The Whole Jesus Thing

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramoss

​

The Jewish word for evil is "Rah". You can see with the phrase that
the common analogy of 'LIGHT' being 'GOOD', and 'Dark' being evil is
showing that the 'RAH' is accurately translated as EVIL.

---

Hi ramoss,I have to disagree with this assessment.Isaiah 45:7 "Who fashions light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates evil, I am HaShem who does all this."If this verse were structured as a literary parallel as you suggest, then the word used in the second part would be "tov" (good) instead of "shalom" (peace).As it is, "evil" is juxtaposed as the antithesis of "peace" and, as such, it is more reasonable to conclude that "rah" (evil) is used here in its meaning of "calamity" rather than in any immoral or unethical sense.And to cctman, while the NT does seem to speak of an eternal punishment in "hell", this later concept seems to be the result of a long period of syncretism and development.Just my 2 cents,AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-04-2004 10:05 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramoss

​

I happen to disagree.. and I can point to some Rabbi commentaries that will agree with my interpretation.

---

It's OK if we disagree. And after reading through your link, I do still retain my original opinion.Not only do I often find much rabbinical commentary to be highly imaginative, but further, this rabbinical commentary that you linked to doesn't seem to be saying what you claim.In message 87 you asked:

quote:

---

ramoss > message 87

​

If god is 'absolute good' why did he create evil?

---

The rabbinical commentary speaks only of adding an allegorical meaning to the terms "light" and "darkness". And even in the part of the commentary that you supplied in quotation, the rabbi speaks of God "withholding his light" as opposed to any active creation of "darkness" (or evil).Thus, even from the rabbinical perspective of this commentary, God is said to withhold his light, which allows evil imaginings to flourish, which evil imaginings cause conditions antithetical to peaceful existence, i.e. "war, calamity" which is one meaning of the term "rah".It is only by assigning the allegorical meaning of "evil" to the term "darkness" in this verse, and then interpreting the verb "bara" as an active creation event that an interpretation of "God created evil" can be rationalized.However, from the rabbinical perspective, since God didn't actively create the literal darkness, neither did he actively create the allegorical "darkness" (evil). In both cases it is a matter of God withholding the "light" (whether literal or allegorical).And further, neither case (literal or allegorical) changes the meaning of the antithetical terms "peace" and "evil" in the second part of this verse.If "light" and "darkness" are considered allegorically, then the subsequent conditions of peace or calamity are the physical results of God providing or withholding his allegorical "light".Even so, however, I am unconvinced that "light" and "darkness" should be read allegorically in this instance. Consider the context of the chapter:

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:1

​

So says YHWH to his annointed, to Cyrus, whom I have seized by his right hand, to subdue nations before him.

​

Isaiah 45:6-7

​

. . . that they may know from the sunrise to the sunset that there is none besides Me; I am YHWH and there is none else; forming light and creating darkness; making peace and creating (rah) - I YHWH do all these things."

---

So the context of the chapter is God stirring up Cyrus to war against the very Babylon which he formerly implemented against Judah.IOW, the context is not the evil imaginings of man or who created such evil imaginings; the context is war, the state of the nations, and who is ultimately in control of these conditions.And IMO, read in this context, the verse is stating nothing more than that YHWH is singularly in control of such events. He forms the light and causes the darkness, he causes nations to be at peace and he causes nations to be torn by war and calamity.Thus, if you follow the rabbinical perspective (from your commentary) and read "darkness" as "evil", you should also follow the rabbinical perspective that God didn't create the darkness but merely withholds the light. If you follow a more literal meaning, the verses simply speak for themselves.Either way, it is an error to combine an allegorical meaning of the term "darkness" with an active creation sense of the verb "bara" and declare this verse to state that God created evil. And it is also an error to translate the term "rah" as "evil" (in the sense of innate 'badness') when it is used in the second part of this verse as the antithesis to "peace".There are simply better logical readings that are further supported by the context.JMHO, and again, it is alright if we disagree.Amlodhi

Hello Angel,I find a bit of time to drop by and who do I run into.I see you referring to the prophetical flagship of Isaiah 53. I will try to post some of my thoughts on this later this evening (within topic limits) and perhaps we can discuss it some.For now, welcome to the forum and, as an old friend was wont to say; 'Mind the hounds!'As always,AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-11-2004 03:29 PM

Hi ramoss,

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramoss

​

The phrase ""k'ari" does not mean 'pierced', but 'like a lion'.

---

Perhaps, but I have some problems with the grammatical structure of that application. Said problems include the facts that the term is more properly rendered "like the lion", the term as used in this sentence is at odds with the construction of the same term used previously in the same chapter and (last but not least) the literal rendering of "like the lion my hands and my feet" simply makes no sense.There is another possibility that I find compelling.Although the majority extant Masoretic witnesses do indeed use the term "K'ari" (which is an attached prepositional kaf + ari ; "like the lion"), three extant manuscripts of the Masoretic text and (importantly) one extant Qumran document (4QPs) use the term "Karu" (in this term the kaf is not an attached preposition).In addition to the above mentioned manuscripts, there are at least five Masoretic witnesses and one document from the Nahal Hever collection that also appear to use this term (Karu), although with an alternate (possibly Aramaic) spelling.This term, "Karu", rather than a noun (as is Ari), is a verb in the Qal form (Qal, being short for Qalal meaning "it was light", and designates the simple active stem of the verb). Specifically, it is the Qal perfect third person plural of the verb "Karah".Karah = (prop.) to dig ; (gen.) to bore or open ; (by anal.) cut, pierce ; (from an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew) make (a banquet).*The difference between these two terms, "K'ari" and "Karu", in the original unpointed Hebrew script is confined to a single letter ; i.e., a final "vav" as opposed to final "yod", and these two letters can exhibit remarkable similarity in written structure.IMO, this makes for a compelling possibility that the term "K'ari" (like the lion), as used in this Psalm, originated through a very understandable scribal error (which was then faithfully propagated by the Masoretic scribes). The rendering of "pierced" then was retained (as reflected in the LXX for example) from the use of "Karu" in some of the more ancient witnesses and not from any extrapolated or allegorical allusions from the term "K'ari" (i.e. a lion piercing with its teeth or claws).If, then, the term used here was originally a conjugation of the verb "Karah", the allegory in Psalm 22:16 would read something like: ". . . for dogs have encircled me . . . karu - they dig (or possibly gnaw; perhaps even in the sense of the Hebrew idiom "making a banquet" much as we use the phrase "dig in" - at my hands and my feet."Thus making complete sense of the verse and eliminating the glaring grammatical difficulties.*Strong's Concordance; James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D.; 1990 Thomas Nelson Pub.*The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon; F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs; 2 vol.; Hendrickson Pub.; Peabody Mass.*The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; Ludwig Koehler & Walter Baumgartner; 2 vol.; Brill Pub.; Leiden/Boston.Just an idea I found interesting.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-22-2004 03:38 PM