In my previous post I explained to you WHY it does not mean evil,
and WHY IF it does, we have a serious conflict regarding God's nature and character.
Let's look at "evil" in Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7.
From Strong's:
Transliteration: raʿ
Phonetic Pronunciation: rah
English Words used in KJV:
evil 442
wickedness 59
wicked 25
mischief 21
hurt 20
bad 13
trouble 10
sore 9
affliction 6
ill 5
adversity 4
favoured 3
harm 3
naught 3
noisome 2
grievous 2
sad 2
miscellaneous translations 34
[Total Count: 663]
The majority of times [442 times or over two-thirds of the total] it is translated as "evil."
Here is the definition:
from <H7489> (ra`a`);
bad or (as noun)
evil (natural or moral)
So, yes, in Isaiah 45:7 the word means [morally or naturally] evil, or wicked, or wickedness.
Isaiah says that God says He created [morally] evil.
So, put that in your theology. God created evil.
But how?
By creating a sinful man (Adam.) That's the only way God can create a moral being. For there is ONLY ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE (not even Adam at his creation.)
And you're right. We would have a serious problem with God if He created a morally evil (sinful) man. It would impugn the Righteousness of God to create an unrighteous being. His character would be in question. But this is not hard to understand how God was able to do this.
A Lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world (Rev. 13:8.)
The Church today considers them lost.
But there are over 5,200 copies of the originals. Not exact copies. But copies, nonetheless. And there are writings of church fathers that contain Scripture passages, lectionaries that contain Scripture passages, and by carefully comparing all these copies 'we' are able to come to the truth of what the originals say.
The Old Testament is a different story. The "Jews" were the owners and possessors of their Bible/Scriptures otherwise known as the oracle of God. Their method of copying was very strict. If it wasn't word for word exactly like the copy before it, it was destroyed, and the copyist had to start again. If one jot or tittle was missed or not in the correct position all that work was scratched. Theirs was called the Masoretic Text.
The WORD of God does not mean that God wrote every single word.
It means that the bible was inspired by God.
He inspired men to know what to write through the Holy Spirit.
verb (used with object),in·spired, in·spir·ing.
- to fill with an animating, quickening, or exalting influence:His courage inspired his followers.
- to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.):to inspire confidence in others.
The originals were inspired. They were moved upon by the Holy Spirit. And the writers of the Scripture retained their cognitive faculties. But there is something also to be said of the KJV. God was also overseeing its production. And the KJV occurred at a time when everything was in place for a new translation for the English-speaking people. The theology of the time was purer (Puritans), and the linguists were incomparable to today's linguists. There was a more respectful attitude (there's that word again) towards what the translators were doing and held the Scriptures in highest regard. Heresy was almost non-existent as all those councils dealt with those various issues through the centuries and came up with the best translation in human history. The translators were devout men, and coming out of the dark ages and the Renaissance it was God's timing to publish His Word in English. The Greek Scripture texts they had used are called the Received Text. It's a fascinating subject to study and very important.
The bible is translated as well as could be.
It's translated well enough for anyone reading it, who so desires, to become familiar with God, His Son Jesus, and what He taught we must do to attain salvation.
No matter which version one reads, this information will be available to him.
No. It does matter which Version one uses. It all comes down to the Greek texts used and who is translating them. The KJV can very well be called the Word of God.
Is this what John 5:39 states? Sounds like the opposite to me.
John 5:39 NASB
39“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
John 5:39 NLT
39“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! 40Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life.
Jesus is referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. Read it in the KJV. The wording is different and makes all the difference, from verbs and nouns, genitives, senses, inflection, syntax, and word definition. There is a great difference between the KJV and all these modern-day new-age translations. A BIG difference.
Jesus is stating that the scriptures to not save, but only point to HIM for salvation.
A written Word does not save...
Only Jesus can save us.
Peter says we are saved by the Word of God:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Pe 1:23.
Both written but originally spoken before God began to create.
I agree with the above, except for the part that states the version of our bible is of extreme importance.
Unless it's the NWT or the NT commented by John MacArthur, I do believe they're all the same.
They are not the same.
I don't know about knowledge making us more faithful.
In many instances it does.
But I also know persons that love God and have NEVER read the bible.
What do you make of that?
To them He would be "The Unknown God."
How can you love someone you know nothing about?
You can't.