imply that God couldn't have created evil, as if anything that exists in the Universe couldn't have been part of His Creation just because He didn't give it the name that is now in common usage. I applaud your valiant efforts to correct @Soldier's Psalm's misconceptions, but, to me, the distraction of definitional distinctions is just the equivalent of an oratory smoke screen. At least in this discussion. Along the way in the 8 pages that this discussion has encompassed, more than enough scriptural evidence has been presented that God did create evil (not to mention good, and shalom, and rain clouds, and silly putty, and gluten-free egg nog). I don't discount the justifications behind the motivation to deny His omnipotence, but denial doesn't prove anything.

It's probably time to stick a fork in this one.
Click to expand...
If I were to doubt that God made everything that is, and I don’t; but if I did it would be gluten free egg nog that caused the doubt. What an unholy concoction that sounds like.
 
rockfox said:
Although, to the modern American Christian: sad/unhappy/unkind/hurtful/distress/misery ARE evil. But that's because they have niceness as the highest virtue. God on the other hand sees value in suffering.
Click to expand...
Too true
 
Keith Martin said:
@Soldier's Psalm has moved the discussion of good and evil and what do they mean to a different thread, @Verifyveritas76, and I know you know that, but I'm beginning to interpret the ongoing insistence on discussing alternate meanings of Hebrew words to be just another way to imply that God couldn't have created evil, as if anything that exists in the Universe couldn't have been part of His Creation just because He didn't give it the name that is now in common usage.
Click to expand...
The Hebrew is really against you on this one Keith but I'll try not and use it for you even though this is a much easier discussion if we go there. So let me reason with you. If my son goes and makes say a bow and arrow, did I make it? I am his father after all. Well hopefully you will say no because my son was given his own ability to create outside of me. God calls us and the angels the sons of God. He gave us the ability to make our own decisions and to create. God didn't name the animals in the garden but rather Adam did. Also, Man was to dress the garden. To plant and create. God created us to create. God isn't in the business of making robots. God blessed us so much with the ability to create that the main theory for the Angels descending in Genesis 6 and mating with women is because we were gifted with the ability to create life and they weren't as spirit beings.

Tozer said "For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like."

I said all of that to say this. God created us to be able to create and make decisions. And through decisions of his creations evil was created. To think God created evil is to miss the very nature of God which I can't imagine the ramifications of. Especially when the very nature of evil in Hebrew is rebellion to God so your saying God created a rebellion to himself? All things are made for God's Pleasure but according to Habakkuk God's eyes are too pure to even look at evil. Kind of odd to take pleasure in something you can't even look at. You have built a whole theology that only works in a few translations and not at all in Hebrew.

Verifyveritas76 said:
I get your point that shalom is typically a state of mind/being=good. The point you’re failing to prove IMO is that ra could not be evil in this passage. Though it is true that ra is translated correctly multiple times as calamity, or sadness or disease etc, those seem to be the exception to its most common and earliest use, evil/bad
Click to expand...
A Juxtaposition I think is what the verse is called and only works with opposites of Peace.

I coppied this off a Hebrew roots website but feel free to look it up on your own.
As such, and from its use in other ancient languages, it seems that the idea behind רָעַע râ‘a‘ is that of "rage, disturbance, breaking", the opposites of peaceful calm, and actions that are contrary to doing good. We naturally use the the words bad or evil for that, in English, but the Hebrew is broader in meaning with a wide range of translations from causing hurt, pain, affliction, breaking, doing harm, dishonesty, to ethical, immoral and idolatrous issues etc.


God seems, several times, to be the subject of רָעַע râ‘a‘ (Psalm 44:2; Jeremiah 25:29, 31:28; Micah 4:6; Zechariah 8:14) causing affliction, even of his own people or city. Clearly the verb can mean "destructive action" rather than "pure evil". Zechariah 8:14 is translated variously as "thus says the Lord, just as I purposed to do evil/punish/harm/afflict...". Joshua 24:15,20 has Joshua challenging the people to a record of all the good God had done yet they were regarding "serving the Lord" as "evil", to this he replies that though he once did them good he could turn and do them "harm/evil".

I'll leave with this video of a true story of Albert Einstien which kind of goes back to what Zech said earlier about light and dark. With this thought you are attributing to God what happens when there is a lack of God. It makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how much to get into this right now. Sitting at an airport waiting on a delayed flight to sin city for a tournament. However, I have noticed a lot of “logic stacking” in skimming through this thread. Often we tend to want things strung together and continued beyond what is plainly written. Sometimes speculation on the how and why can be beneficial, however we must be careful when trying to apply the speculation to practiced doctrine. Some of the arguments made in this thread are done in similar logical style done by monogamy only. It is not always necessary to follow to a seemingly “logical” conclusion. Logic itself is actually a philosophical way of thought, not necessarily the best way. Reason and logic are NOT synonymous.
 
Soldier's Psalm said:
A Juxtaposition I think is what the verse is called and only works with opposites of Peace.

I coppied this off a Hebrew roots website but feel free to look it up on your own.
As such, and from its use in other ancient languages, it seems that the idea behind רָעַע râ‘a‘ is that of "rage, disturbance, breaking", the opposites of peaceful calm, and actions that are contrary to doing good. We naturally use the the words bad or evil for that, in English, but the Hebrew is broader in meaning with a wide range of translations from causing hurt, pain, affliction, breaking, doing harm, dishonesty, to ethical, immoral and idolatrous issues etc.
Click to expand...

Exodus 32:11-14.
And Moses besought †the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil (Ra’) against thy people.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
And the LORD repented of the evil (Ra’) which he thought to do unto his people.

In this instance, Ra is used to describe genocide by God of a recently favored and delivered people.

James just states that God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt man with evil. This in no way prevents Him from being the creator of evil, or allowing evil to happen to one of his own, nor does it prevent Him from utilizing methods himself that Scripture identifies as evil, both in English, Greek and Hebrew.
 
ZecAustin said:
I still assert that evil wasn’t created at all because evil doesn’t exist. It’s simply the name we give the absence of God.
Click to expand...
That was Einstein's perception of evil. So to say God creating evil in that sense would be God removing his presence.
 
Soldier's Psalm said:
That was Einstein's perception of evil. So to say God creating evil in that sense would be God removing his presence.
Click to expand...
ZecAustin said:
No. We try to remove God’s presence.
Click to expand...
I think that there are times when Yah is still in the situation quite a while after we tell Him to get lost.
When He removes Himself is when it really hits the fan.
 
The analogy of light and dark is quite interesting. Darkness is a thing, as in it does exist. However it has no power over light. Light determines where it exists, darkness only exists in the absence of light. When the light pulls back, darkness fills.

Also consider that sin by definition is opposite of God’s Holy nature, as in sin is defined by God. God is NOT defined by sin.

While I do believe scripture presents a literal Satan, as an individual, dualism is to be rejected by Christians. Light and dark are not equal in power. God is sovereign over all. Man is enslaved to sin by nature. Man is held back from being fully sinful according to his own nature by our sovereign God. God can and does release man to his own sinful nature according to His sovereign plan.
 
ZecAustin said:
I still assert that evil wasn’t created at all because evil doesn’t exist. It’s simply the name we give the absence of God.
Click to expand...
I can't get behind that one. Evil is most certainly real. I believe evil is the absence of God but it is definitely a thing. A better way to say it in my opinion would be that evil is the thing that fills the void where there is no presence or God's character exercised.
 
MiloCroton RN BSN B.S. said:
The analogy of light and dark is quite interesting. Darkness is a thing, as in it does exist. However it has no power over light. Light determines where it exists, darkness only exists in the absence of light. When the light pulls back, darkness fills.
Click to expand...
Something struck me when reading this.
Light has power that can be derived from it, different wavelengths facilitating different things. Photosynthesis
Warmth
Electricity
Our ability to see
What can you use darkness to produce?
No, not processing photography film. Darkness only allows the process to work. It doesn’t contribute.

I think that it may have been in the Pipi Longstocking books (seriously folks, it’s been like 55 years) that there was a flashdark, a flashlight looking thing that produced a cone of darkness so that you could aim it at yourself and take a nap in the middle of the day.
But darkness can only be produced by blocking light. You cannot generate it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top