Who created Satan?
- Thread starter Taniesh
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
smaller
Member
Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
If it wasn't for the fine print, there'd be only white.
Jim Parker
Member
- Apr 17, 2015
- 11,259
- 2,694
- Gender
- Male
- Christian
- Yes
Everything God created was good.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.
Satan was created as perfect but chose to rebel and do evil. He, and those angels which followed him, are the source and cause of all evil.
Eze 28:14-15 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. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Man is a free agent, he can do good or evil. Until he was enticed by Satan, he did only good.
Anyway, that's what it looks like from here.
iakov the fool
Everything to God is good because any plan He makes is good and perfect. If there is any misunderstanding it only because those who believe otherwise uses their mortal human understanding. Isaiah 45:7 KJV says what He forms and creates.Excellent explanation iakov the fool!
Lucifer was created perfect in all his being so if there be any changing it would have to be brought about by the The One who Created Lucifer, God. People better thank God that God has control over all things because when Lucifer turned to satan and had his own way of doing whatever he wants there would be absolutely no chance for human life at all. Besides if satan was something that God really didn't want to be around human life then why did God put the serpent right in the middle of Adam and Eve place of living? There is a big difference between creating evil and doing evil. God created it (Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.) now it is up to us to either do it or not do it. It really is not that hard to comprehend we just have to realize God has it all figured out and know there is a very good and deep reason God chose to do it the way He has. Besides if you fear evil there is no way a person can know the mystery of anything said above.
Taniesh,
The problem is that Isa 45:7 (KJV) is not a good translation of the Hebrew word, ra.
Isa 45:7 (ESV) provides a more accurate translation, ‘I form the light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity. I am the LORD who does all these things’.
I have found Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe’s response to this verse to be most helpful (Geisler & Howe 1992:271-272):
ISAIAH 45:7 – Is God the author of evil?
PROBLEM: According to this verse (Is. 45:7), God “creates good and evil” (kjv, cf. Jer. 18:11 and Lam. 3:38; Amos 3:6). But many other Scriptures inform us that God is not evil (1 John 1:5), cannot even look approvingly on evil (Hab. 1:13), and cannot even be tempted by evil (James 1:13).
SOLUTION: The Bible is clear that God is morally perfect (cf. Deut. 32:4; Matt. 5:48), and it is impossible for Him to sin (Heb. 6:18). At the same time, His absolute justice demands that He punish sin. This judgment takes both temporal and eternal forms (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:11–15). In its temporal form, the execution of God’s justice is sometimes called “evil” because it seems to be evil to those undergoing it (cf. Heb. 12:11). However, the Hebrew word for evil (ra) used here does not always mean moral evil. Indeed, the context indicates that it should be translated, as the nkjv and other modern translations do, as “calamity.” Thus, God is properly said to be the author of “evil” in this sense, but not in the moral sense—at least not directly.
Further, there is an indirect sense in which God is the author of moral evil. God created moral beings with free choice, and free choice is the origin of moral evil in the universe. So, ultimately God is responsible for making moral creatures who are responsible for moral evil. God made evil possible by creating free creatures, but the free creatures made evil actual. Of course, the possibility of evil (i.e., free choice) is itself a good thing. So, God created only good things, one of which was the power of free choice, and moral creatures produced the evil. However, God is the author of a moral universe and in this indirect and ultimate sense is the author of the possibility of evil. Of course, God only permitted evil, but does not promote it, and He will ultimately produce a greater good through it (cf. Gen. 50:20; Rev. 21–22).
PROBLEM: According to this verse (Is. 45:7), God “creates good and evil” (kjv, cf. Jer. 18:11 and Lam. 3:38; Amos 3:6). But many other Scriptures inform us that God is not evil (1 John 1:5), cannot even look approvingly on evil (Hab. 1:13), and cannot even be tempted by evil (James 1:13).
SOLUTION: The Bible is clear that God is morally perfect (cf. Deut. 32:4; Matt. 5:48), and it is impossible for Him to sin (Heb. 6:18). At the same time, His absolute justice demands that He punish sin. This judgment takes both temporal and eternal forms (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:11–15). In its temporal form, the execution of God’s justice is sometimes called “evil” because it seems to be evil to those undergoing it (cf. Heb. 12:11). However, the Hebrew word for evil (ra) used here does not always mean moral evil. Indeed, the context indicates that it should be translated, as the nkjv and other modern translations do, as “calamity.” Thus, God is properly said to be the author of “evil” in this sense, but not in the moral sense—at least not directly.
Further, there is an indirect sense in which God is the author of moral evil. God created moral beings with free choice, and free choice is the origin of moral evil in the universe. So, ultimately God is responsible for making moral creatures who are responsible for moral evil. God made evil possible by creating free creatures, but the free creatures made evil actual. Of course, the possibility of evil (i.e., free choice) is itself a good thing. So, God created only good things, one of which was the power of free choice, and moral creatures produced the evil. However, God is the author of a moral universe and in this indirect and ultimate sense is the author of the possibility of evil. Of course, God only permitted evil, but does not promote it, and He will ultimately produce a greater good through it (cf. Gen. 50:20; Rev. 21–22).
Geisler & Howe summarised the material:
GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EVIL
In the sense of sin: Moral evil, Perversity, Directly, Actuality of evil
GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL
In the sense of calamity, Non-moral, evil Plagues, Indirectly, Possibility of evil
See my article that deals with this issue: Isaiah 45:7: Who or what is the origin of evil?
Oz
References
Geisler, N. L. & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask:A popular handbook on Bible difficulties. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
Jim Parker
Member
- Apr 17, 2015
- 11,259
- 2,694
- Gender
- Male
- Christian
- Yes
I suggest reading the scriptures in a language that you speak (modern English rather than Late Middle English) based on older and better sources than those used for the Textus Receptus.
NKJV:
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’
NIV:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
NASB:
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
RSV:
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.
Jim and Oz I will stick with what The Holy Spirit gave to us from the start of this country and it is up to you all on what version you use. When a person uses revised versions they are using something that men have gotten together and decided to change what they are afraid of and do not understand into something they can control others with and I can clearly see that happening among denominations as Jesus has warned us not to be deceived and get away from doctrines of men and their precepts. Eramus, Tyndale, Luther, and others fought to free people from the governing hands of the catholic church in their day and time so that the average field worker and such can read the Word of God without being hampered and controlled by the catholic church. They gave their life and king James also would have anyone killed if they changed anything in The Bible because he knew how crucially important it was to get it right. King James was inspired by The Holy Spirit to bring about that Bible so we can have it, yet throughout the years men have conjured up replacement words because they can not see the meaning in the King James Version so if they can not understand it they make up other versions or revisions instead of asking The Holy Ghost to reveal to them the meaning. Actually from your response I can tell you have no idea what has been said therefore I say ask The Holy Spirit to teach you or else you will never get it. I am saying no more on this matter.
Jim Parker
Member
- Apr 17, 2015
- 11,259
- 2,694
- Gender
- Male
- Christian
- Yes
1. The KJV was from 1611. The start of the country was 1776.
2. The Holy Spirit didn't give it, a bunch Greek and Latin scholars did at the behest of the homosexual King James.
That is exactly what happened to the KJV. Men got together and de3cided to remove the apocrypha which was included in the original 1611 KJV.
Erasmus was a Roman Catholic Scholar.
Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. (And, IMO, a better Roman Catholic than the Pope.)
It was the PROTESTANT Henry VIII who made sure Tyndale was martyred not "the governing hands of the catholic church".
His final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes." (Foxe 1570, p. VIII. 1229)
Nonsense.
King James was a open homosexual. The joke of the time was, "Elizazbeth was king and now James is Queen.
Last edited:
Actually the derogatory rumors probably were not true.1. The KJV was from 161. The start of the country was 1776.
2. The Holy Spirit didn't give it, a bunch Greek and Latin scholars did at the behest of the homosexual King James.
That is exactly what happened to the KJV. Men got together and de3cided to remove the apocrypha which was included in the original 1611 KJV.
Erasmus was a Roman Catholic Scholar.
Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. (And, IMO, a better Roman Catholic than the Pope.)
It was the PROTESTANT Henry VIII who made sure Tyndale was martyred not "the governing hands of the catholic church".
His final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes." (Foxe 1570, p. VIII. 1229)
Nonsense.
King James was a open homosexual. The joke of the time was, "Elizazbeth was king and now James is Queen.
It was a common practice to start and perpetuate sin on a political rival. Such was the case on this nations founding fathers. But they really weren't true.
Which version of the KJV are you reading? The 1611 original edition with Apocrypha or the 1769 revision without the Apocrypha (which is the most common KJV of today)?
Regarding revised versions as men getting together to change the Bible and delete what they were afraid of, is nothing more than your opinion. You provided not one reference to prove your point of view.
Getting deceived also is in modern translations. Take a read of 1 John 4:1-4 (ESV) and Eph 5:6 (NIV).
Oz
But, to be fair...
The 1611 KJV has two "forwards" in it.
One concerned about not publicly displaying this translation and keeping it chained up and the punishment for defying the King.
But the other one was concerned about the reasons why they created this translation. The chief reason was for readability. So that the people could learn and know the scripture for themselves without a priest educated in Latin...
And language that is being used is what we refer to as a living language. So living languages change over time. And the translators of the KJV understood this as well. The translators had to make a lot of choices about how to relate the substance of the scriptures to an English speaking audience with no understanding of anthropology and a receptor language without many of the parts of speech that the donor language had.
One of the many things created was the myth that Jesus was a carpenter. In English speaking areas there was plenty of forests and trees. A carpenter was a low skill construction worker. A stone mason (what Jesus really worked as) was a high skill construction worker. (Top of the food chain).
So a choice was made so people could understand.
Another instance that stands out is in John 1:12. This verse is written in the past tense when the perfect aortist tense doesn't exist in the English language. (Perfect Aortist tense is past, present, and future all at the same time)
Again the translators had to make a decision...
And the KJV forward also mentions that if it is found the obsolete because language has changed that it should be abandoned.
And concerning the Apocrypha...it's inclusion or omission has been back and forth throughout Jewish and Christian history since it's creation. Mostly because it doesn't pass the tests for scripture. (Factual errors and inaccuracy in reporting)
But the whole of Hanukkah is explained there (Festival of Lights).
The 1611 KJV has two "forwards" in it.
One concerned about not publicly displaying this translation and keeping it chained up and the punishment for defying the King.
But the other one was concerned about the reasons why they created this translation. The chief reason was for readability. So that the people could learn and know the scripture for themselves without a priest educated in Latin...
And language that is being used is what we refer to as a living language. So living languages change over time. And the translators of the KJV understood this as well. The translators had to make a lot of choices about how to relate the substance of the scriptures to an English speaking audience with no understanding of anthropology and a receptor language without many of the parts of speech that the donor language had.
One of the many things created was the myth that Jesus was a carpenter. In English speaking areas there was plenty of forests and trees. A carpenter was a low skill construction worker. A stone mason (what Jesus really worked as) was a high skill construction worker. (Top of the food chain).
So a choice was made so people could understand.
Another instance that stands out is in John 1:12. This verse is written in the past tense when the perfect aortist tense doesn't exist in the English language. (Perfect Aortist tense is past, present, and future all at the same time)
Again the translators had to make a decision...
And the KJV forward also mentions that if it is found the obsolete because language has changed that it should be abandoned.
And concerning the Apocrypha...it's inclusion or omission has been back and forth throughout Jewish and Christian history since it's creation. Mostly because it doesn't pass the tests for scripture. (Factual errors and inaccuracy in reporting)
But the whole of Hanukkah is explained there (Festival of Lights).
Jim Parker
Member
- Apr 17, 2015
- 11,259
- 2,694
- Gender
- Male
- Christian
- Yes
No rumors:
https://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/king-james-was-gay.html
http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/kingjames.html
There was already an English translation available. The Tyndale Bible has 75 years earlier.
Yes, I have made that point many times. The KJV is written in Late Middle English and modern translations are written in modern English. I have never met anyone who spoke Late Middle English as his primary language.
What is your source of that information?
It was assumed that Jesus was a carpenter since his step-father, Joseph, was and sons were commonly taught a trade by their fathers.
The LXX was the version of scripture in common use at the time of Jesus primarily because the Jews no longer spoke the Hebrew of the scriptures which was diluted during the Babylonian exile. The quotations of scripture found in the NT are from the LXX. (F.F> Bruce stated that Paul corrected the LXX where it departed from the original Hebrew. He had the education to do so.)
The earliest versions of the complete Bible (once the NT cannon had been settled in the 4th century) contained the apocrypha and all Bibles continued to include them up until the Reformation. There are as many as 300 NT references or allusions to the Apocrypha.
iakov the fool