Lucifer

[ultimate777]

moral necessity
Puritanboard Junior

Join Date Dec 2007
Posts 1,625 Either way, we naturally tend to link the word "evil" with someone other than God directly, for it seems difficult to do otherwise. But, scripture speaks plainly of God doing evil. See Judges 9:23; I Sam. 16:14-16; 18:10; 19:9; II Sam. 12:11; I Kings: 21:21,29; II Kings 22:16; II Chron. 34:24,28; Jer. 11:17; and Prov. 16:4. But, in our limited minds, we find it hard to fathom how to reconcile God doing evil with his being good. We get confused in the definitions. We have to realize that we cannot define good by our perception of what good is or is not, because our "perceiver" (for lack of a better word) is too small for the task, and it is still corrupted. It is unable to comprehend how God can do both and yet be good, because it is incapable of doing so. Good is defined as an action performed by a good being. Therefore, we must conclude that, when God does something that we refer to as "evil", he is doing good because his being is good. He is, by definition, good. He is the definition of good. He defines good, not Webster's Dictionary; so, since his nature is good, the actions brought forth from his nature are good, whether words such as "good" or "evil" describe such actions. We who have been born again, however, have two natures, one evil and one good, and therefore cannot perform some actions and call them good entirely, yet we also cannot call them evil entirely, for our actions are always the fruit of both principles. Those not born again can only do evil, for they have only one principle within them, that being the principle of evil. Satan was a created being, just like Adam was, and therefore did not possess the heavenly, eternal nature of God inherent within him. The absence of the Spirit of God is evil, and so the explanation for Satan being evil and of Adam becoming evil when God withdrew his Spirit from him.

This is how I piece it together for now, with my still depraved mind.

Blessings! Last edited by moral necessity; 01-13-2008 at 02:51 AM. Charles Plauger
Attend/Church of the Redeemer
Winchester, VA


Do you see how twisted up believing in Biblical Inerrancy can get you?

[Icthus]

Do you see how twisted up believing in Biblical Inerrancy can get you?

Not really. What I'm seeing here is how twisted up reading the Bible as if the English translations we have today exactly represent the original meaning can get you. I don't have the necessary materials in front of me to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that at least some of these sites, in context, use "evil" to say "harmful" or something similar. Claiming that God is doing evil because the English translation uses the word "evil" is like saying he breaks the Ten Commandments by claiming to be jealous. If one actually examines the material as it was originally written, both in context and in the proper language, the contradiction is far less apparent. The Biblical writers are certainly not claiming that God is evil in the way that we understand it today. When Samuel says, for instance, that an evil spirit is terrorizing Saul, it is somewhat unclear precisely what is happening, but it is highly unlikely that God is sending a demon or some other morally corrupt being to afflict him.

I, personally, do not have an official stance on inerrancy, but these examples are not sufficient to show that assuming the Bible is inerrant will force one to perform mental gymnastics to maintain the concept of a good God.

[ultimate777]

Do you see how twisted up believing in Biblical Inerrancy can get you?

Not really. What I'm seeing here is how twisted up reading the Bible as if the English translations we have today exactly represent the original meaning can get you. I don't have the necessary materials in front of me to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that at least some of these sites, in context, use "evil" to say "harmful" or something similar. Claiming that God is doing evil because the English translation uses the word "evil" is like saying he breaks the Ten Commandments by claiming to be jealous. If one actually examines the material as it was originally written, both in context and in the proper language, the contradiction is far less apparent. The Biblical writers are certainly not claiming that God is evil in the way that we understand it today. When Samuel says, for instance, that an evil spirit is terrorizing Saul, it is somewhat unclear precisely what is happening, but it is highly unlikely that God is sending a demon or some other morally corrupt being to afflict him.

I, personally, do not have an official stance on inerrancy, but these examples are not sufficient to show that assuming the Bible is inerrant will force one to perform mental gymnastics to maintain the concept of a good God.

It seems that the Bible is often not what God said, but what the hearers thought they heard. God chose to speak, but did not choose to prevent misunderstanding and mishearing.

[Icthus]

Do you see how twisted up believing in Biblical Inerrancy can get you?

Not really. What I'm seeing here is how twisted up reading the Bible as if the English translations we have today exactly represent the original meaning can get you. I don't have the necessary materials in front of me to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that at least some of these sites, in context, use "evil" to say "harmful" or something similar. Claiming that God is doing evil because the English translation uses the word "evil" is like saying he breaks the Ten Commandments by claiming to be jealous. If one actually examines the material as it was originally written, both in context and in the proper language, the contradiction is far less apparent. The Biblical writers are certainly not claiming that God is evil in the way that we understand it today. When Samuel says, for instance, that an evil spirit is terrorizing Saul, it is somewhat unclear precisely what is happening, but it is highly unlikely that God is sending a demon or some other morally corrupt being to afflict him.

I, personally, do not have an official stance on inerrancy, but these examples are not sufficient to show that assuming the Bible is inerrant will force one to perform mental gymnastics to maintain the concept of a good God.

It seems that the Bible is often not what God said, but what the hearers thought they heard. God chose to speak, but did not choose to prevent misunderstanding and mishearing.

What does that have to do with what I just said? I didn't say that confusion comes from the Biblical writers screwing up but from readers, translators, copyists, and interpreters screwing up. Inerrantists don't believe that every copy of the Biblical texts ever made flawlessly captures the intent of the original, only that the originals were without error. In the instances you provided, the inability of some modern day readers to understand what was written is due to human error, both on their part for failing to study the Bible in context (usually preferring to simply deign whatever reading they get out of it the first time to have come from the Holy Spirit) and on the part of various translators, copyists, and theologians over the centuries who, despite their best efforts, were unable to fully grasp the original meaning of the text. And no, one can't simply claim that these human errors call the entirety of the text into question, because we have entire fields of study devoted to recovering the original words and meanings, and we're fairly sure we know what's up.