pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Image_of_God]

But you said that Jesus’s human part is just human. If that’s so, worshipping it would be worshipping something other than God. If it is God, and worshipping the flesh of Jesus is worshipping God, then your critique of my understanding has no merit.

Great. If he can publish an articulation of the trinity that is:

1. Completely true to the teaching and
2. Not contradictory

He’ll be famous. I’d like to see the logical formulation he comes up with. Absent that, I’m sure you can track down someone who specializes in logic and send the trinity over. The best I’ve ever seen (from a mathematician, a faithful one at that), is “maybe it’s not contradictory because we don’t really understand it.”

Here is another contradiction. If the fleshy part of Jesus isn’t identical to God, then God didn’t assume a human form, did he? Rather, he created a human form and took control of it with his divine nature (or something like that.) But if you want to claim that Jesus is God turned flesh, then the flesh has to be God. If it’s not, then you have no grounds for claiming that God assumed a limited nature.

Well, certainly, Christians don’t like to accept that the doctrine is contradictory, but juxtaposing terms on each side of the “is” is perfectly justified. If it’s not, then it’s you who is giving a teaching that is incompatible with what Christians accept.

Well, that’s great, but it certainly doesn’t lay the issue to rest, and there is no doubt that many Jews do not agree with him. Iconoclasm certainly matters in the sense that if God forbids images of himself, it would be odd for God to violate his own law by making himself an image.

You are doing what St. Augustine was ashamed of when he found out he was doing. And that is, you are trying to comprehend the infinte God in your finite mind.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? Whom who did miracles, and died for you? Look, there is absolutely nothing contradictory about the trinity. Just look at nature, in which everything depends on another and their you will see the reflection of the Trinity.

Another thing, not everyway you think of things is the way God thinks of them. You are completely trying to understand the trinity from a physical and worldly point of view. And you will never understand him this way. You need to know that God is whoever he says he is. If Jesus says there are three persons in God, then there are.

 

[M_Oliver]

Yes you do. You said Jesus is God, right? If then you admit he is God he cannot be created. But you say even though he is God, he is created, but such a belief is contradictory. Either Jesus is God-and not created-or he is created and not God. There is no neutrality here. You cannot say Jesus is God and God is created at the same time, for God who you say Jesus is, is not created.

I am not saying that Jesus is God and God is created at the same time. That would be a failure to acknowledge the presence and superiority of the Father {THE ONE God}.

Christ is FROM the Father, Christ and the Father are one, that makes Christ God. No natural man, alive or dead, can claim anything remotely close to this truth. But is there ANY MAN that can? Yes…

**For as by a man {Adam} came death, by a MAN {Jesus Christ} has come also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:21)

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam {Jesus Christ} became a life-giving spirit.
(1 Corinthians 15:45)

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5)**

These are hard sayings. I understand that but it doesn’t make them false because not everyone can see it.

No one is misinterpretating anything (for the most part) except for you. And I am sorry to say this, but the word has been “created” since the time Ezra made this book many years ago. It is your translation that might be wrong. It might even be only a couple hundred years old.
And if you do not believe me check this out:

Wisdom 2:23
For God formed man to be imperishable; in the image of his own nature he created them.

Psalm 8:6
You have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor

1 Corinthians 11:7
A man on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God…

So you are the misinterpreter.

I do not accept Wisdom as Scripture. As far as Psalm 8:5 it proves my point. The translators would have done us all a favor if they were more accurate. Image implies an accurate copy. “less than” can not be an exact copy and this is exactly my point.

The Greek in 1 Cor 11:7 supports this fully. I am not sure which translation you quoted but it is missing:

G5225
ὑπάρχω
huparchō
hoop-ar’-kho
From G5259 and G756; to begin under (quietly)

We are not in Gods image, we are under Him while in the flesh. There is a process involved to become His “image”. It can’t happen in the FLESH.

What That is wrong! God does not create evil!

You better study a bit harder…

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

To say that God somehow forced them to eat the apple implys that God forces people to do evil and therefore unjustly condemns people to hell. And that is false!

God does not force man to do anything, man VOLUNTEERS. We were created with the pull of the flesh, the desire to pleasure ourselves. This includes Adam and Eve BEFORE they ate the fruit.

You should really get a new bible, because whatever you are looking at, it is NOT the interpretation Ezra wrote.

I use at least 13 versions to see the truth…don’t lecture me on that topic please.

 

[Image_of_God]

I am not saying that Jesus is God and God is created at the same time. That would be a failure to acknowledge the presence and superiority of the Father {THE ONE God}.

Christ is FROM the Father, Christ and the Father are one, that makes Christ God. No natural man, alive or dead, can claim anything remotely close to this truth. But is there ANY MAN that can? Yes…
This belief has a great lack of reason. If then the Father and the Son are one, what makes one greater than the other? Such a belief comes from a misinterpretation of what Jesus meant by being lower than the Father. He was showing how humans are to act towards the Father, since he was fully human. There is NO status in the Divine Nature. The Father and the Son are equal, and one.
Christ comes from the Father, you admit, and so you also admit that he has the same substance from the Father, making him equal to him. Just as a child born of his mother, caries the substance of humanity, making him equal human to his mother, so it is like God, since man is created in his image. You continue to acknowledge Christ as God, but you continue to deny that God has, he is not merely a man, never was an angel, but truly equal to the Father.

**For as by a man {Adam} came death, by a MAN {Jesus Christ} has come also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:21)

Once again, you prove that your belief lacks reason. You again use this incorrectly. You also do not believe the people Jesus sent, that is the Apostles and the Fathers, to prove orthodoxy.

And since you do not except them, I cannot help.

I do not accept Wisdom as Scripture. As far as Psalm 8:5 it proves my point. The translators would have done us all a favor if they were more accurate. Image implies an accurate copy. “less than” can not be an exact copy and this is exactly my point.

The Greek in 1 Cor 11:7 supports this fully. I am not sure which translation you quoted but it is missing:

G5225
ὑπάρχω
huparchō
hoop-ar’-kho
From G5259 and G756; to begin under (quietly)

We are not in Gods image, we are under Him while in the flesh. There is a process involved to become His “image”. It can’t happen in the FLESH.

You are completely mistaken, for even Paul acknowledges that man is created in the “image of God.” God molded the flesh out of mud into his image.

You better study a bit harder…

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

This is not what Isaiah meant and you should know it. You should know that what ever you are being taught or are teaching is completely unChristian. God would not create something he hated. If then God created evil, why then is he eager to rid all men of it? You are confusing God’s permitting will and his ordaining will. God creates evil, in the sense that he permits it. He does not directly ordain evil happenings, nor did he create anything evil. If then you think that the author meant that God actually created evil then what does that say about what you think about God? Honestly, I think you just called God malevolent, because only malevolence creates evil, and you are wrong!
You have had accepted false teaching, and until you bend your will, you will not accept anything I am saying.

God does not force man to do anything, man VOLUNTEERS. We were created with the pull of the flesh, the desire to pleasure ourselves. This includes Adam and Eve BEFORE they ate the fruit.

I use at least 13 versions to see the truth…don’t lecture me on that topic please.

As I said before you will not listen to anything I am saying until you at least consider the reason and truth behind them.
Anyone who says that man was created evil, God creates evil, Jesus is created is teaching or being taught unChristian doctrine.

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

It is not sufficient because the trinity, if it means anything, has to support the conclusion that Jesus the person is fully God. There is no “person nature” or mysterious quality of “personhood” beyond Jesus that defines his being; he is the combination of two natures. That’s one person of the trinity.

Arguing that the difference between “person” and 'nature" solves this problem is disingenuous, because we have at least one person of the trinity defined by his natures.

Take a stab at defining “person” in a way that doesn’t produce the simple contradiction, and you will see what I mean by this point.

a “person” is a who.

a “nature” is a what.

thus, a martian visiting earth might point a long green finger at pro_universal and say “who is that?”

answer: pro_universal.

or he might point and say “what is that?”

answer: a human being.

the person of Jesus is defined as the only begotten Son of the Father.

His nature, from eternity, is God.

in the Incarnation, he assumed a human nature, but not a human person. thus, He remains one person both before and after the Incarnation – with an unchanging God-nature from eternity, and a human nature assumed at the time of the Incarnation, in what is described as the “hypostatic union” – with “hypostatic” meaning that in Christ one person subsists in two natures.

 

[Image_of_God]

And M_Oliver, I have something for you to read, brother

newadvent.org/fathers/2803.htm

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I agree with you 100% Image of God.

If indeed God literally created both good and evil, and if indeed God himself is considered to somehow embody both good and evil, then one is left wondering why God himself says the following through whichever source he chooses to reveal his will from…

Psalm 34:14
Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.
Psalm 37:27
Turn from evil and do good; then you will dwell in the land forever.
Psalm 52:3
You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth. Selah
Proverbs 17:13
If a man pays back evil for good, evil will never leave his house.
Ecclesiastes 12:14
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Jeremiah 18:20
Should good be repaid with evil? Yet they have dug a pit for me. Remember that I stood before you and spoke in their behalf to turn your wrath away from them.
Amos 5:14
Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is.
Amos 5:15
Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.
Matthew 12:35
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.
Luke 6:45
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
Romans 3:8
Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.
Romans 12:21
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 14:16
Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.
1 Peter 3:11
He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it.
1 Peter 3:17
It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
3 John 1:11
Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.

 

[MariaG]

You are doing what St. Augustine was ashamed of when he found out he was doing. And that is, you are trying to comprehend the infinte God in your finite mind.

Are you calling Jesus a liar? Whom who did miracles, and died for you? Look, there is absolutely nothing contradictory about the trinity. Just look at nature, in which everything depends on another and their you will see the reflection of the Trinity.

Another thing, not everyway you think of things is the way God thinks of them. You are completely trying to understand the trinity from a physical and worldly point of view. And you will never understand him this way. You need to know that God is whoever he says he is. If Jesus says there are three persons in God, then there are.

And sadly, trying to make Christianity explain the nature of God is something that Islam considers completely wrong to do. I guess it is only wrong when you are asking someone elses religion to explain the nature of God.

This double standard of requiring Christians to explain the mystery of the nature of God as found in the Trinity never ceases to amaze me.

Islam, I believe, finds it close to blasphemy to try to think one can comprehend God’s full nature, yet demands that Christians define God’s full nature.

So on the one hand they say that one’s faith needs to stand up to reason and the Trinity fails to stand up to reason. Yet that standard of reason that they use for Christianity is not applied to Islam and in fact it is a sin to think one can fully explain the nature of God .

God Bless,
Maria

 

[inJESUS]

well in Islam they know the number of God but not the nature. Why would a Muslim disagree with the nature of God we were blessed to know if he himself does not know? because a Muslim, by reading Quran, thinks that trinity = 3 gods. Muhammad’s fault.

 

[M_Oliver]

And M_Oliver, I have something for you to read, brother

newadvent.org/fathers/2803.htm

I’ll pass. But thank you.

 

[Image_of_God]

I’ll pass. But thank you.

I accept your passing, but if you were really looking for the truth then you wouldn’t have pass. You are required, as a Christian to look for the truth, that is a truth that is reasonable. If you don’t want to listen to St. Augustine, then at least listen to the reason behind the letter, before blowing it off.

I brought the letter up so that you might see the lack of reason in saying that their was a time when the Father was not a father.

I have no intention of being mean, and I hope I don’t sound like it, but I think you should at least try and understand it before passing a great oppurtunity.

 

[M_Oliver]

This belief has a great lack of reason. If then the Father and the Son are one, what makes one greater than the other? Such a belief comes from a misinterpretation of what Jesus meant by being lower than the Father. He was showing how humans are to act towards the Father, since he was fully human. There is NO status in the Divine Nature. The Father and the Son are equal, and one.
Christ comes from the Father, you admit, and so you also admit that he has the same substance from the Father, making him equal to him. Just as a child born of his mother, caries the substance of humanity, making him equal human to his mother, so it is like God, since man is created in his image. You continue to acknowledge Christ as God, but you continue to deny that God has, he is not merely a man, never was an angel, but truly equal to the Father.

Once again, you prove that your belief lacks reason. You again use this incorrectly. You also do not believe the people Jesus sent, that is the Apostles and the Fathers, to prove orthodoxy.

And since you do not except them, I cannot help.

You are completely mistaken, for even Paul acknowledges that man is created in the “image of God.” God molded the flesh out of mud into his image.

This is not what Isaiah meant and you should know it. You should know that what ever you are being taught or are teaching is completely unChristian. God would not create something he hated. If then God created evil, why then is he eager to rid all men of it? You are confusing God’s permitting will and his ordaining will. God creates evil, in the sense that he permits it. He does not directly ordain evil happenings, nor did he create anything evil. If then you think that the author meant that God actually created evil then what does that say about what you think about God? Honestly, I think you just called God malevolent, because only malevolence creates evil, and you are wrong!
You have had accepted false teaching, and until you bend your will, you will not accept anything I am saying.

As I said before you will not listen to anything I am saying until you at least consider the reason and truth behind them.
Anyone who says that man was created evil, God creates evil, Jesus is created is teaching or being taught unChristian doctrine.

I understand why you do not understand. We will have to leave it at that.

Regarding evil though. How can you believe that there is ANYTHING in existence that was not created by God? You surely are not arguing that there is a being superior to God are you? A being that actually has the power to create something that your God and my God hates and your God and my God was incapable of stopping!

What kind of crazy logic is that? Please consider what you are trying to make me believe. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING exists without the Father. To argue otherwise is outright blasphemy. You know that.

I’m sorry but this is an accurate translation. I did note that you couldn’t Scripturally refute it, neither could Mr. whatever his name is…

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

Don’t you know that Scripture REVEALS why God created evil? This is why I don’t follow any “church” of men. They don’t know these things.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)

There it is, CLEAR AS DAY. God meant the evil that Joseph endured for GOOD so that MANY would be kept alive. Now if another thought didn’t just hit you as hard as a 100 mph two by four something just isn’t clicking.

WHAT is the ultimate message God revealed in Genesis 50:20? Does this verse not completely sum up Jesus Christ in the flesh? Of course it does. Jesus Christ suffered EVIL so that MANY could be SAVED! And God meant it for GOOD.

THAT is why God created evil. I pray you can understand that.

 

[Image_of_God]

I understand why you do not understand. We will have to leave it at that.
I think I understand why you don’t understand either .

Regarding evil though. How can you believe that there is ANYTHING in existence that was not created by God? You surely are not arguing that there is a being superior to God are you? A being that actually has the power to create something that your God and my God hates and your God and my God was incapable of stopping!

Once again God did not create evil, If then God looked upon everything he created and saw it was very good, do you think that God thinks evil is very good, since it is created it? The Bible clearly says that God looks upon everything he has created and say it is very good. However God does not think sin is very good. This is merely a misinterpretation of what the author meant by God “creating evil.”

You should read the book of Job. It clearly answers these questions, here are a few verses,

Job 34:10
Therefore, men of understanding, hearken to me:
far be it from God to do wickidness, far from the Almighty to do wrong!

Job 34:12
Surely, God cannot act wickedly, the Almighty cannot violate justice.

To say that God created evil is to say it is to be attributed to him and this is certainly a blasphemy.
God did not create sin! I repeat God did not, he only permits, and everything is in his control. Jesus was crucified because of the evil of men. Are you saying that God created something that would cause himself to be killed and crucified?!?!

To say God created evil, means to say that God created sin, deceit, injustice, immorality, dishonesty, infidelity, hatred, murder, fornication, adultery, and all other foulness.
God did not create the murder of millions of people during the Holocaust, he did not create the abuse of millions women in the world. He did not! This is blasphemy, to say that God is the creator of the deaths of millions of people and therefore responsible.

God did not cause hate, these are all lies! And I do not believe them.:nope:

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

I’m sorry but this is an accurate translation. I did note that you couldn’t Scripturally refute it, neither could Mr. whatever his name is…

short answer:

Isaiah 45:7 - What does it mean? The word translated “evil” here is the Hebrew word ra’. A better translation in modern English is “calamity” or “disaster” or “woe,” as this word is translated in this verse in more recent translations. …‘Evil,’ as used here, refers to evil of a physical nature (storms), not moral evil."

not persuaded? take a look at this long, very detailed explanation

What kind of crazy logic is that? Please consider what you are trying to make me believe. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING exists without the Father…

nothing… that’s precisely right. you’ve put your finger on it.

Augustine: “Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil.’”

As further explained in this article:

The diminution of the property of goodness is what’s called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a “hole” in light, evil is a hole in goodness…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m sorry but this is an accurate translation.

It’s an accurate translation. But your way of interpreting it does not jive with the Holy Spirit’s intentions.

M_Oliver:

I did note that you couldn’t Scripturally refute it, neither could Mr. whatever his name is…

I assume you’re refering to me-- and that you completely ignored the passages I quotes which showed what was intended by it.

M_Oliver:

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

There’s no doubt that the Lord creates thing things. No one will argue with you about this. Exactly how the Lord creates these things, however, is not clearly stated in the passage though.

How do you feel the God greates good and evil?

Are they by the same method?

Where are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things?

M_Oliver:

Don’t you know that Scripture REVEALS why God created evil?

Again, no one will argue with this passage.

Exactly how the Lord creates these things, however, is not clearly stated in the passage though.

How do you feel the God greates good and evil?

Are they by the same method?

Where are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things?

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20)

God meaning to allow evil to happen in order that good may prevail is not the same thing as God deliberately causing evil from his own essence.

God meaning to allow evil to happen in order that good may prevail is good.

God deliberately causing evil from his own essence means that God himself is partly evil.

M_Oliver:

There it is, CLEAR AS DAY. God meant the evil that Joseph endured for GOOD so that MANY would be kept alive.

We’ve never argued with you about this point.

How do you feel the God greates good and evil?

Are they by the same method?

Where are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things?

M_Oliver:

Now if another thought didn’t just hit you as hard as a 100 mph two by four something just isn’t clicking.

Claiming that God is even slightly evil overwhelmingly contradicts a multitude of verses which explicitly claim that God is good and that in him there is no evil.

M_Oliver:

WHAT is the ultimate message God revealed in Genesis 50:20? Does this verse not completely sum up Jesus Christ in the flesh? Of course it does. Jesus Christ suffered EVIL so that MANY could be SAVED! And God meant it for GOOD.

Of course it does. And no one has argued with you on this point.

What you’ve failed to provide so far, however, are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things.

How exactly does God create good and evil M_Oliver?

M_Oliver:

THAT is why God created evil. I pray you can understand that.

Yes. But does God creating evil then mean that God himself is evil?

No. It does not.

You have yet to provide a Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates evil.

 

[sven2131]

I had foudn this interesting book about the trinity of St Augustine I havent read it yet,.
hope it ll help u

newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm

 

[MariaG]

well in Islam they know the number of God but not the nature. Why would a Muslim disagree with the nature of God we were blessed to know if he himself does not know? because a Muslim, by reading Quran, thinks that trinity = 3 gods. Muhammad’s fault.

Well, I think it was actually some heretical Christian’s fault, wasn’t it? They explained it wrong. And that wrong explanation of Christian beliefs was enshrined by Muhammad.

But it is a good point. They feel we are talking about the number of God, not the nature of God.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Let’s take a look at the NIV for an example of how others have interpretted it.
Isaiah 45:7 NIV:

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

In the phrase, “I form the light…”, the word form comes from the Hebrew yasar*. This has been used to mean to “form”, “devise”, “produce”, and “create”. It has also been employed in the Scriptures to mean more specifically “to be formed” or “to be fashioned”. Yet in other areas it simply seem to imply “to exist”.

In the phrase, “…and create darkness.”, the word create comes from the Hebrew word bara*. This likewise has been used to mean to “create”, “bring about” or simply “do”. However, unlike the word “yasar” above, “bara” is employed within the sense of being akin “to cut”, “cut down”, “engrave”, or “carve”. In other words, unlike the “yasar” above, the word “bara” seems to be employed in contrast to being cut apart or even divided from something else.

Now if we look back to the very beginning in Genesis 1:3-4 we read…
Genesis 1:3-4 NIV:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Similar to how the Hebrew word “bara” seems to be employed, we also see that the Hebrew word for “separated” is badal*. This literally means to “separate”, “divide”, or “to distinguish between diverse things”. It can also be used in the sense of being “selected out of a group”, “excluding oneself”, “to discern”, or even “to make a difference”.

In short, based on the Isaiah passage you have quoted, and the Genesis passage I have quoted, we are apparently seeing a picture of God creating (bara) darkness by separating it (badal) from the light he first formed (yasar). More specifically, one could say that God has brought forth darkness by contrasting it against the light.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I would like to discuss the first chapter of Genesis in more detail latter. But let me get back to the remainder your quotation of Isaiah 45:7.

In the KJV we read…

KJV:

I make peace, and create evil:

In the NIV we read…
NIV:

I bring prosperity and create disaster;

In the KJV we read peace whereas the NIV says prosperity. In the KJV we read evil whereas the NIV says disaster.

The Hebrew word employed for peace/prosperity in the Isaiah passage is salom* (derived from “salem” which means “to repay” or to “make resitution” in other areas of the Scripture). Salom means something to the effect of “to be safe” or to “be complete”. It has also bee used in the Scriptrues to imply “health”, “security”, and “tranquility”. In addition to this, it has also been used to imply “success”, “comfort”, and “peace” (as in the opposite of war – or even “accepting terms of peace”, “making peace with someone” or even “salvation” or “salutation” (in departing).

The Hebrew word employed for evil/disaster in the Isaiah passage is ra*, which is akin “to do evil” or to “be wicked”. In its most basic sense, it means something akin to “bad”, being of “interior quality”, or even “evil”. In other areas it means something akin being “severe”, “injurious”, “harmful” or even “unpleasant” (as in giving pain or causing unhappiness). It is also employed in the sense of something being “fierce”, “wild”, “calamity”, or “that which is deadly”.

It seems to me that the meaning of the word “ra” is very much dependent on how it is being employed within the Scriptures themselves – and it doesn’t always imply “evil” in the sense of someone maliciously and willfully determined to cause or inflict harm on another.

More specifically, since the word “ra” is being used in context with the word “bara”, it seems more appropriate to conclude that the evil that is being “brought about” is more the result of the effects of one’s action cutting themselves off from God’s will – this seems even more so considering that “bara” is employed within the sense of being akin “to cut”, “cut down”, “engrave”, or “carve”.

In other words, like I said above, unlike the “yasar” used to describe God bringing forth light, the word “bara” seems to be employed in contrast to being cut apart or even divided from something else. Even the darkness in Genesis is “caused” by being “separated” or “divided” from the light which God originally formed.

*rough English pronunciation – unfortunatrly I don’t know how to make the appropriate accent marks. Any advice on how to do this would be appreciated.

Special: Please note in stating these things, I am by no means in any way claiming to have rebutted any of your points. I am simply presenting my side of the debate with as much clarity (solely from the Scriptures as possible) so as to resolve the starting point of our debate. There are actually several key points which, in my opinion, will clarify my points more clearly as the discussion proceeds.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now if one looks carefully, bara is also the word used to describe the creation of man. In fact, it’s used five times in Genesis 1 and twice in Genesis 2. And, consequently, when we examine them carefully, we see that all of them can be seen within the context of God creating by dividing its aspects from a former state of existence – even in contrast to a state of non-existence.

So, for example, when we read Genesis 1:1 starting off with “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”, we see God apparently making everything out of nothing. This is to say, the creation of the heaven and the earth are actually contrasted against a state of non-existence.

In Genisis 1:21 we also note that God created great beasts and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Now if one is a creationist, then one probably believes that God in some way created life out of the dust of the earth – which seems to be leaning in a more traditional understanding of God’s creative process in the Scriptures. If one is a theistic evolutionist, then one probably believes that God first created life out of non-life – and then proceeded to create life from previous forms of life.

But either way one looks at it, God is still creating in contrast to a previous state of existence.

Even in Genesis Gensis 1:27, when God creates man in his own image, in the image of God created he him (male and female created he them), here again we see God creating man in contrast to God’s very own image.

God also “divides” the seventh day from the previous six. In other words, it is literally “set apart” from the other days in order to contrast this day from the previous six days of creation.

In other words, all these passages seem to make sense when you see that the division is potentially referencing the creative act in contrast to a previous state of existence – every one of them I might note. But there’s potentially more to it than that. It may be more appropriate to say that all these verses seem to clearly indicate a new creative act which stands in stark contrast to the original state in which the object was created.

To further illustrate this, it is interesting to notice that from Genesis 1:1 where God created the heavens and the earth; the word “created” (bara) does not appear again until the fifth day in verse 20.

I’ve already mentioned usages of the Hebrew word “bara” above. The Hebrew word for made for “made”, however, is Hebrew word “asah” – which means to “to form” or “assemble”. Some have noted that it seems to refer to the act of “arranging from its previous state of usefulness to that form of beautification, so as to be used by God for His purpose.”

In other words, everything from verse 2 to verse 19 seems to have to do with assembling the earth from pre-existing material – whereas “bara” seems to imply a rather dramatic change from a previous state of existence.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hebrew poetry can employ both similarity and contrasts – and the Hebrew Scriptures do employ both these literary devices quite liberally.

“Parallelism” is a technical term for the form of Hebrew poetry that repeats a thought in slightly different ways.

For example, “synonymous parallelism” is found in Proverbs 15:30, “A cheerful look brings joy to the heart, and good news gives health to the bones.”

On the other hand, and example of “antithetical parallelism”, in which a thought is followed by its opposite, can be found in Proverbs 14:30, “A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones.”

In studying Hebrew parallelism the key seems to be to compare each part with its pair in the other half of the sentence. For instance, in Proverbs 14:30 “a heart at peace” pairs with its opposite, “envy”, and “rots the bones” is the opposite of “gives life to the body.”

Sometimes these comparisons bare subtle shades of meaning. It becomes more difficult, however, when opposite ideas are expressed in different sentences – or even different books of the Scriptures. However, as I’ve noted above, all the above examples of God creating (bara) can be seen within the context of being contrasted with a previous state of existence.

This raises an interesting question: why did God not use the same word “bara” for both his creating of the light and the darkness in the Isaiah passage in question?
Isaiah 45:7 KJV:

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

It seems to me that this is an example of subtle antithetical parallelism, with yasar being contrasted to bara in reference to the light and darkness.

Second of all, even if the word is translated “create” in every single translation of the Scriptures, the meaning of the word create (bara) can still nonetheless have very different subjects which it focusses on – it depends on the context it is used.

Here, let’s go through some examples:

Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

or here…
Isaiah 4:5 NIV:

Then the LORD will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy.

or here…
Isaiah 41:9-10 NIV:

I will put in the desert
the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive.
I will set pines in the wasteland,
the fir and the cypress together, so that people may see and know,
may consider and understand,
that the hand of the LORD has done this,
that the Holy One of Israel has created it.

or here…
Isaiah 48:6-7 NIV:

You have heard these things; look at them all.
Will you not admit them?
"From now on I will tell you of new things,
of hidden things unknown to you.
They are created now, and not long ago;
you have not heard of them before today.
So you cannot say,
‘Yes, I knew of them.’

I could go on with this. However, I think these quotes (when added to the quotes you’ve noted where “bara” is used above) demonstrates a clear pattern. In all these cases the thing that is created is used in contrast to the previous state that it was created in.

In the case of Psalm 51:10 the new thing “created” is a pure heart, which is in contrast to the sinful heart barren of God.

In the case of Isaiah 4:5 the new thing “created” is an extremely visible presence of God, which is in contrast to the lack of God’s presence that previously existed before the people gathered together to worship him.

In the case of Isaiah 49:9-10 God says he will “create” these trees in the dessert so that people will know that God put them there, which is again contrasted against the barren desert that previously existed.

In the case of Isaiah 48:6-7 we see God specifically stating that he will create new knowledge which was heretofore unknown to the people, which is again contrasted against the lack of knowledge that previously prevailed.

In summary, all these verses seem to clearly indicate a new creative act which stands in stark contrast to the original state in which the object was created. Rather than refashioning an object after its original creation, it seems more appropriate to me to conclude that God is creating something which is in sharp contrast to its previous state of existence.