Does God Produce Evil_
I am the a single who forms light and generates darkness the one who brings about peace and produces calamity. I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things. (Is 45:7 NET)
Quite usually, the theist asserts that God isn't going to create evil, but he makes it possible for it to occur for motives his own.Some atheists, nevertheless, throw Isaiah 45:7 back at the theist.They inevitably use an older translation, usually the King James Edition, the place instead of utilizing "calamity," as the NET Bible does over, we study that God "brings peace and produces evil."
In 2007, the internet site Daylight Atheism brought that verse to light in its series on small-recognized Bible verses:
The issue of evil has vexed Christian theologians for nearly two millennia, burdening them with the impossible task of explaining how so significantly evil and suffering could exist in a cosmos overseen by an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly very good deity. A broad assortment of answers have been proposed to this difficulty, all of which are as imaginative as they are inadequate. But all this scholarly ink want not have been spilled: the Bible itself tells Jews and Christians precisely where evil comes from.
Then, Isaiah 45:seven from some unspecified edition exactly where "evil" as an alternative of "calamity" seems is presented, followed by:
There you have it, people - straight, as it had been, from the horse's mouth. Evil exists simply because God developed it. All you theologians can pack it in and go residence now.
But is that actually the case?As we're about to uncover out, no.The atheist totally mishandles the unique text.In fact, the "evidence" provided by Daylight Atheism that evil (rather than calamity) is the correct translation only proves that "calamity" is the correct translation.
It truly is all Hebrew to Me!
I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I can play 1 on the Internet thanks to effortless accessibility to a lot of relevant investigation.The NET Bible aids immensely.Let us take a fast peek at the Hebrew word that has sparked this debate.
The word in query is rah, and is a Hebrew word that usually means negative, evil, disagreeable, or malignant.However, "calamity" or "disaster" are both alternate meanings, and we shall shortly see why I believe that calamity is the proper translation in the verse from Isaiah.
Let's observe some thing else about rah for the second.It appears 663 times in the Previous Testament, and (in the NET Bible) is normally translated "evil" (236 times).Even so, it is translated "disaster" 78 instances and "calamity" 17 instances.However the principal sense of the word is evil, it does have other senses and calamity or disaster each are clearly such a sense.
Calamity or Evil?
Isaiah 45:7 has three divisions.The third is merely a declaration that the Lord is God and he accomplishes all of these items.The 1st two divisions are more germane to the argument.The very first division, which is noncontroversial, sheds some light on the second, the a single that Daylight Atheism scrutinizes.
The initial portion says, "I am the a single who types light and creates darkness."Observe the dichotomous type.God "forms light" and "generates darkness."Polar opposites.This sets the context for the next portion—we are expecting two polar opposite terms to seem together.
God is "the a single who brings about peace (shalowm) and creates calamity (rah)."The query is how need to we realize rah.Context is critical here.In the first element of the verse, God "kinds light" and "generates darkness" (opposites).Now, he "brings about peace" and "creates calamity" (opposites).
"Evil" is not the opposite of "peace."Social upheaval and war are the opposites of peace.As a result, "calamity" fits much better, and for that reason contemporary translators desire it in excess of "evil."
Does Daylight Atheism Have a Situation?
Daylight Atheism has presently anticipated the evident objection: the Christian will basically assert that "calamity" is the proper translation.I did not simply assert this, I have offered excellent justification for preferring "calamity."
To make the situation that "evil" is the proper translation, Daylight Atheism cites 6 verses utilizing rah and displays that "evil" is the all-natural understanding of the phrase.Because the principal which means of rah is evil, quoting 6 verses and showing that translators (each ancient and modern) rendered the word "evil" is worthless.We count on the word to be translated "evil," so showing that it is in a majority of utilizes isn't surprising or scandalous.
Nonetheless, one of the 6 verses cited really hurts their situation and proves mine.Let us see:
In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to consume from "the tree of good and ra". The tree of excellent and disaster? The tree of great and calamity? Clearly not: it is the tree of very good and evil.
Utilizing the same dichotomous construction as Isaiah 45:7, this verse sets rah in opposition to towb rather than to shalowm.In Isaiah, translating rah as "calamity" rather than "evil" tends to make sense because it is set in opposition to the Hebrew for peace (shalowm).Right here, with rah in opposition to the Hebrew for excellent (towb), translating it as "evil" makes perfect sense.Considering that the passage beneath fire in Isaiah follows that same structure, raising this level is in fact detrimental to the situation Daylight Atheism hopes to make.

Other Calamities in the Old Testament
Rah seems 663 occasions in the Outdated Testament.Why, then, did Daylight Atheism only give us 6 extra verses?Because in the 6 given, there is no controversy that rah need to be translated "evil."Had they given other examples, that would have weakened their case nonetheless additional.A number of other verses have rah uncontroversially rendered "disaster" or "calamity."Here are some examples:
I will improve their disasters, I will use up my arrows on them. (Deut 32:23)
Ten thousand males, properly-qualified soldiers from all Israel, then produced a frontal assault towards Gibeah – the battle was fierce.But the Benjaminites did not realize that disaster was at their doorstep. (Jdg 20:37)
They will not be ashamed when tough times come, when famine comes they will have enough to consume. (Ps 37:19)
Why must I be afraid in times of problems, when the sinful deeds of deceptive guys threaten to overwhelm me? (Ps 49:5)
Calamity pursues sinners, but prosperity rewards the righteous. (Prv 13:21)
This is what the sovereign Lord says: A disaster – a one-of-a-sort disaster – is coming!An finish comes – the end comes!It has awakened against you – the end is on you!Look, it is coming!Doom is coming on you who dwell in the land! The time is coming, the day is near.There are sounds of tumult, not shouts of joy, on the mountains. (Ezk 7:five-7)
In all these situations, it is undeniable that the proper sense of rah is catastrophe rather than evil.
Lest I am accused of the exact same issue that I accused Daylight Atheism of performing, let me repeat that I acknowledge that rah is translated "evil" in a bulk of instances.These verses are handpicked only to show it is possible and often even uncontroversial to use rah as "calamity" or "catastrophe."I am not attempting to selectively bolster my case by ignoring the bulk of verses that translate rah as "evil."
More Illumination:God Speaks to Jeremiah
There is a fascinating passage in Jeremiah that deserves some consideration because it utilizes rah in the two senses:"evil" when it is talking about folks, but "calamity" when it speaks of what God promises to visit on the individuals.This seems similar to the meant use in Isaiah.
There are instances, Jeremiah, when I threaten to uproot, tear down, and ruin a nation or kingdom.But if that nation I threatened stops carrying out incorrect, (rah) I will cancel the destruction (rah) I meant to do to itAnd there are times when I promise to build up and create a nation or kingdom.But (rah) if that nation does what displeases me and does not obey me, then I will cancel the good I promised to do to it.So now, tell the men and women of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem this: The Lord says, ‘I am getting ready to carry disaster (rah) on you!I am producing plans to punish you.So, every single one particular of you, quit the evil (rah) items you have been undertaking.Correct the way you have been residing and do what is right.'But they just maintain saying, ‘We do not care what you say!We will do no matter what we want to do! We will carry on to behave wickedly (rah) and stubbornly!'(Jer 18:7-twelve)
I hope that we can agree that, given the context of v. 7 ("uproot, tear down, and destroy"), God is promising disaster on the nations.So, when we see rah utilised subsequently to refer to God's actions, catastrophe is the most all-natural knowing.This passage additional illuminates the use of rah to suggest calamity or disaster when referencing God's actions--which the verse in Isaiah obviously does.
Problem: Why not Eyd?
The Hebrew word eyd means disaster, and has no other sense.So why did not Isaiah use this word as an alternative of rah?
Regardless of the heroic efforts of Daylight Atheism to pigeonhole rah as often which means evil, it just doesn't.Several uncontroversial passages demonstrate this.Furthermore, the dichotomous framework of the verse in Isaiah can make sense to comprehend rah as a calamity since it sets it opposite shalowm (peace).Therefore, Daylight Atheism's challenge to the translation of rah is a nonstarter.
The genuine challenge, then, is eyd, the Hebrew word that only offers us a sense of disaster.At very first blush, it would make much more sense for Isaiah to use this word since then there would be no controversy all these years later.
Source Link But, when evaluating the way the authors of the Bible use eyd as opposed to rah, rah practically constantly denotes a divinely appointed disaster, calamity, or destruction even though eyd speaks of both a all-natural end or a guy-created catastrophe.There are exceptions (this kind of as Task 31:23), but that formula would seem to hold for the most component.
It is also really worth noting that rah is far more regularly employed for catastrophe than eyd, even however the latter truly signifies disaster.This reality alone is tends to make a strong case against Daylight Atheism's attempt to make God into the writer of evil.
Conclusion
I hope to have set a very good philosophical situation for God not becoming the author of evil.Even though I concede that Daylight Atheism is appropriate in stating that evil is the greatest sense of the Hebrew word rah, it is undeniable that calamity is a legitimate alternate sense.I believe, in this situation, I have shown conclusively that calamity is the best sense to understand Isaiah 45:seven due to the dichotomy presented in the two sections of the verse (first light to darkness, then peace to calamity).Consequently, the case presented by the skeptic misrepresents and mishandles the biblical text and is of no consequence to theodicy.