No you are wrong. Stop hating on the Bible. Think with a open mind not with your preconceptions. Look at the Hebrew lexicon definition. It is talking about calamity especially if you read the entire chapter.
The KJV translates Strongs H7451 in the following manner: evil (442x), wickedness (59x), wicked (25x), mischief (21x), hurt (20x), bad (13x), trouble (10x), sore (9x), affliction (6x), ill (5x), adversity (4x), favoured (3x), harm (3x), naught (3x), noisome (2x), grievous (2x), sad (2x),
Looks like evil is the predominant use of the word. Where else does it turn up?
quote:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
You may be talking about the word 'calamity' but I am talking about the different word 'evil' that is used in Isaiah 45:7.
If Yahweh had wanted to use the word 'calamity' I'm sure he would have done so. But he did not. He used the word 'evil'.
That is a fact.
2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
You are commanded not to 'interpret' the bible , add to it or take away from it. I'm not 'hating' on the bible: I'm quoting it.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
Evil is a English word being translated from the Hebrew word ra' which has several meanings including "evil". You do need to understand the context of the chapter to understand what is meant by "evil" in that verse. This is true for any literature, it is referred to as critical reading.
'Ra' translates as evil. In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of good and ra. The tree of good and disaster? It is clearly the tree of good and evil.
In Genesis 6:5, God resolves to destroy humankind in the great flood because the wickedness (ra) of man was great in the earth.
In Genesis 13:13, the men of Sodom were wicked (ra) and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.
In Deuteronomy 1:35, a furious God threatens the Israelites, Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil (ra) generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.
In Judges 2:11, the children of Israel did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim.
In 1 Kings 16:30, the wicked king Ahab (husband of the infamous Jezebel) did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
Reread my point. I said it could mean evil. In Genesis it does mean evil. Read my post pay attention. It is contextual to the chapter that it is meant as calamity. Look at the other translations as well.
Duh. You didn't get what I was saying about him being wrong. Wrong = the context. Ra does have several meanings. Evil, bad, calamity,... The context IS important. Look at the chapter. It is clearly meaning evil as in calamity or evil as in punishment. It is clear. Stop hating on the bible. This must be a community filled with atheists whom don't bother with context.
Duh. You didn't get what I was saying about him being wrong. Wrong = the context. Ra does have several meanings. Evil, bad, calamity,... The context IS important. Look at the chapter. It is clearly meaning evil as in calamity or evil as in punishment. It is clear.
I dispute your contention that it is clear, but I'm happy to play within those walls.
So God is only responsible for natural disasters and those evils that are committed by men in order to punish others? So the slaughtering of women at Shechem was an evil created by God, the Babylonian exile was an evil created by God, the enslavement in Egypt was an evil created by God and for all we know the holocaust was too.
So what evil is God not responsible for creating?
Stop hating on the bible.
Why would I stop hating books that justify murder, enslavement, capital punishment for trivial crimes, rape, and teaches people that their loved ones are being tortured forever because they couldn't convince them that Jesus is saviour?
It's like one of the worst collections of writings in the history of mankind - responsible for misery and suffering than Nero ever managed.
This must be a community filled with atheists whom don't bother with context.
I'm not sure the context really helps you all that much. God didn't murder that person over there - he just wiped out all the people of Pompeii. Stop hating on him!
I just did a quick word search in the text of the bible and 'good' and 'calmity' do not occure together in verse at all. 'Good' and 'evil' in the same verse occurs 98 times.
Isn't technology wonderful?
Stop hating on the bible
What is it about Christians that means they see disagreement as hate? I think you are wrong and I've shown why. How can that be hate?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
So the slaughtering of women at Shechem was an evil created by God, the Babylonian exile was an evil created by God, the enslavement in Egypt was an evil created by God and for all we know the holocaust was too.
I am not sure how these evils were created by God?
So what evil is God not responsible for creating?
God is not responsible for evil. God is responsible for free agency. God is responsible for punishing evil.
Why would I stop hating books that justify murder, enslavement, capital punishment for trivial crimes, rape, and teaches people that their loved ones are being tortured forever because they couldn't convince them that Jesus is saviour?
Where does it read any of this...
It's like one of the worst collections of writings in the history of mankind - responsible for misery and suffering than Nero ever managed.
It is a book responsible for love and the rise of actual peace. Humanity, along with satan is responsible for suffering.
Let me rephrase this a different way, if religion is the creation of humanity than religion is not the issue.
I am not sure, I have not heard of it and it is not what I said. You're defeating yourself. Feel free to keep defeating yourself it is not helping you.
What is it about Christians that means they see disagreement as hate? I think you are wrong and I've shown why. How can that be hate?
You have not even shown me as wrong. You just argued me in points I have never said. I never said "good and calamity" I said good and evil is what is meant in gen 2-3, and calamity is what is meant in 45:7. I also explained why calamity is meant in 45:7. You don't seem to be arguing with those points. However you do seem to be making up a bunch of things. I would recommend arguing my actual points or you will be ignored.
2nd Chronicles 15:13 "That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Psalm 7:12 "If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready." 2Ki:15:16: Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Don't have nightmares.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
You ignore the the verifiable fact that calamity never appears in the same verse as good.
Not once in the entire bible.
It took me about 10 seconds to find that out. You are wrong to say that ra means calamity in Is 45:7 because in the context of the whole bible calamity never appears with good.
Calling me a hater and threatening to ignore me shows the paucity of your position. Unless you can provide a reasonable reason for interpreting ra as calamity (in contradiction to the context and tone of the entire bible) you are simply letting your preconceived notion that Yahweh did not creat evil colour your conclusions.
Put your bias to one side and look at the text with an open mind and you will see that Yahweh created everything in existence.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
All things include evil. Nothing exists that was not made by him. What do YOU think 'all things' means?
All the best.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
It wasn't to say the serpent had been subtil prior to the story. So the fall was the fall into evil bringing it into reality.
If you can read that from the text, then for you any reading is possible and there is no real basis for discussion.
The serpent was called the more subtil than any beast. That means that subtil is a quality that all creatures have, but of which the serpent had more. Your interpretation that he became subtil only after the entire story is pretty clearly wrong.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
I thought you may find this interesting. I am seeing a link between what happened WITH Shechem to the Nephilim (Shechem was a hivite, linked to the bloodline of the fallen angels/nephilim). Hence why it was important to murder the women. Genesis 24:2
And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
Nephilim[/utube]
Here is a list of tribes that are directly linked to the Nephilim, that are to be slaughtered because they are reproducing fallen angel genes:
™ Version 4.2
