~candice~ Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 Where are you suggesting evil comes from? Evil is what you and I are when we reject God. Dodge. Explain how that is a dodge. What's the absence of Light? I didn't ask for you to define evil, but to tell me where you think evil comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 Where are you suggesting evil comes from? Evil is what you and I are when we reject God. Dodge. Explain how that is a dodge. What's the absence of Light? I didn't ask for you to define evil, but to tell me where you think evil comes from. I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 Let's examine the scriptural reference used in this thread to advocate that God creates evil. Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create calamity: I the LORD do all these things. The word evil used here is rah; 7451. ra` Search for H7451 in KJVSL er ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X 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.). We can see that this word indicates evil in the sense of calamity and not moral evil. In the prior verses to the one proposed here from Isaiah. The Lord says this; Isa 45:5 ¶ I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God besides me: I girded you, though you have not known me: Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. It is clear and indicative that God is stating whom He is and that he is not sppeaking of moral evil but rather the evil of calamity. The evil being spoken of is not ontological evil. He is contrasting the states one might find themselves in. In the Word we do have many instances from which we can conclude that God is not the author of moral evil; De 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are justice: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. The word used in this instance for iniquity is dealing with moral evil. It is evel; 5766. `evel Search for H5766 in KJVSL lwe `evel eh'-vel or lavel {aw'-vel}; and (feminine) lavlah {av-law'}; or owlah {o-law'}; or .olah {o-law'}; from 5765; (moral) evil:--iniquity, perverseness, unjust(-ly), unrighteousness(-ly); wicked(-ness). If we want to claim that God is the author of moral evil we will have to deal with scriptures like this and offer proof to the contrary. Let's carry on for a moment though. Job 34:10 ¶ Therefore hearken unto me, you men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. Ps 92:15 To show that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Same word. God does commit moral evil and it is not within Him. If you are going to state that He has created it you are going to have to justify it with scripture and verses like the one in Isaiah aren't the answer. Meanwhile, we have verses like this; Ro 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance? (I speak as a man) Ro 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? How shall the author of evil then Judge the world when it will be Judged by His Righteousness? Who wrote the Law which points up our sin and what is the Righteous measure? peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 Let's go on for a moment though and rationalize this argument. Is moral evil a tangible thing? Can we measure it? The answer is no. It's not as if it's a rock or a piece of dirt or even an animal that we could examine. Yet we know it exists and can see it's effects upon the world and even our own lives. What then is it? It can be postulated that moral evil is the absence of Good. That is not a "dodge" because we know that God is Good and in Him is no shadow of turning. From the previous post we know also that there is no iniquity in Him and that while controlling moral evil that He does not commit it. God created the Universe and declared it Good. In it were created moral agents with the capacity to freely choose the Good. God did not have to create evil. Evil is the absence of God. Knowing this does not make Him the author of it. One could say "Cold exists" but that doesn't negate the fact that cold is merely the absence of heat. Just as darkness is the absence of Light. The possibility of evil does not mean that it had to be Created. It is merely the absence of God. The free moral agents that God created were given a choice. Not choosing the Good does not make God the author of His absence. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 Let's look at one more thing. 1Co 6:9 ¶ Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Why? Why can't these practitioners of moral evil enter the Kingdom of heaven? Because those who inherit heaven are inheriting God and in Him is no shadow of turning. Incorruption cannot inherit corruption; 1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption. Moral evil must be done away with because heaven is to be fully in Gods presence. Many blessings to you Saint's of the Most High. peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,254 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,984 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 Where are you suggesting evil comes from? Evil is what you and I are when we reject God. Dodge. I agree..... the whole Chrysler corporation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 2, 2011 It's all saying the same thing and is pretty straight forward to me. However, Strong's presents how the words have been translated. It's not the official Ancient Hebrew dictionary. And the word "shine" is not the same as "light." The Latin "name" - if it be a name at all - should be [shine]-ifer not [Light]-ifer, if that is the "bearer, bringer" is the correct addition to the halel in heylel, and if "shine" is the correct transliteration for it. Ben Shachar means; "son of the dawn." I know that, this is not the problem I am discussing. The dawn brings Light. But again, halel in this context is "SHINE" - not light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because he was appointed to carry the Light as the covering cherub doesn't mean he still holds that office. It is sounding to me like you are too stuck defending tradition that you are not listening to what I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 It's all saying the same thing and is pretty straight forward to me. However, Strong's presents how the words have been translated. It's not the official Ancient Hebrew dictionary. And the word "shine" is not the same as "light." The Latin "name" - if it be a name at all - should be [shine]-ifer not [Light]-ifer, if that is the "bearer, bringer" is the correct addition to the halel in heylel, and if "shine" is the correct transliteration for it. Ben Shachar means; "son of the dawn." I know that, this is not the problem I am discussing. The dawn brings Light. But again, halel in this context is "SHINE" - not light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because he was appointed to carry the Light as the covering cherub doesn't mean he still holds that office. It is sounding to me like you are too stuck defending tradition that you are not listening to what I am saying. I'm listening, make your point. How can one Shine if there is no Light? So the son of the dawn came to Shine? Or he was the shining son of the dawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I'm listening, make your point. My point is that I do not believe "Lucifer" is the correct transliteration of the word heylel. How can one Shine if there is no Light? But a mistranslation is still a mistranslation, even if it has similar characteristics. Why are you insisting that "Light-bearer" is the valid translation for heylel ? So the son of the dawn came to Shine? Or he was the shining son of the dawn? "Shining son of the dawn" is not the same as "Son of the Dawn, Light-bearer" and insisting that "Light-bearer" is his name. (And that the Latin version of "Light-bearer" is what he is called.) What is so hard about understanding that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 "Lucifer" is not a translation of heylel. They mean different things. As Nebula pointed out, heylel comes from halal which carries with it the connotation of pride which is very evident in Isaiah 14:12. Names do not "translate" per se. Heylel is not a name. It is more of a discription of character just as "son of the morning." "Son of..." is a hebraism, and may be the reason Lucifer was put for heylel. Heylel is a noun, actually, and it is not a proper noun. The connotation and usage of the word in Hebrew suggests that the word was used to highlight the pride/arrogance of the person being spoken to, in this case, the king of Babylon. "Son of the morning," would explain "light bringer" or light beater" better than heylel would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts