Why do Christians make God out to be dumb?

I'm not asking you to make it clearer. I'm asking you to back it up. That's where the "by whom" comes in.Jeez, you're the one trying to read the sentence "I create evil" and say "that doesn't mean he creates evil". Is supporting such a statement so much to ask?This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-01-2004 05:34 PM

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Rrgh. This is taxing on my sanity.Don't you understand what I'm saying? The word "evil" had a much broader meaning 400 years ago than it does now. The KJV translation, which you used, uses the word "evil", which was correct in that time. But all of the modern translations use a word that is more accurate in today's English language. There's no error anywhere in this.From whence cometh that evil smell?

Um, he understands you.He just doesn't believe you. The recommended course of action, at that point, is to support your argument with sources, not repeat your claims.

• I stated my argument (that "evil" in its archaic form had a much broader meaning).
• I listed several common modern translations of the same Hebrew word.
• I gave an example of a different meaning of the word, which was valid when the KJV was written.

So what more is this guy asking for? Well, anyway, I hope portmaster1000 has got an adequate answer to his original question by now.

He is asking for something other than your say so.From what source do you get the meanings of "evil" in the time of the KJV?In a quick scan of the last few pages all I saw was your say so. If someone gets picky you are supposed to back up what you assert. Even if they are very picky indeed.

Your source.

OK, here we go. I've listed some key Bible verses in which the word "evil" is used to mean something other than ethically wrong. All from the King James Version.

Hello all,I hadn't previously been following this thread, but there is no question that cduben is correct in his assessment of the term translated as "evil" in Isaiah 45:7The Hebrew term is רע (ra) and it has a wide range of applications.Note especially that in Isaiah 45:7 it is used as the antithesis to "peace".Here then, the term is a noun used in the sense of distress, injury and/or calamity.

quote:

---

רע - noun masc. - evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity; . . . Is. 45:7 - בורא רע as (of/from God) . . .

​

(The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs; Hendrickson, pub.; Peabody, Mass.

---

AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-02-2004 01:15 AM

Does God have competition? Who could compete with an all powerful God? Who could create but the creator. Is there another creator? A creator of evil? I don't think so ... I believe he said, Freedom of choice would be like: "Lochs and Bagels? OR Ham and Cheese?" What God said was: "My way or the Highway."Besides Adam didn't know good from evil until after he had eaten the fruit, so how could he make an intelligent choice beforehand? In other words: God tempted Adam to sin; placed temptation in Adam's way. Too bad Adam hadn't heard about that prayer: Lead us not into temptation. You think God would've left the tree out of the garden if Adam had prayed that prayer?Wouldn't that be nice? No temptations. No difficult decisions. No trick questions. Just a simple, sunny, existence in the garden with your naked girlfriend. db

...I'm still waiting for a response to message 187 from you. thanx
PM1K

Thank you, Amlodhi. For future reference, Cduben, this is the kind of support I was looking for. So we know that God creates distress, misery, injury, calamity, or possibly evil itself. One or more of those five.Of course, the question we are left with is: given the premise that the Bible is a divinely inspired inerrant document, why would God allow a vague translation from Hebrew, with many possible meanings, that would not remain accurate for even so short a time as 400 years?One would assume that God sees the big picture, and would want an accurate message that would last through to the end times.(Edited for little grammatical futzes. Monday morning, you know.)This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-04-2004 09:52 AM

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

If God inspired the Bible, and laid down all the laws therein, then explain the revolting behavior required by a strict observance of Leviticus 20. Pay particular attention to the punishment of death for the "sin" of adultry as prescrivbed by Leviticus and how Jesus handles adultery by simply telling the woman "Go and sin no more".
The Old Testament depicts a God that at times is not only incompetent but sadistic and brutal; certainly not a God of a loving nature.

It's only a problem for those who insist on a literal reading of the bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Do you have another interpretation? It seems straight forward that anyone caught in adultry is to be put to death. The same goes for homosexuals. So how come if this is the word of God jews in Israel aren't stoning people to death for adultry and homosexual behavior. Could be that we have advanced beyond the crudeness of the Old Testament which appears to be written my humans that certainly aren't inspired by God.

quote:

---

When man first sinned, he separated himself from God and was bound to a sin nature. This was passed down to us. Before you are regenerated, you have no choice but to do evil. The path to sin is the only option. But the believer is reconciled to God through the punishment of Jesus, and he is left with two options: the path to sin and the path to good. Yet even at this point, no good is possible without God's Spirit.

---

That is true. When man is born he has a desire to live without an authority figure. Also he enjoys being independent. When he decides to put God out of his life, he is already living in sin. We have no choice but to bow-down to God, because he made us, thus owns us
(Matthew 10:28). Humanistic/athiestic philosophy is the result of sin. Because it encourages mankind to reject God and the existence of a God, because they believe man is in charge of destiny. This form of thinking can seem intelligent, but not if God DOES exists.