Yahweh claimed to have created evil

nazz said:

All synonyms of one another.

Click to expand...

As convenient as this notion may be to your position, No they are not; pure and simple. Saying so doesn't make it so. Sorry.

In early modern English "charity" meant "love".

Click to expand...

In some usages it could; however, today, which is where it is now being read, "charity" rarely carries the meaning of love. So, any Bible using it in that sense has a good chance of misleading the reader. Any translator worth his weight in ink would choose the words that best express the intended meaning of the author, and purposely avoid using any that might confuse or mislead the reader. And any publisher worth his weight in paper wouldn't publish books with known problematic statements----although we both know that the almighty dollar often supersedes such ethical considerations.

They are if you recognize Aramaic idioms.

Click to expand...

But there is no reason to recognize them as Aramaic idioms. this is something translators are expected to deal with and resolve. Both forms of statement are presented as straight forward translations. Contemporary publications, no matter what their subject, are expected to use words with their contemporary meanings because they better convey the intended meaning of the original authors than do archaic words, or those with archaic meanings.

Caladan said:

So every piece of good literature which was ever translated cannot be trusted to mean what it says?

Click to expand...

For myself, not implicitly so. For you or others, perhaps so. You have your criteria, I have mine.

That's why education, and academic standards are important. Even in the English language we need scholars to tell us what the best eras of English literature were all about.

Click to expand...

And when they disagree then what . . .roll the dice or simply take whichever interpretation best fits your needs?

But only a fool would discard the satisfaction they can get from reading Shakespeare because we occasionally find his choice of words baffling.

Click to expand...

It isn't that the words are baffling, but that the experts can't agree on what those words should be. Thing is, we don't run into variations of Shakespeare:VersusAll the different publications of Hamlet I've looked at use the word "brevity" and no other. And, as I've pointed out, this is not the case with the different publications of the Christian Bible. There are numerous cases of disagreement over what word should be used in a particular piece of scripture.

Take your pick:They don't all mean the same thing, so be careful to choose the right one. Or, if you don't really care about accuracy or lucidity then go ahead and throw your dart.

umah said:

I'm not sure you are pointing out a problem with Scriptures here insomuch as a problem with the various Christian translations that abound.

Click to expand...

Is there a meaningful difference? The various translations only concern scripture.

I imagine that all those translators were faced with the choice of sticking to a exact translation vs. choosing a translation that makes more sense in English.

Click to expand...

No doubt. My expectation would be that each was compelled to relate the intended meaning of the original author as best they understood it---within the framework of their theology. Problem being; often there was no consensus of understanding.

Skwim said:

As convenient as this notion may be to your position, No they are not; pure and simple. Saying so doesn't make it so. Sorry.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the English language makes it so. YMMV

In some usages it could; however, today, which is where it is now being read, "charity" rarely carries the meaning of love. So, any Bible using it in that sense has a good chance of misleading the reader.

Click to expand...

I think most Christian readers understand this.

Any translator worth his weight in ink would choose the words that best express the intended meaning of the author, and purposely avoid using any that might confuse or mislead the reader. And any publisher worth his weight in paper wouldn't publish books with known problematic statements----although we both know that the almighty dollar often supersedes such ethical considerations.

But there is no reason to recognize them as Aramaic idioms. this is something translators are expected to deal with and resolve. Both forms of statement are presented as straight forward translations. Contemporary publications, no matter what their subject, are expected to use words with their contemporary meanings because they better convey the intended meaning of the original authors than do archaic words, or those with archaic meanings.

Click to expand...

Translators of the Bible use different approaches. Some feel a word for word equivalence is best. Others feel that translating the meaning in modern idiom is best. Nothing compels a translator to pick one over the other.

For myself, not implicitly so. For you or others, perhaps so. You have your criteria, I have mine.

And when they disagree then what . . .roll the dice or simply take whichever interpretation best fits your needs?

It isn't that the words are baffling, but that the experts can't agree on what those words should be. Thing is, we don't run into variations of Shakespeare:

"Cleverness is the soul of wit". - Hamlet Quote (Act II, Scene II).
​

Versus

"Brevity is the soul of wit". - Hamlet Quote (Act II, Scene II).
​

All the different publications of Hamlet I've looked at use the word "brevity" and no other.

Click to expand...

Maybe because Shakespeare wrote in English? Of course his English was a bit different from our own. Should we rewrite what he wrote to make it more intelligible to the modern reader?

Yadon said:

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

The Hebrew word for "evil" there is "Rah", which means sin or morally wrong.

Hebrew Lexicon :: H7451 (KJV)

Ra` - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard

There are many other sources confirming the meaning of the word, I know I had some other sources I have since lost but I'm sure others can provide more scholarly information than I can.

For those doubting the context, there is other instances the word Rah was used:

Genesis 2:17
Genesis 13:13
Deuteronomy 1:35
1 Kings 16:30

A more complete list should be able to be found in both of those links.

In all of them it just simply means evil as in wrong doing. There really isn't any way around it for those who hold The Book of Isaiah to be truth.

From my understanding the Jewish stance is that God created evil so that mankind had freewill between good and evil.

As for Christianity I have seen the intentional mistranslation in some texts to make it "disaster" or "calamity", which is very dishonest.

Click to expand...

This is not so hard to understand. When God spoke light into existence, He did not speak it into every empty space of the universe. In forming light that occupies some spaces as opposed to all spaces, God created darkness.

If light were to exist in all spaces, then there would be no darkness, and it would therefore be unrecognizable, not to mention, there would be no space for other things.

So yes, by creating light, God also created darkness. We could not recognize the light of God if it were not also possible to recognize the absence of the light of God.

In the same way that we would not be able to recognize the light of God without there also being the absence of the light of God, we would not be able to recognize the goodness and peace of God, had God not made it possible to recognize an absence of the goodness and peace of God.

I do not believe that God allows for evil for the sake of evil. He allows for evil for the sake of good.

Brickjectivity said:

Its not secrecy. Its meaning is sealed but not concealed. It is holy, and the way to read the Bible is to study the law. . The Bible is like a huge public building, but you are expected to enter through the main entrance. If you try to come in the wrong way, then you cannot get in easily. No matter what if you try to enter without going through the door you've only yourself to blame.

Click to expand...

Let's see if I got this straight

The snake isn't a snake its the devil
The tree of g and e isn't a tree its mans wisdom
Evil isn't evil its justice
The Bible isn't a book its a building


Than that makes everything so clear
And clear is confusing

Well skwim, this has been very amusing and ironic. I can only assume you have a pretty boring library at home and that you don't take much from reading a good book. Unless of course it was written by someone from your age range, your social sector, and your ethnic group, and preferably a book which was written during the last ten years.

Caladan said:

Well skwim, this has been very amusing and ironic. I can only assume you have a pretty boring library at home and that you don't take much from reading a good book. Unless of course it was written by someone from your age range, your social sector, and your ethnic group, and preferably a book which was written during the last ten years.

Click to expand...

Assume away to your heart's content.

Skwim said:

For myself, not implicitly so. For you or others, perhaps so. You have your criteria, I have mine.

Click to expand...

Have you been debating in the same thread as I? I am the first one to correct the OP's assumptions by actually analyzing the Classical Hebrew etymology and text.

And when they disagree then what . . .roll the dice or simply take whichever interpretation best fits your needs?

Click to expand...

Research is an interesting thing. Scholars pretty much work around the clock to translated ancient texts we have been lucky (and hardworking) to discover. Texts from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel, Syria and other parts of the world. While some texts such as the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an we have a longstanding literate tradition behind them of native populations, other texts need a different kind of meticulous attention. Would you say this is all in vain? Maybe as vain as you reading any book which was translated for you into English?

It isn't that the words are baffling, but that the experts can't agree on what those words should be. Thing is, we don't run into variations of Shakespeare

Click to expand...

My my, you put a lot of faith in English literature translators, almost blind faith. The fact that there is a need to make modern English translations of Shakespeare illustrates perfectly the peculiarities Shakespearean (or Elizabethan) English poses to modern English speakers. You, like Yadon, are in fact counting on the translation of scholars. In my opinion, there is no difference between your naivety when reading Hamlet, to his naivety when reading the Book of Isaiah.
What about when you read Homeric literature? or Norse literature? How about Beowulf? Do you consistently fail to understand the narrative?

And, as I've pointed out, this is not the case with the different publications of the Christian Bible. There are numerous cases of disagreement over what word should be used in a particular piece of scripture.
They don't all mean the same thing, so be careful to choose the right one. Or, if you don't really care about accuracy or lucidity then go ahead and throw your dart.

Click to expand...

As someone who does get to work with ancient texts, I always value the importance of using a primary source, in the original language. However scholars use translations on regular basis. This does not mean that they do not take into account any etymological problems in the text when it is called for.

Adi2d, your tagline is 'Seeker of truth'. I understand firsthand the frustration of approaching Bible study without any background on its culture and laws. No translation is good enough to help with that, but if you study the laws and culture it makes the truths in the culture and books more accessible. It is the same with other cultures. For example in China there are many good things to learn, but without any understanding of the culture and laws those things become confused and obscure. India has the Vedas, but they are inaccessible if we aren't interested in how they were originally used, chanted, discussed etc.

Caladan said:

I am the first one to correct the OP's assumptions by actually analyzing the Classical Hebrew etymology and text.

Click to expand...

You found my post 14 so worthy of dismissal?

Jayhawker Soule said:

You found my post 14 so worthy of dismissal?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing sir. I was even going to look back at the thread to see who really said it first but then I thought "who cares?" so I didn't.

Pegg said:

depends what language you write the letter in.

To an english person it will mean exactly what you've written. But what if you from a nation who speaks a different language and it doesnt have the word million in it.

What if the closest word to million is 500,000? Anyone reading it in that language will think you only won 500,000, right?


This is the issue with reading the bible. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. But we read it in english....and many translations are good attempts at relaying the original language but not necessarily entirely accurate.

Secondly, English has changed quite since the 1500's when it was first translated into english. So we have newer translations which are more accurate, but now there are different translations and its assumed these are all different 'versions' of the bible and they contradict one another. Some people are still using old english bibles, others are using modern english bibles...english words have developed different meanings over time.

Hell is an old english word meaning to 'cover' something. 'Helling Potatoes' was the practice many centuries ago of burying potatoes in a pit and covering them over to protect them... now it means a place of fire and torment where the devil and demons roan and torture the dead.


So this is the real issue here.

Click to expand...

Agreed. So our language changes and so does the meaning of the Bible as the language changes. So the issue is the language. If we didn't change the language, then the meanings would remain the same. But are we changing the language to FIT our own meanings? But what I don't understand is, the writers wrote and meant it to mean one thing. And just because our language has changed now, doesn't mean that the meaning of the scriptures changed with it. I think it's just to make it fit what people want it to say.