Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
CDF47

Isaiah 45:7 Interpretation

Recommended Posts

Atheists like to use the verse Isaiah 45:7 to state God is the Creator of evil and that He is an evil God.  The KJV has this verse stating, "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."  The ESV has this verse stating, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things."  The atheist stated the original Hebrew text shows this closer to the KJV translation.  

 

How do you interpret this text?

 

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

Evil is in the sense of disaster and calamity, not unholyness. But I'm wondering how anything can be called evil in there worldview.

 

Ask them what the opposite of peace is, it's war and chaos. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Calvin: By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

But the Sophists are wrong in their exposition; for, while they acknowledge that famine, barrenness, war, pestilence, and other scourges, come from God, they deny that God is the author of calamities, when they befall us through the agency of men. This is false and altogether contrary to the present doctrine; for the Lord raises up wicked men to chastise us by their hand, as is evident from various passages of Scripture. (1 Kings 11:14.) The Lord does not indeed inspire them with malice, but he uses it for the purpose of chastising us, and exercises the office of a judge, in the same manner as he made use of the malice of Pharaoh and others, in order to punish his people. (Exodus 1:11 and Exodus 2:23.) We ought therefore to hold this doctrine, that God alone is the author of all events; that is, that adverse and prosperous events are sent by him, even though he makes use of the agency of men, that none may attribute it to fortune, or to any other cause.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/isaiah-45.html

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Those atheists clearly don't know Hebrew.

 

The Hebrew word רַע has a wide range of meaning. Like English it can refer to moral evil or to simple misfortune (i.e. I am having a bad day). A very good example which Illustrates its wide range of meaning is Jer. 24:2-3.

 

Quote

One basket had very good figs, like first-ripe figs, but the other basket had very bad figs, so bad that they could not be eaten. And the LORD said to me, “What do you see, Jeremiah?” I said, “Figs, the good figs very good, and the bad figs very bad, so bad that they cannot be eaten.”

Are bad figs morally evil? No. Since good figs are ripe figs it follows that bad figs are rotten or at the very least unripe figs. The point is the Hebrew word רַע covers a lot of ground and in this case the good figs which are contrasted with the bad figs helps us understand what bad figs are.

 

The same can be done in Isa. 45:7. The Hebrew word רַע stands in contrast to שָׁלוֹם (i.e. peace, well–being). The Hebrew word for "good" is טוֹב and that word is not used in this verse.

 

The NET Bible does a really good job with this verse.

 

Quote

I am the one who forms light and creates darkness;
the one who brings about peace and creates calamity.

When the words are understood as opposites, the meaning is clear. This verse is not stating God made evil in a moral sense or even good for that matter. God Himself is the good. The contrast is one between peace and calamity not moral good and evil.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Innerfire89 said:

Evil is in the sense of disaster and calamity, not unholyness. But I'm wondering how anything can be called evil in there worldview.

 

Ask them what the opposite of peace is, it's war and chaos. 

OK, I will ask them.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Origen said:

Those atheists clearly don't know Hebrew.

 

The Hebrew word רַע has a wide range of meaning. Like English it can refer to moral evil or to simple misfortune (i.e. I am having a bad day). A very good example of its wide range of meaning is Jer. 24:2-3.

 

Are bad figs morally evil? No. Since good figs are ripe figs it follows that bad figs are rotten or at the very least unripe figs. The point is the Hebrew word רַע covers a lot of ground and in this case the good figs which are contrasted with the bad figs helps us understand what bad figs are.

 

The same can be done in Isa. 45:7. The Hebrew word רַע stands in contrast to שָׁלוֹם (i.e. peace, well–being). The Hebrew word for "good" is טוֹב and that word is not used in this verse.

 

The NET Bible does a really good job with this verse.

 

When the words are understood as opposites, the meaning is clear. This verse is not stating God made evil in a moral sense or even good for that matter. God Himself is the good. The contrast is one between peace and calamity not moral good and evil.

 

14 minutes ago, Origen said:

Those atheists clearly don't know Hebrew.

 

The Hebrew word רַע has a wide range of meaning. Like English it can refer to moral evil or to simple misfortune (i.e. I am having a bad day). A very good example of its wide range of meaning is Jer. 24:2-3.

 

Are bad figs morally evil? No. Since good figs are ripe figs it follows that bad figs are rotten or at the very least unripe figs. The point is the Hebrew word רַע covers a lot of ground and in this case the good figs which are contrasted with the bad figs helps us understand what bad figs are.

 

The same can be done in Isa. 45:7. The Hebrew word רַע stands in contrast to שָׁלוֹם (i.e. peace, well–being). The Hebrew word for "good" is טוֹב and that word is not used in this verse.

 

The NET Bible does a really good job with this verse.

 

When the words are understood as opposites, the meaning is clear. This verse is not stating God made evil in a moral sense or even good for that matter. God Himself is the good. The contrast is one between peace and calamity not moral good and evil.

 

14 minutes ago, Faber said:

John Calvin: By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

But the Sophists are wrong in their exposition; for, while they acknowledge that famine, barrenness, war, pestilence, and other scourges, come from God, they deny that God is the author of calamities, when they befall us through the agency of men. This is false and altogether contrary to the present doctrine; for the Lord raises up wicked men to chastise us by their hand, as is evident from various passages of Scripture. (1 Kings 11:14.) The Lord does not indeed inspire them with malice, but he uses it for the purpose of chastising us, and exercises the office of a judge, in the same manner as he made use of the malice of Pharaoh and others, in order to punish his people. (Exodus 1:11 and Exodus 2:23.) We ought therefore to hold this doctrine, that God alone is the author of all events; that is, that adverse and prosperous events are sent by him, even though he makes use of the agency of men, that none may attribute it to fortune, or to any other cause.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/isaiah-45.html

 

 

14 minutes ago, Faber said:

John Calvin: By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

But the Sophists are wrong in their exposition; for, while they acknowledge that famine, barrenness, war, pestilence, and other scourges, come from God, they deny that God is the author of calamities, when they befall us through the agency of men. This is false and altogether contrary to the present doctrine; for the Lord raises up wicked men to chastise us by their hand, as is evident from various passages of Scripture. (1 Kings 11:14.) The Lord does not indeed inspire them with malice, but he uses it for the purpose of chastising us, and exercises the office of a judge, in the same manner as he made use of the malice of Pharaoh and others, in order to punish his people. (Exodus 1:11 and Exodus 2:23.) We ought therefore to hold this doctrine, that God alone is the author of all events; that is, that adverse and prosperous events are sent by him, even though he makes use of the agency of men, that none may attribute it to fortune, or to any other cause.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/isaiah-45.html

 

Great interpretation.  I will  try to use this when talking to them.

14 minutes ago, Origen said:

Those atheists clearly don't know Hebrew.

 

The Hebrew word רַע has a wide range of meaning. Like English it can refer to moral evil or to simple misfortune (i.e. I am having a bad day). A very good example of its wide range of meaning is Jer. 24:2-3.

 

Are bad figs morally evil? No. Since good figs are ripe figs it follows that bad figs are rotten or at the very least unripe figs. The point is the Hebrew word רַע covers a lot of ground and in this case the good figs which are contrasted with the bad figs helps us understand what bad figs are.

 

The same can be done in Isa. 45:7. The Hebrew word רַע stands in contrast to שָׁלוֹם (i.e. peace, well–being). The Hebrew word for "good" is טוֹב and that word is not used in this verse.

 

The NET Bible does a really good job with this verse.

 

When the words are understood as opposites, the meaning is clear. This verse is not stating God made evil in a moral sense or even good for that matter. God Himself is the good. The contrast is one between peace and calamity not moral good and evil.

I used this in the conversation I am having with atheists on an atheist forum. Thank you!

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
11 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Great interpretation.  I will  try to use this when talking to them.

You could also point to Hebrew lexicons.

 

The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. (David J. A. Clines Ed., Continuum, 2011, 8 Vols. pp. 505-507 

 

The Hebrew word רַע:

1. bad, i.e. poor (in quality), unhealthy, of little value

2. bad, evil, i.e. displeasing, disagreeable, unpleasant, unsatisfactory, distressing

3. (ethically) evil, wicked

4. evil, i.e. unkind, mean

5. evil, i.e. greedy

6. evil, i.e. harmful, severe, grievous, awesome

7. sad, downcast

 

I used this in the conversation I am having with atheists on an atheist forum.

Don't waste your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They bring up other things like the Tyre prophecy.  I think that is one of the great prophecies of the Bible but they try to turn it around to make it sound like it was a bad prophecy because pictures today show a city there now.  The city was actually wiped out and never returned to the power it once had.

1 minute ago, Origen said:

You could also point to Hebrew lexicons.

 

The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. (David J. A. Clines Ed., Continuum, 2011, 8 Vols. pp. 505-507 

 

The Hebrew word רַע:

1. bad, i.e. poor (in quality), unhealthy, of little value

2. bad, evil, i.e. displeasing, disagreeable, unpleasant, unsatisfactory, distressing

3. (ethically) evil, wicked

4. evil, i.e. unkind, mean

5. evil, i.e. greedy

6. evil, i.e. harmful, severe, grievous, awesome

7. sad, downcast

Nice.  I will post this up there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
36 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

They bring up other things like the Tyre prophecy. 

It is a waste of time to talk with those who really have no interest in even trying understand the Scripture.  Their only goal is to discredit the Bible by any means possible (and I mean by being dishonest).  I don't believe it really matter to them how credible your explanation might be.  They don't care because the goal was never an honest search for answers and it certainly was not search for truth.

 

Just my opinion on the matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Origen said:

It is a waste of time to talk with those who really have no interest in even trying understand the Scripture.  Their only goal is to discredit the Bible by any means possible (and I mean by being dishonest).  I don't believe it really matter to them how credible your explanation might be.  They don't care because the goal was never an honest search for answers and it certainly was not search for truth.

 

Just my opinion on the matter.

 

You are probably right but there are lurkers on those forums that could see what I am saying and realize how shady they are being in a debate.  They haven't addressed your comments yet.  Maybe they see it as the truth and have nothing further to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CDF47 said:

Atheists like to use the verse Isaiah 45:7 to state God is the Creator of evil and that He is an evil God.  The KJV has this verse stating, "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."  The ESV has this verse stating, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things."  The atheist stated the original Hebrew text shows this closer to the KJV translation.  

 

How do you interpret this text?

 

 I believe that we can say God created evil by defining evil. What was Satan's sin? Was it not deciding good and evil for himself and his third. The same holds true for Adam and Eve, they partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (to set their own standards?). God alone reserves that right.

 

in-deep-thought-smiley-emoticon.gif.d7a508a1012f2792e6117a0f5325b21b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deade said:

 I believe that we can say God created evil by defining evil. What was Satan's sin? Was it not deciding good and evil for himself and his third. The same holds true for Adam and Eve, they partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (to set their own standards?). God alone reserves that right.

 

in-deep-thought-smiley-emoticon.gif.d7a508a1012f2792e6117a0f5325b21b.gif

Yes, God alone does deserve that right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
10 hours ago, deade said:

 I believe that we can say God created evil by defining evil. What was Satan's sin? Was it not deciding good and evil for himself and his third. The same holds true for Adam and Eve, they partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (to set their own standards?). God alone reserves that right.

So God merely defines what evil is?  THAT'S IT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Origen said:

So God merely defines what evil is?  THAT'S IT?

 

I think He defines, hates, and battles what is evil.

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

I think He defines, hates, and battles what is evil.

With all the interaction you have with atheists on other forums I am surprised that no one has ever brought up the Euthyphro dilemma to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Origen said:

So God merely defines what evil is?  THAT'S IT?

No, no merely about it. He defines it and is in the process of purging His universe of it.

3 hours ago, CDF47 said:

 

I think He defines, hates, and battles what is evil.

On the contrary, I think God is allowing evil to continue for a reason. He is letting the inhabitants of heaven and earth see the consequences of evil continuing unchecked. God will intervene right before we completely destroy ourselves.  :RpS_thumbup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
42 minutes ago, deade said:

No, no merely about it. He defines it...

That really does not change anything.  If all He does is define it (i.e. merely), that does nothing to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Origen said:

It is a waste of time to talk with those who really have no interest in even trying understand the Scripture. 

 I remember having a conversation with an academically intelligent guy who said that the Bible is full of contradictions. I asked him to just stick with one and we will discuss it. I showed him the one thing he wanted to talk about was not a contradiction. After seeing it wasn't he just wanted to quickly move on to the so-called next contradiction. I wouldn't allow him to do so until he admitted that the first area he wanted to discuss was not a contradiction. He refused to admit it but kept insisting that we quickly move on to the next one. So I refused to continue the conversation.

 The same conversation came up months later and what does he do? He simply repeated the same argument which I already addressed months earlier. Then I said it is no use trying to continue if he wouldn't accept that his first so-called contradiction was not even a contradiction.

 With so many of them they just refuse to say "I'm sorry, I was wrong." Even if it meant getting to the next subject they want to discuss. It is a spirit of stubbornness, defiance and a refusal to see (John 9:39).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
16 hours ago, Faber said:

 I remember having a conversation with an academically intelligent guy who said that the Bible is full of contradictions. I asked him to just stick with one and we will discuss it. I showed him the one thing he wanted to talk about was not a contradiction. After seeing it wasn't he just wanted to quickly move on to the so-called next contradiction. I wouldn't allow him to do so until he admitted that the first area he wanted to discuss was not a contradiction. He refused to admit it but kept insisting that we quickly move on to the next one. So I refused to continue the conversation.

 The same conversation came up months later and what does he do? He simply repeated the same argument which I already addressed months earlier. Then I said it is no use trying to continue if he wouldn't accept that his first so-called contradiction was not even a contradiction.

 With so many of them they just refuse to say "I'm sorry, I was wrong." Even if it meant getting to the next subject they want to discuss. It is a spirit of stubbornness, defiance and a refusal to see (John 9:39).

Right!  Even if you prove your point it falls on deaf ears.  They go back to their original starting place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Origen said:

With all the interaction you have with atheists on other forums I am surprised that no one has ever brought up the Euthyphro dilemma to you.

No, they never brought that one up yet to me.  I just read about it and it seems interesting.  I think both are true in this dilemma by the way.

 

I have a current thread going with atheists that has reached 849 pages long:

 

 

4 hours ago, deade said:

No, no merely about it. He defines it and is in the process of purging His universe of it.

On the contrary, I think God is allowing evil to continue for a reason. He is letting the inhabitants of heaven and earth see the consequences of evil continuing unchecked. God will intervene right before we completely destroy ourselves.  :RpS_thumbup:

Oh, I definitely agree this is a lesson on evil, as well as a choice.  By battling it, I meant He is going to return here to utterly destroy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Origen said:

Right!  Even if you prove your point it falls on deaf ears.  They go back to their original staring place.

I've definitely seen that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

No, they never brought that one up yet to me.  I just read about it and it seems interesting.  I think both are true in this dilemma by the way.

Then you don't see the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Origen said:

Then you don't see the problem.

Oh, can you describe it better for me?  I made my decision based on the Wikipedia definition and it seemed plausible for both to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they understand our points on this one.  They stopped discussing Isaiah 45:7 and did not address my comments from you guys.  Thanks for the help all of you!

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never met Calvin. The few atheists I've encountered, if  I get the sense that they are sincere, I don't have much to do with them. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God".

God created us with the potential to walk in the light or the darkness as He did Satan.

Isaiah 45:7

 

Yes God everything including Lucifer.

 

Isaiah 14:12–15 (NASB95)

12 “How you have fallen from heaven,

O star of the morning, son of the dawn!

You have been cut down to the earth,

You who have weakened the nations!

13 “But you said in your heart,

‘I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God,

He did not create Lucifer evil. Pride and choices did that as do ours.

Ez, 28:12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say unto him, ‘Thus saith the Lord God: “‘Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering: the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold; the workmanship of thy taborets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth, and I have set thee so; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned; therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness. I will cast thee to the ground; I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.


 

Col, 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.


John, 1: 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

 

Light

The KJV translates Strong's H216 in the following manner: light(s) (114x), day (2x), bright (1x), clear (1x), flood (1x), herbs (1x), lightning (1x), morning (1x), sun (1x).

 

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

light

light of day

light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)

day-break, dawn, morning light

daylight

lightning

light of lamp

light of life

light of prosperity

light of instruction

light of face (fig.)

Jehovah as Israel's light

 

DARKNESS

 

The KJV translates Strong's H2822 in the following manner: darkness (70x), dark (7x), obscurity (2x), night (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

darkness, obscurity

darkness

secret place

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)

חֹשֶׁךְ chôshek, kho-shek'; from H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:—dark(-ness), night, obscurity.

 

PEACE

The KJV translates Strong's H7965 in the following manner: peace (175x), well (14x), peaceably (9x), welfare (5x), salute (with H7592) (4x), prosperity (4x), did (3x), safe (3x), health (2x), peaceable (2x), miscellaneous (15x).

 

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

completeness, soundness, welfare, peace

completeness (in number)

safety, soundness (in body)

welfare, health, prosperity

peace, quiet, tranquillity, contentment

peace, friendship

of human relationships

with God especially in covenant relationship

peace (from war)

peace (as adjective)

 

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)

שָׁלוֹם shâlôwm, shaw-lome'; or שָׁלֹם shâlôm; from H7999; safe, i.e. (figuratively) well, happy, friendly; also (abstractly) welfare, i.e. health, prosperity, peace:—× do, familiar, × fare, favour, friend, × great, (good) health, (× perfect, such as be at) peace(-able, -ably), prosper(-ity, -ous), rest, safe(-ty), salute, welfare, (× all is, be) well, × wholly.

 

EVIL

The KJV translates Strong's H7451 in the following manner: evil (442x), wickedness (59x), wicked (25x), mischief (21x), hurt (20x), bad (13x), trouble (10x), sore (9x), affliction (6x), ill (5x), adversity (4x), ill favoured (3x), harm (3x), naught (3x), noisome (2x), grievous (2x), sad (2x), miscellaneous (34x).

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

adj

bad, evil

bad, disagreeable, malignant

bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

evil, displeasing

bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

bad (of value)

worse than, worst (comparison)

sad, unhappy

evil (hurtful)

bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

in general, of persons, of thoughts

deeds, actions

n m

evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity

evil, distress, adversity

evil, injury, wrong

evil (ethical)

n f

evil, misery, distress, injury

evil, misery, distress

evil, injury, wrong

evil (ethical)

 

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)

רַע raʻ, rah; from H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displease(-ure), distress, evil((-favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, × 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. (Including feminine raaah; as adjective or

Rev 2:1

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Rev 3:15

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

noun.)

 

In Christ

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Amillennial Interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48

      Meg. T. asks: "Dr. Riddlebarger, what is your take on Ezekiel's description of the Temple? I've never heard an amil explanation of the cooking pots and rooms for slaughtering the sacrifices of the people, and the chamber for the prince & his sacrifice. Puzzled." Tyler asks: "Dr. Kim, I was wanting to understand the Amill interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. There is a lot of talk about a future temple. Thanks for your help." ___________________________________   These are great questi

      in Amillennialism

    • Carson: Can We Be Sure of Our Interpretation?

      “If true human knowing depends on perfect, exhaustive knowing, we are consigned forever to ignorance because, whether in this life or the life to come, we will never be omniscient. . . . But that immediately suggests that the standard is too high. If you expose the relativity of human knowledge by appealing to a standard of omniscience, it’s an artificial standard. In fact, the first question I want to ask my postmodernist friends is, ‘How do you know that postmodern relativism is true?'” — Don

      in Christian Current Events

    • Isaiah 19:10 - WHAT?

      I want to introduce everyone to one of the strangest verses in the KJV.   "And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish."   What I would like to do is for you to provide another translation of the same verse from any version.  Please only one translation per person.  Let's see what we find.

      in Bible Study

    • Want to Understand Jesus’s Signs? Study Isaiah.

      In a previous article, I have sketched the Old Testament background for John’s use of “sign” (σημεῖον) in his Gospel as essentially twofold: (1) the “signs and wonders” performed by Moses at the exodus; and (2) prophetic signs predicting Yahweh’s future judgment on the people of Israel (see, e.g., Isa. 20:3). Importantly, while the former manifestations were miraculous, the latter were not. The Synoptic Gospels present Jesus’s mighty works as “miracles” (δυνάμεις); John discourages faith in “sig

      in Christian Current Events

×
×
  • Create New...