I Can Only Conclude That God Doesn't Care

Hockeycowboy · Feb 24, 2016

Skwim said:
The prevailing claim of the Abrahamic religions is that through either direct construct or divine inspiration god saw to it that his message was recorded, and recorded correctly. And my guess is that, being god, he would have seen to it that this message was both understandable and unambiguous. Moreover, he would never be so derelict and inefficient as to fill it with inconsequentials or irrelevancies. He said what had to be said, and nothing more and nothing less.

Yet, today we have nearly a couple hundred versions of the Bible in English alone. Why so many? Because people disagree as to what the Bible should say and/or how. Take Isaiah 45:7 where the Hebrew word רַע ra` is translated as

evil
disaster
calamity
doom
trouble(s)
bad times
discord
woe
hard times

depending on which version of the Bible one reads.

So, which is right? And how would one know? Thing is, they don't mean the same thing. Evil is hardly a synonym for hard times, nor is woe synonymous with doom. I doubt that god would ever have penned such confusion in his original, permitting his followers to fumble over his words or mistake what he was trying to get across. Consider: as a history teacher would you hand out a different reason for the origin of WWI to each student? Of course not. So one has to wonder why god went to the trouble having his word recorded and then not care how it was passed along. Either it wasn't meant to impact anyone other than those who read the original text, or he simply doesn't care what later readers get out of it. In effect, it doesn't matter today if one Christian believes he created evil and another gets the impression he only created hard times. If it did matter, then one would expect god to set things straight, making sure that the message he took the trouble to set forth was clear and unambiguous; that every English Bible said the very same thing, either literally or by implication. There wouldn't be nine English versions of רַע ra` meaning very different things. God would make sure that in Isaiah 45:7 every reader knows he had created evil, or whatever, and not something else.

Because of the preceding I can only surmise that god doesn't really care what the Christian does with his word. "Believe this or believe that, I really don't care. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by works? Fine. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by my grace? Fine. It really doesn't matter. Believe whatever you like."

So, how close to the truth am I here?

.

Swim, as you know, translators flavor their versions with words that support their view.
Well, here is commentary, regarding Isaiah 45:7, from a version that supports no set doctrinal views. You might enjoy it:
http://www.2001translation.com/Isaiah.htm#_Evil

Skwim · Feb 24, 2016

Hockeycowboy said:
Swim, as you know, translators flavor their versions with words that support their view.
Well, here is commentary, regarding Isaiah 45:7, from a version that supports no set doctrinal views. You might enjoy it:
http://www.2001translation.com/Isaiah.htm#_Evil

Interesting. Your link says the correct translation of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 is "bad times." However, in the 49 versions I looked at "Bad times" only occurs twice.

Here's the frequency breakdown

Evil..................14
Woe...................9
Calamity...........8
Disaster............8
Trouble.............5
Bad times.........2
Discord.............1
Doom................1
Hard times......1

Point is, 96% of the Bible versions disagree with "Bad times," and "evil", in fact, is the most favored translation. And, of course, if you asked the translators of each variation they would tell you why their choice is best. So, while your link was mildly interesting, it's nothing more than that.

.

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

Skwim said:
Interesting. Your link says the correct translation of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 is "bad times." However, in the 49 versions I looked at "Bad times" only occurs twice.

Here's the frequency breakdown

Evil..................14
Woe...................9
Calamity...........8
Disaster............8
Trouble.............5
Bad times.........2
Discord.............1
Doom................1
Hard times......1

Point is, 96% of the Bible versions disagree with "Bad times," and "evil", in fact, is the most favored translation. And, of course, if you asked the translators of each variation they would tell you why their choice is best. So, while your link was mildly interesting, it's nothing more than that.

.

35 translations DO NOT say "evil". 35 to 14 wins. The rest are correct. Evil is the only one which the meaning is linked to hate and in my mind criminal behavior.
In my opinion, God IS responsible for woe, calamity, disaster, trouble, bad times, discord, (maybe) doom and hard times. Do you want a scripture for each?

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

Genesis 6:7
Genesis 11:7
Genesis 21:12
Joshua 6:20
Matthew 11:22

There are many more but I do not want to play anymore right now.

But evil means sin. It should not say evil.

Skwim · Feb 24, 2016

savagewind said:
35 translations DO NOT say "evil". 35 to 14 wins. The rest are correct. Evil is the only one which the meaning is linked to hate and in my mind criminal behavior.

It's one thing to say that god is responsible for all these things and quite another to say the word "ra" means woe, calamity, disaster, trouble, bad times, discord, doom, and hard times. It can't, and it doesn't. We're talking about the word and the meaning it's suppose to convey, and nothing else. That you can't abide the thought that "ra" means god created evil is fine, pick and choose whichever one suits your fancy. Obviously god doesn't care what you believe he meant.

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

Please look up Genesis 41:21 where cows are called "evil".
King James 2000 Bible
And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

American King James Version
And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

American Standard Version
and when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill-favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And yet gave no mark of their being full: but were as lean and ill favoured as before. I awoke, and then fell asleep again,

Darby Bible Translation
and they came into their belly, and it could not be known that they had come into their belly; and their look was bad, as at the beginning. And I awoke.

English Revised Version
and when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favoured, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

Webster's Bible Translation
And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill-favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

World English Bible
and when they had eaten them up, it couldn't be known that they had eaten them, but they were still ugly, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

Young's Literal Translation
and they come in unto their midst, and it hath not been known that they have come in unto their midst, and their appearance is bad as at the commencement; and I awake.

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

Just tell us if ra means sin. Did God create sin?
Because in my mind sin and evil are interchangeable. Sin is evil and evil causes sin.

Kelly of the Phoenix · Feb 24, 2016

rusra02 said:
Yet, it is remarkably consistent and harmonious. I know of no other book that can make that claim.

I found the Mahabharata to be infinitely more consistent. It's like those authors actually CARED about not leaving behind many plot holes and inconsistencies.

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

Surgery is woeful for the person and his family but getting fixed is not EVIL. Is it? If ra (evil) can mean surgery or meds then I agree with you. God created evil for necessity.

Skwim · Feb 24, 2016

savagewind said:
Please look up Genesis 41:21 where cows are called "evil".
King James 2000 Bible
And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

American King James Version
And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

American Standard Version
and when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill-favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And yet gave no mark of their being full: but were as lean and ill favoured as before. I awoke, and then fell asleep again,

Darby Bible Translation
and they came into their belly, and it could not be known that they had come into their belly; and their look was bad, as at the beginning. And I awoke.

English Revised Version
and when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favoured, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

Webster's Bible Translation
And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill-favored, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

World English Bible
and when they had eaten them up, it couldn't be known that they had eaten them, but they were still ugly, as at the beginning. So I awoke.

Young's Literal Translation
and they come in unto their midst, and it hath not been known that they have come in unto their midst, and their appearance is bad as at the commencement; and I awake.

GNV
And when they had eaten them up: it could not be known that they had eaten them, but they were still as evil favored, as they were at the beginning: so did I awake.

Okay, now what? Although I have no idea what "evil favored" means.

.

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

Is discipline evil? Discipline causes woe. Doesn't it?

ra': adversity
Original Word: רָע
Part of Speech: Adjective; noun masculine; noun feminine
Transliteration: ra'
Phonetic Spelling: (rah)
Short Definition: adversity

adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress

From ra'a'; 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.).

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7451.htm

URAVIP2ME · Feb 24, 2016

savagewind said:
How can the English Bible be right when they all say the poor are happy? The poor are not happy.

Doesn't KJV say ' poor in spirit '? ______ That is different than just being a poor person financially - Matthew 5:3
I think that KJV translation came from meaning ' beggars for the spirit '. So, Not lacking physical food or money, but meaning hungry for the Word of God.
People who are spiritually poor ( Not spiritually fed ) but want to know what the Bible really teaches will end up happy.

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

URAVIP2ME said:
Doesn't KJV say ' poor in spirit '? ______ That is different than just being a poor person financially - Matthew 5:3
I think that KJV translation came from meaning ' beggars for the spirit '. So, Not lacking physical food or money, but meaning hungry for the Word of God.
People who are spiritually poor ( Not spiritually fed ) but want to know what the Bible really teaches will end up happy.

I am aware of that but thanks anyway. A person who is rich in spirit should NOT stop begging for more spirit. Matthew 13:12 Luke 8:18

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

The Bible is saying "happy are the poor in spirit" so...........................it follows that a person should remain poor in spirit. And that makes sense to you but not to me. OK?

savagewind · Feb 24, 2016

Do you see that a man's blindness (adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress) is linked to God did it?

John 9:1-3

URAVIP2ME · Feb 27, 2016

savagewind said:
Do you see that a man's blindness (adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress) is linked to God did it?
John 9:1-3

Yes, the 'works of God '- John 9:3 - meaning that Jesus was Now going to cure that man. The good works of God would be manifest through Christ Jesus.- John 9:4-5
That man happened to be at the right place at the right time.
Also, the healings Jesus did was a preview, or coming attraction, of what Jesus will be doing on a grand-global scale during his 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth.
- Revelation 22:2

URAVIP2ME · Feb 27, 2016

savagewind said:
The Bible is saying "happy are the poor in spirit" so...........................it follows that a person should remain poor in spirit. And that makes sense to you but not to me. OK?

Please keep in mind that originally Matthew 5:3 was Not written in KJV English. First in Hebrew, then in Greek.
The Greek Interlinear has: Happy the poor ones ( as ) to the spirit......
In modern English that would translate as Happy those who are beggars for the spirit, so those who are aware or conscious of a spiritual need would be blessed or happy.

savagewind · Feb 28, 2016

URAVIP2ME said:
Please keep in mind that originally Matthew 5:3 was Not written in KJV English. First in Hebrew, then in Greek.
The Greek Interlinear has: Happy the poor ones ( as ) to the spirit......
In modern English that would translate as Happy those who are beggars for the spirit, so those who are aware or conscious of a spiritual need would be blessed or happy.

I understand. But there are at least three kinds of people. One kind is mentally blind. One kind is aware of need but does not know how to ask. And the third is aware of need and learns how to ask. Happy are beggars of spirit is the third kind. Poor has NOTHING to do with it.
Does the NWT still say "conscious of their spiritual need"? But being conscious is not the same as asking. Do you understand? The real question is; will the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses LET you understand?

An example. I might break my leg. I am conscious of it broken. I am of poor health. Am I happy? NO! But when I seek out a doctor to fix it and pay him, then I can get my health back and THEN I am happy.

I am conscious of my poor spiritual health. I seek YHVH to fix me. It is not a one-time fix. I KEEP ASKING. Many times asking turns to BEGGING. OK?

Luke 11…8"I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs. 9"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.10"For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened

http://biblehub.com/greek/335.htm

savagewind · Feb 28, 2016

Mark 12:44
Strong's 5304
husterésis: need, want
Original Word: ὑστέρησις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: husterésis
Phonetic Spelling: (hoos-ter'-ay-sis)
Short Definition: poverty, want
Definition: poverty, want, need.

Compare "beggers of the spirit" to people with money. They HAVE money but they want MORE money.
A poor person does not HAVE. Jesus says that if you will keep asking (which if you do not stop asking it is begging) you are happy.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not ask to be filled with spirit. In fact, isn't it against Watchtower rules @URAVIP2ME to go anywhere else for information?

bobhikes · Feb 28, 2016

Skwim said:
The prevailing claim of the Abrahamic religions is that through either direct construct or divine inspiration god saw to it that his message was recorded, and recorded correctly. And my guess is that, being god, he would have seen to it that this message was both understandable and unambiguous. Moreover, he would never be so derelict and inefficient as to fill it with inconsequentials or irrelevancies. He said what had to be said, and nothing more and nothing less.

Yet, today we have nearly a couple hundred versions of the Bible in English alone. Why so many? Because people disagree as to what the Bible should say and/or how. Take Isaiah 45:7 where the Hebrew word רַע ra` is translated as

So, how close to the truth am I here?

.

Perhaps God cares about Freedom of will most of all. Perhaps God wants you to choose the best path for your life. Perhaps God knows what happens here other then your choices doesn't really matter. Consider this world God's matrix.

I Can Only Conclude That God Doesn't Care

Witness for Jehovah

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Nondetermined