The FLOOD, God's Great Failure?

[Skwim]

My Bible says "calamity" not evil, and if you knew much about the Bible, you would know that it wasn't originally written in English!

REALLY! They didn't know how to read and write English back in BC times? You've got to be kidding.

The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words can be translated more than one way, and the word doesn't mean exactly what we interpret it as meaning!

So you go along with your Bible's "calamity" because what, your Bible and all the others that translate the Hebrew "ra" as "calamity" have got to be correct while all the others have to be wrong? This is what I meant by doing cherry picking.

I once did a survey of 30 Bibles on the verse Isaiah 45:7. Out of the 30, "calamity" turned up 3 times or in only 10% of the translations. On the other hand, "Evil" turned up in almost half of all the translations, 47%, by far the most common translation of all.

FYI, here's the breakdown.

Frequency breakdown of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 in 30 translations.

..........................# .....% of total
"Bad times"..... 1... 3%
"Calamity"........3.. 10%
"Disaster(s)".....5 ..16%
"Discord"..........1.... 3%
"Doom".............1.... 3%
"Evil"...............14. .47%
"Hard times" ....1....3%
"Troubles".........2... 6%
"Woe" ...............2... 6%

.​

 

[Skwim]

You selected all the scriptures that say evil, however I just went online and lots say "disaster" and "calamity

I looked it up online and there are many translations which don't say evil but say "calamity" and "disaster" Why did you only select translations which say "evil" when many don't use this word?

Because, by far it's the most common translation. It's used almost 3 times more often than "disaster," the next most common translation. See post 344 above.

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​

The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?


No they don't, but a good number of them do. (Thinking of doing some cherry picking?) Here are some of them:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)​

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

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Geneva Study Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"I am Jehovah, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I Jehovah am the author of all these things."

.​

Hey, Skwim, hope you're well.

Are you aware of the context of these verses?

It was about Babylon, and how Jehovah was going to deal with them.

The Scripture doesn't use past tense, as in 'created' evil. (James 1:13; Deuteronomy 32:4-5) It was in future reference to Babylon.

And Jehovah did "make light" to Nebuchadnezzar, the king eventually came to recognize Jehovah as supreme. -- Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:29; Daniel 4:37

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​

The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?


No they don't, but a good number of them do. (Thinking of doing some cherry picking?) Here are some of them:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)​

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

American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Geneva Study Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"I am Jehovah, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I Jehovah am the author of all these things."

.​

Although this can be applied to other events, Isaiah's prophecy dealt specifically with Babylon.

Here's some more information on this subject:

Jehovah—“A Righteous God and a Savior” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Have a good day, my cousin.

 

[Skwim]

Hey, Skwim, hope you're well.

Are you aware of the context of these verses?

It was about Babylon, and how Jehovah was going to deal with them.

Nah, your attempt to re-configure the passage doesn't work. God was doing nothing more than explaining himself to Cyrus after he chose Cyrus to rebuild Judah

Isaiah 45
5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.​

The Scripture doesn't use past tense, as in 'created' evil. (James 1:13; Deuteronomy 32:4-5)

Yup.

It was in future reference to Babylon.

Not at all. And it's immaterial anyway.

.

 

[Jenny Collins]

REALLY! They didn't know how to read and write English back in BC times? You've got to be kidding.

So you go along with your Bible's "calamity" because what, your Bible and all the others that translate the Hebrew "ra" as "calamity" have got to be correct while all the others have to be wrong? This is what I meant by doing cherry picking.

I once did a survey of 30 Bibles on the verse Isaiah 45:7. Out of the 30, "calamity" turned up 3 times or in only 10% of the translations. On the other hand, "Evil" turned up in almost half of all the translations, 47%, by far the most common translation of all.

FYI, here's the breakdown.

Frequency breakdown of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7 in 30 translations.

..........................# .....% of total
"Bad times"..... 1... 3%
"Calamity"........3.. 10%
"Disaster(s)".....5 ..16%
"Discord"..........1.... 3%
"Doom".............1.... 3%
"Evil"...............14. .47%
"Hard times" ....1....3%
"Troubles".........2... 6%
"Woe" ...............2... 6%

.​

Quite a few of the Bibles don't render it "evil" and even if many do, didn't I already explain that it is not the equivalent of our English word in meaning? By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra! Did you know there are Lexicons and Concordances?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nah, your attempt to re-configure the passage doesn't work. God was doing nothing more than explaining himself to Cyrus after he chose Cyrus to rebuild Judah

Isaiah 45
5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.​

Yup.


Not at all. And it's immaterial anyway.

.

No, it's not "immaterial" at all! It's relevant in every way. Jehovah, as a Father, has every right to protect His 'family' at their enemies' detriment.

And it was Cyrus who defeated Babylon. It was Babylon that faced the "evil," the "doom," the "disaster." Any enemies of God's people will, for that matter.

It's not surprising that you're not eager to accept this conclusion, you would rather try to find fault with Scripture. It's probably, overall, too restrictive for your lifestyle anyway (it's a reason many give for disregarding it); this provides some measure of selfish justification for making their life choices. As me-ism increases, society will deteriorate more and more.

 

[Skwim]

Quite a few of the Bibles don't render it "evil" and even if many do, didn't I already explain that it is not the equivalent of our English word in meaning?

But that's what a translation does. It gives the equivalency of a foreign word e.g. the translation of the French "lui" is "him."

By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra!

Where have I done this? All I've done is present the ways various Bibles have translated the word.

Did you know there are Lexicons and Concordances?

Yes I did. Did you know that A² + B² = C² ?

.

 

[Jenny Collins]

But that's what a translation does. It gives the equivalency of a foreign word e.g. the translation of the French "lui" is "him."


Where have I done this? All I've done is present the ways various Bibles have translated the word.


Yes I did. Did you know that A² + B² = C² ?

.

Let me explain something: All languages have words that have various shades of meanings, including English! As I already explained, one example in the Bible is the word "hated" It does not convey the meaning "to loathe" in all cases! The Bible speaks of Leah as the "hated wife" meaning she was loved less! God is spoken of as "hating" wicked people! In that sense, it means a strong aversion for them, but it doesn't carry spite or malice, like when humans oftentimes hate! I already explained what the word ra meant, and different translations translate it differently! When they do this, they are not contradicting each other over meanings, just using different words which mean the same thing! In this case "evil" is not used in the typical sense of the world! When you compare other Bibles and they say "disaster" and "calamity" that doesn't contradict the others, but it sheds light on what evil means in this case! Just so you know, some Bibles render verses better than others! An example of a word that is badly translated in the KJV is obeisance! It renders it as "worship" in places, and at the time that the KJV was written, the word "worship" was a good translation of that word! However, since that time the word "worship" has changed and it doesn't belong in the Bible! People misunderstand it, and think where it is applied to Jesus, it means he is worthy of worship! He is God's son and inferior, not part of a Trinity! Does not deserve "worship"
So you see, it is important, to not just open a Bible, see an English word and jump to conclusions!

 

[David1967]

In general,islam says that in noah's times human were living for very long years,I do not know if other abrahamic religion say the same thing,do they?

Yes. As far as I know at least. Christianity for sure.

 

[Skwim]

Let me explain something: All languages have words that have various shades of meanings, including English! As I already explained, one example in the Bible is the word "hated" It does not convey the meaning "to loathe" in all cases! The Bible speaks of Leah as the "hated wife" meaning she was loved less! God is spoken of as "hating" wicked people! In that sense, it means a strong aversion for them, but it doesn't carry spite or malice, like when humans oftentimes hate! I already explained what the word ra meant,

No you didn't explain what "ra" meant.

In any case, because your theology forces you to reject the common definition of "evil"

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective: evil
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.

noun: evil
1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.​

and concoct and attach some less malevolent meaning to it, your argument here only merits an F.

and different translations translate it differently! When they do this, they are not contradicting each other over meanings, just using different words which mean the same thing!

So, "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" all mean the same thing. Are you serious? Really. . . . .ARE..... YOU..... SERIOUS???

Okay, supposing you are serious, Just what is this meaning you've chosen?

"Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" all mean ___________fill in the blank______________ .
​

And while you're at it, how about answering my other questions

1) The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?

YOU: By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra!
2) ME: Where have I done this?​

In this case "evil" is not used in the typical sense of the world!

Of course not. Your theology can't stomach it's accepted meaning.

When you compare other Bibles and they say "disaster" and "calamity" that doesn't contradict the others, but it sheds light on what evil means in this case! Just so you know, some Bibles render verses better than others!

Which I assume applies to this case---why else bring it up. However, you just said "they are . . . just using different words which mean the same thing!" If they all mean the same thing how can one rendering of "ra" be better than the other?

.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Ye

No you didn't explain what "ra" meant.

In any case, because your theology forces you to reject the common definition of "evil"

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective: evil
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.

noun: evil
1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.​

and concoct and attach some less malevolent meaning to it, your argument here only merits an F.


So, "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" all mean the same thing. Are you serious? Really. . . . .ARE..... YOU..... SERIOUS???

Okay, supposing you are serious, Just what is this meaning you've chosen?

"Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" all mean ___________fill in the blank______________ .
​

And while you're at it, how about answering my other questions

1) The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?

YOU: By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra!
2) ME: Where have I done this?​

Of course not. Your theology can't stomach it's accepted meaning.


Which I assume applies to this case---why else bring it up. However, you just said "they are . . . just using different words which mean the same thing!" If they all mean the same thing how can one rendering of "ra" be better than the other?

.

Yes, I did tell you the definition of Ra! And why did you only tell me two of the definitions for evil! I went to different online sources and here is what I found: Evil-Something that is harmful or undesirable Synonyms: harm, pain, misery, sorrow, suffering, trouble, DISASTER, misfortune, catastrophe, affliction, woe, hardship!

I even found the definition CALAMITY somewhere! Do I really need to repeat all that I have already explained to you? The Hebrew word does not mean evil in the sense that you are implying, in fact evil isn't even a good word to use! It is outdated and people like you don't recognize the obscure meaning, so although not inaccurate, words like calamity and disaster are better! And my translation says calamity! Now do you finally understand?

 

[Jenny Collins]

No you didn't explain what "ra" meant.

In any case, because your theology forces you to reject the common definition of "evil"

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective: evil
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.

noun: evil
1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.​

and concoct and attach some less malevolent meaning to it, your argument here only merits an F.


So, "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" all mean the same thing. Are you serious? Really. . . . .ARE..... YOU..... SERIOUS???

Okay, supposing you are serious, Just what is this meaning you've chosen?

"Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" all mean ___________fill in the blank______________ .
​

And while you're at it, how about answering my other questions

1) The "Bible language meaning"? What the heck is that?

YOU: By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra!
2) ME: Where have I done this?​

Of course not. Your theology can't stomach it's accepted meaning.


Which I assume applies to this case---why else bring it up. However, you just said "they are . . . just using different words which mean the same thing!" If they all mean the same thing how can one rendering of "ra" be better than the other?

.

You don't know what the "Bible language meaning" means? Really? I will explain! The Bible was written in three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek! And it was translated into English, and all other modern languages! So the pure meaning of a word is its original meaning of the tongue it was written in! For instance, some may scoff at Isaiah 40:22 because it says "circle of the earth" Bible users share this scripture to show that the Bible is a sophisticated, accurate book, even referring to the roundness of the earth at a time when most thought it was flat! But all of these atheists scoff at the scripture and say: "The earth wasn't a circle, it was a globe!" Then they try to say that scripture meant that the Israelites thought it was a flat circle! However, the Hebrew word used is chug and can mean globe as well as circle! Many deny this, but there are reference books which prove that it can also be rendered globe or sphere, and there are some Bibles that actually do use the word globe! But if you ask me, circle is just fine, it is very clear that it means it is round! Just nit picking and fault finding! But that is what I mean by "Bible language words" It is important to not get all troubled by a word in English that may not even be the best word choice! All Bibles are not equal! KJV uses the word unicorn, when the beast is likely a rhinoceros

 

[Skwim]

Ye

Yes, I did tell you the definition of Ra!

Then point it out. Quote it and provide the post number (it's in the bottom right hand corner of your post).

And why did you only tell me two of the definitions for evil!

Because they're the definitions that most commonly come to mind when encountering the word. In translating a language the point in using a particular word rather than some other is to best convey the original meaning of a word as the translator sees it. One doesn't translate the German word for horse, "pferd," as pig because it misleads the reader. Same with "evil." If the translator of "ra" didn't want to convey the common concept of evil then he would have chosen a more fitting word. This is Basic Translation Principles 101. That you insist that none of the various translations of "ra" comport to to their true meaning, but some common meaning, which you have yet to tell us, is obviously an attempt to save your theology. It doesn't work Jenny, and it's pretty sad.

I even found the definition CALAMITY somewhere! Do I really need to repeat all that I have already explained to you?

No. Just address the points I brought up in my previous posts.

1) Point out where you defined "ra."

2) What is this common meaning you've chosen for "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" as they occur in Isaiah 45:7 for the word "ra"?

3)YOU: "By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra!"
...ME: Where have I done this?
​

The Hebrew word does not mean evil in the sense that you are implying, in fact evil isn't even a good word to use!

Why isn't it a good word to use? In post 352 you just got done saying "When they do this, they are not contradicting each other over meanings, just using different words which mean the same thing!" So, to your way of thinking it shouldn't matter if one chooses to translate "ra" as Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Hard times," "Troubles," "Woe," OR "Evil." They all mean the same thing, whatever that is.

You don't know what the "Bible language meaning" means? Really?

Nope. And I even Googled it and nothing came up. My suspicion is that it's simply something you made up.

I will explain! The Bible was written in three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek! And it was translated into English, and all other modern languages! So the pure meaning of a word is its original meaning of the tongue it was written in!

I hesitate to ask, but why are you bothering with the term "pure meaning" when all it means is "original meaning"? I don't believe anyone has used the term before now.


.

 

[psychoslice]

As I say always, if we take the bible literally, it always sounds ridiculous.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Skwin:

In my view the flood story is a common one in the various ancient cultures.. Prior to the Bible story of the flood you had a Sumerian flood story:

The Sumerian Flood Myth: Epic of Gilgamesh

My view is that the flood story was commonly held by ancient middle eastern people.. The Bible story added a story of Noah and a spiritual crisis. The Ark was a symbol of the covenant with God and Noah as prophet attempted to attract the people to the Covenant to save them.. so it was not a case as you suggested in your opening post.

"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Bahá'í News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 508)

Even if the Epic of G was written first, it doesn't mean the Bible account was borrowed from it! There was the flood which happened, and it was recorded in more than one place! Bible account, and Epic of Gilgamesh! If E of G, was written first, the wrong version went into print first! Illustration: Say there was some event, and the National Enquirer did an article! It gave wrong details! Later responsible people write a book about the event and get it right!

But even so, it is entirely possible that the E of G wasn't the first account! The real event may likely have been put in writing by Noah and/or his offspring! And those writings may have been used to write the official account found in the Bible!

 

[Jenny Collins]

It's hard to explain anything about God's wisdom to someone who thinks they know more than the Creator. It has nothing to do with him being "petty". It has everything to do with giving all his intelligent creation free will. To just punish and remove the rebels would only have proven that God is more powerful, not that his sovereignty is deserved and his rules reasonable. Satan never challenged God's power. He knew better.

What did God ask the first humans to do? Just obey one simple command....it wasn't difficult and would not have disadvantaged them in any way. That command would have protected them from evil for all time to come.....but the thing is, when to have knowledge revealed to you, there is no way to "unlearn" it. Once the 'genie' was out of the bottle, there was no way to send it back. Evil was in the world and God would deal with it in the wisest way.....looking always to the future.

If you remember, the first rebel was not human, and his fellow angels were looking on with interest to see what God would do about this situation. Up until this point in their existence, there was no way to test their obedience out of free will. Having lower intelligent creatures who could worship a different supernatural being, still more powerful than themselves, (given the right circumstances,) obviously became a test.

This whole scenario is not just about us.....it is about the righfulness of our Sovereign to set the rules for our existence. Of course, God could have made us just like the animals, with programmed instincts and no free will to make deliberate choices.
But we alone, like the angels, are endowed with God's attributes. We alone feel a need to worship. But the right to life is conditional, and always has been.....it requires our obedience and submission to our Creator.

In allowing both angels and humans to exercise free will even in inappropriate ways, God tests the mettle of all of us. Like the fire of a refiner, by the evil expressed by both humans and angels, allows God to see who we really are as individuals.

Do we hate evil? Will we practice it? Justify it? Embrace it if others around us do?
Or does it repel us? Do we hate it? Does it make us want to help the victims of it?

God allows us to make those choices and judges us on our own responses. I think that is very fair.



You are again expecting the Creator to do what YOU think is appropriate. He is way ahead of all of us. His agenda goes on into eternity, because this is a legal battle fought in the courts of heaven and on earth.

A slanderer has brought serious accusations against the Creator, calling into question the reasonableness of his rules and his right to set them. He called God a liar and inferred that he was a lousy parent, keeping something from his human children that they had a right to know. Was he right? God allowed us to make that choice for ourselves.

Witnesses have been furnished for both sides in this long running legal case. They have testified for and against the one accused by satan. Both humans and angels have taken sides.

The jury has handed down their verdict, based on the evidence.....(since the state of mankind and the world testify to the inability of man to rule himself successfully without God).....sentence has been passed on the accuser and now he and all who have sided with him are on death row awaiting the carrying out of their sentence, which is an eternal exit from life, having disqualified themselves from keeping this precious gift.

All humans alive today are either "sheep" or "goats".....and we ourselves made the decision about which camp we are in.

You can stare at what appear to be a few dead pixels, or you can step back and look at the big picture.
Having set precedents for all time to come, the issue of God's rightful Sovereignty can never be challenged again......and then he can get on with whatever else he has planned for his vast universe.

The Creator knows what he is doing.

I enjoy all your posts but just wanted to point out one thing: You say that all people alive today are sheep or goats! I think it is during the great tribulation that people will be judged as sheep or goats! At this time there are no sheep or goats, only people who have those tendencies! Sheeplike people can become goats and goatlike people can become sheep at this time! "he who endures to the end will be saved"

 

[Jenny Collins]

This is actually one of the big flaws in the bible, to be honest. Which is weird because it would have been easy to fix via another draft.

Yes, God gives Adam and Eve a command, but at this point Adam and Eve are as children. Infants, really. They have no knowledge of good and evil. None. People see them eating the fruit as "evil" because of disobedience but they fail to realize that in a person with no knowledge of those things, they would not have been able to know that disobeying was evil. They would have had no concept of consequences because they had no concept of right and wrong.

So when the serpent tempted Eve, she had no reason to doubt what it said, that the fruit was fine. She didn't know what a lie was because she didn't have knowledge of it.

So God sets up his creation to fail (which was a 100 percent certainty because, again, they think like infants) and then blames that creation for failing. He catch-22'd Adam and Eve so hard that apparently the reverberations continue to this day.

It is not ethically OK to punish a creature for doing something you didn't give them the insight to understand the consequences of. All god did was say "if you eat this fruit you will die" and then he walked away for a while (I guess he went to run some errands? Who knows.).

So you put this big pretty tree with nice looking fruit right in the middle of the garden. Right where you *know* it will entice your brand new ignorant-of-the-world-and-everything-in-it children, tell them "OK now don't eat that!", run off and leave them to their own devices, and then act surprised when the bad influence kid from down the street tells them "nah, it's fine, don't worry about it" and they eat it? You knew darn well that your kids lacked any kind of understanding of right and wrong. They can't even form the concept in their minds because you have denied them that. So you set up this Rube-Goldbergian machine of fool-proof failure so that you can blame them for failing?

Yeah, no thanks.

Eve knew she was doing wrong! She was given paradise and knew she should be loyal and obedient to her creator! She was tricked and Adam wasn't! Adam had been around longer and had more experience than her! But she was tricked because there was something bad in her heart! She longed for something, yet hadn't been deprived!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Then point it out. Quote it and provide the post number (it's in the bottom right hand corner of your post).


Because they're the definitions that most commonly come to mind when encountering the word. In translating a language the point in using a particular word rather than some other is to best convey the original meaning of a word as the translator sees it. One doesn't translate the German word for horse, "pferd," as pig because it misleads the reader. Same with "evil." If the translator of "ra" didn't want to convey the common concept of evil then he would have chosen a more fitting word. This is Basic Translation Principles 101. That you insist that none of the various translations of "ra" comport to to their true meaning, but some common meaning, which you have yet to tell us, is obviously an attempt to save your theology. It doesn't work Jenny, and it's pretty sad.


No. Just address the points I brought up in my previous posts.

1) Point out where you defined "ra."

2) What is this common meaning you've chosen for "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" as they occur in Isaiah 45:7 for the word "ra"?

3)YOU: "By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra!"
...ME: Where have I done this?
​

Why isn't it a good word to use? In post 352 you just got done saying "When they do this, they are not contradicting each other over meanings, just using different words which mean the same thing!" So, to your way of thinking it shouldn't matter if one chooses to translate "ra" as Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Hard times," "Troubles," "Woe," OR "Evil." They all mean the same thing, whatever that is.


Nope. And I even Googled it and nothing came up. My suspicion is that it's simply something you made up.


I hesitate to ask, but why are you bothering with the term "pure meaning" when all it means is "original meaning"? I don't believe anyone has used the term before now.


.

There is too much that I have said, to go back and isolate where I told you the meaning of Ra! And it isn't important whether I told you it or not! I may have told someone else, and forgot who! But regardless, the word Ra does not mean evil in the way that you believe it does!

You seem to be ignoring everything that I have already told you and repeating the same challenges! Evil has more than one meaning! If the obvious meaning is not the definition, than maybe the translators of the Bibles that use that word are WRONG! Not technically wrong, but they may not have used the best word choice! Is that my fault? My Bible does not use the word evil, it uses the better word, calamity!

Since the word Ra can have more than one meaning, Bible translation is a very important task! The context of the Bible statements must be carefully considered and some Bible translations are better than others at doing this! Read Dr Jason Beduhn's book Truth In Translation sometime!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Then point it out. Quote it and provide the post number (it's in the bottom right hand corner of your post).


Because they're the definitions that most commonly come to mind when encountering the word. In translating a language the point in using a particular word rather than some other is to best convey the original meaning of a word as the translator sees it. One doesn't translate the German word for horse, "pferd," as pig because it misleads the reader. Same with "evil." If the translator of "ra" didn't want to convey the common concept of evil then he would have chosen a more fitting word. This is Basic Translation Principles 101. That you insist that none of the various translations of "ra" comport to to their true meaning, but some common meaning, which you have yet to tell us, is obviously an attempt to save your theology. It doesn't work Jenny, and it's pretty sad.


No. Just address the points I brought up in my previous posts.

1) Point out where you defined "ra."

2) What is this common meaning you've chosen for "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Evil," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" as they occur in Isaiah 45:7 for the word "ra"?

3)YOU: "By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra!"
...ME: Where have I done this?
​

Why isn't it a good word to use? In post 352 you just got done saying "When they do this, they are not contradicting each other over meanings, just using different words which mean the same thing!" So, to your way of thinking it shouldn't matter if one chooses to translate "ra" as Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Hard times," "Troubles," "Woe," OR "Evil." They all mean the same thing, whatever that is.


Nope. And I even Googled it and nothing came up. My suspicion is that it's simply something you made up.


I hesitate to ask, but why are you bothering with the term "pure meaning" when all it means is "original meaning"? I don't believe anyone has used the term before now.


.

Again, you don't get what I am saying! Yes, the translations that use evil, calamity, disaster, etc are all correct, and none of them contradict each other! They are all TECHNICALLY correct! If they use the word evil, and their intent is the obscure meaning, then it is correct! Because they are using it to mean disaster! However, they are also wrong! Because people like you will misunderstand them! They used an accurate word but it was a poor choice!