Is God the author of Evil?

[Cary.Melvin]

In light of the following scriptures, Is God the author of Evil?

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

and

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6 KJV)

Thanks,

[£amb]

In light of the following scriptures, Is God the author of Evil?

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

and

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6 KJV)

Thanks,


What is the definition of "evil" used in these verses?

[arunma]

If you check a Hebrew lexicon, you'll find that the word for evil has two variations. One refers to moral evil, and the second refers to physical calamity. Here is a page which covers the issue (just a warning, the author is definitely not a KJV-only believer!):

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html

[£amb]

If you check a Hebrew lexicon, you'll find that the word for evil has two variations. One refers to moral evil, and the second refers to physical calamity. Here is a page which covers the issue (just a warning, the author is definitely not a KJV-only believer!):

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html

I have also read on many commentaries that the word "evil" in these verses do not stand for the moral evil, but about calamity.

[arunma]

I have also read on many commentaries that the word "evil" in these verses do not stand for the moral evil, but about calamity.

As the website states, the form of the word used here specifically refers to physical calamity. So I suppose that to anyone who can read Hebrew, the meaning is obvious.

[Oxygen]

Yes, the word "evil" used in these verses is translated as "calamity," "destruction," "desolation," etc. in most modern versions. God is not the author of evil, as He is absolute holiness and purity and no evil exists in Him. God can and did punish with destruction, but moral evil is something altogether different.

[Crazy Liz]

As the website states, the form of the word used here specifically refers to physical calamity. So I suppose that to anyone who can read Hebrew, the meaning is obvious.
Actually, no. The author of the website obviously doesn't know Hebrew. There are not 2 different forms of raa, one meaning moral evil and the other meaning calamity. You can only decide which would be a better translation by context.

Some versions of Strong's may subdivide the occurrences of this word, depending on the meaning translators have attributed to it, but there is only one Hebrew word represented by the Strong's number 7451. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) make no such distinction, either. I don't have the Kohler-Baumgartner Lexicon (KB) handy (It's really expensive! :eek:) or the Even-Shoshan Concordance, but raa is a very common word in the Hebrew OT. If there was a way to tell just from the form of the word whether it means calamity or moral evil, I'm sure it would have been mentioned by one of my Hebrew teachers and show up in all the major reference works.

[novcncy]

Actually, no. The author of the website obviously doesn't know Hebrew. There are not 2 different forms of raa, one meaning moral evil and the other meaning calamity. You can only decide which would be a better translation by context.

Some versions of Strong's may subdivide the occurrences of this word, depending on the meaning translators have attributed to it, but there is only one Hebrew word represented by the Strong's number 7451. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) make no such distinction, either. I don't have the Kohler-Baumgartner Lexicon (KB) handy (It's really expensive! :eek:) or the Even-Shoshan Concordance, but raa is a very common word in the Hebrew OT. If there was a way to tell just from the form of the word whether it means calamity or moral evil, I'm sure it would have been mentioned by one of my Hebrew teachers and show up in all the major reference works.

I see how there may not be a distinct word form, but would the context make the connotation obvious?

[Cary.Melvin]

If God is good as Christianity claims that He is, why does he create evil?

Wouldn't that make God evil if He did?

I have always thought that evil was the result of the sin (by free will) of His creation.

[arunma]

Actually, no. The author of the website obviously doesn't know Hebrew. There are not 2 different forms of raa, one meaning moral evil and the other meaning calamity. You can only decide which would be a better translation by context.

Some versions of Strong's may subdivide the occurrences of this word, depending on the meaning translators have attributed to it, but there is only one Hebrew word represented by the Strong's number 7451. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) make no such distinction, either. I don't have the Kohler-Baumgartner Lexicon (KB) handy (It's really expensive! :eek:) or the Even-Shoshan Concordance, but raa is a very common word in the Hebrew OT. If there was a way to tell just from the form of the word whether it means calamity or moral evil, I'm sure it would have been mentioned by one of my Hebrew teachers and show up in all the major reference works.

Yes, I too noticed that my Strong's dictionary has only one word. So are you saying that the meaning of the word is determined by context rather than form?

If God is good as Christianity claims that He is, why does he create evil?

Well, I think the point everyone here is making is that God doesn't create evil. In fact, I would personally think that by definition, evil involves opposition to God. So if you choose to accept that definition, then it's logically impossible for God to be evil.

As I would interpret this verse, Isaiah says that God gives us both blessings and curses. It's our task to learn from the example of Job, and bless the Lord's name even when we are cursed, just like Jesus did.

[Crazy Liz]

I see how there may not be a distinct word form, but would the context make the connotation obvious?
Sometimes, but not always. Knowing that a word is used two different ways when not applied to God means that when the word is applied to God, the translator will usually have to make the choice based on theology.

This is particularly true in poetic structures, like the verses quoted. In fact, in poetry, the aim is often richness in meaning conveyed by economy of words. So the common hermeneutical principle that a word has one primary meaning in any passage or context specifically does NOT apply to poetry and pithy sayings like proverbs. In such contexts, multiple meanings more often are intentional. This is also true of other very compact verbal forms, like jokes.

So the answer to your question is no. The context of the verses quoted above does not dictate a single meaning of either moral evil or catastrophe. In the verses quoted, the translational choice is based entirely on the translator's theology.

[novcncy]

Sometimes, but not always. Knowing that a word is used two different ways when not applied to God means that when the word is applied to God, the translator will usually have to make the choice based on theology.

This is particularly true in poetic structures, like the verses quoted. In fact, in poetry, the aim is often richness in meaning conveyed by economy of words. So the common hermeneutical principle that a word has one primary meaning in any passage or context specifically does NOT apply to poetry and pithy sayings like proverbs. In such contexts, multiple meanings more often are intentional. This is also true of other very compact verbal forms, like jokes.

So the answer to your question is no. The context of the verses quoted above does not dictate a single meaning of either moral evil or catastrophe. In the verses quoted, the translational choice is based entirely on the translator's theology.


I love this post ^ because it underscores why we need theology. Some folks say, "I don't need theology, I have the Bible"...but how do you know what the Bible says, unless you have theology. GREAT post, Liz.

[arunma]

Indeed. Theology is important for all of us Bible-believers. The Bible is the source of theology, not a systematic theology book. I'd say that reading the Bible without any sort of theology is like trying to observe an amoeba without a microscope.

[Sword-In-Hand]

In light of the following scriptures, Is God the author of Evil?

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

and

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6 KJV)

Thanks,

There are some who hold that this verse is describing God's creation of Satan. Since God did not make us robots, or force us to love Him, He created the deceiver to test those who say they follow Him. So they argue that since God created Satan, then in fact He did create evil in a sense, although Satan fell by his own will.

[Flynmonkie]

Isaiah 45:7 KJV
Create. Heb the Poel Participle of the verb ba'ra' {baw-raw'} (create) which, with “evil”, requires the rendering “bring about”. Not the same form as in vv8, 12, or v 18 in connection with the earth. . In Jeremiah 18.11 the verb is yazar to frame, or mold. In Amos 8.6 it is ashah to bring about. A word of wide meaning its sense has to be determined by its context. Here disturbance in contrast to peace.

Evil: never rendered “sin”. God brings calamity about as the inevitable consequence of sin. It is rendered “calamity” in Ps 141.5,; “adversity” in 1 Sam 10.19; Psalm 94.13, Ecc 7.14; “grief” in Neh 2.10, Proverb 15.10; Ecc 2.17, Jonah 4.6; “affliction” Numbers 11.11, “misery” Ecc 8.6; “Trouble” in Psalm 41.1; “sore” in Deut 6.22; “noisome” in Ezek 14.15,21; “hurt” in Genesis 26.29; “wretchedness” in Numbers 11.15; also “harm” , “ill” and “mischief” cp. Jer 18.11, and Amos 3.6

Amos 3:6 KJV
Evil=calamity ; as in 5.13; ps 141.5; Hebrew ra'a'

ra'a', wicked, injurious. From its root, which indicates its nature as breaking up all that is good or desirable; injurious to all others. In Greek poneros, evil, or kakos, bad. Hence especially of moral depravity and corruption, and lewdness. English "good-for-nothing" (1 Samuel 17:28), naughty (2 Kings 2:19. Proverbs 20:14. Jeremiah 24:2).
http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app44.html

Evil, but not moral evil, evil inflicted in judgement, as in 5.13. Isa 14.7, Jer 18.11. Lam 3.38;
and the lord hath not done it With the true meaning of "evil" there is no need to do violence to the Hebrew to defend Jehovah righteous dealings.
done=inflicted.

[JPPT1974]

God is good and merciful. The one and only person that is evil and does harm is Satan himself.