The Problem of Evil

[RonC]

Hi RB,

That depends on what you count as "alter or change creation." When we cut down trees and build a house from them, we "change creation." But miracles are a specific sort of change in creation which is on a whole other level, and all miracles come from God alone, though sometimes through human agency.

elohiym declares all created to be “very good”. Do you believe that there is any power which can change elohiym’s “very good” creation from being “very good”?

The first mention of "evil" in the Bible is not necessarily the appearance of "evil."

That would mean that elohiym planted a tree of knowledge regarding that which did not exist… but it did exist… in the mind of elohiym…

The serpent was cursed to creep later, in Genesis 3:14. It's not clear whether he crept prior to that, though the language would seem to say not.

Great point! Some hold that the Hebrew root for serpent is a term for augury… and in Deuteronomy 18:10 is rendered as the noun “enchanter”. It is very interesting and I encourage you to check it out… The question then is did elohiym create the serpent of Genesis 3?

More to the point, the Bible doesn't tell us how it came to be that the serpent rebelled against God.

Genesis 3 says nothing about the serpent rebelling… nor does anywhere else on scripture that I am aware of…

Certainly mixed audiences heard the various exhortations delivered in Scripture.

We agree… just wanted to clarify that all members of the crowds who followed or listened to Jesus were not necessarily believers.

Best,
RonC

[RBerman]

elohiym declares all created to be “very good”. Do you believe that there is any power which can change elohiym’s “very good” creation from being “very good”?

Yes; within his providence, God decreed that men and angels could rebel against Him.

That would mean that elohiym planted a tree of knowledge regarding that which did not exist… but it did exist… in the mind of elohiym

The concept of evil is eternal, since it's the antithesis of the concept of God, which is eternal. But I wasn't talking about evil as an abstract possibility "in the mind of elohiym." I was talking about actual occurence of evil. We don't have much detail about the circumstances which led the serpent to tempt Eve, for instance.

Great point! Some hold that the Hebrew root for serpent is a term for augury… and in Deuteronomy 18:10 is rendered as the noun “enchanter”. It is very interesting and I encourage you to check it out… The question then is did elohiym create the serpent of Genesis 3?

Genesis 3:1 would seem to indicate that the answer is "yes."

Genesis 3 says nothing about the serpent rebelling… nor does anywhere else on scripture that I am aware of…

Revelation 20:2 identifies "that ancient serpent" with Satan and with the dragon that's been fighting God throughout the book of Revelation.

[themuzicman]

Why pose a false dichotomy? It can be "all of the above." The world is certainly broken too.

Well, unless you're going to claim that Adam and/or Eve's DNA was changed in the fall to pass on whatever it is you think was passed on (and by whom?), and you can support that in Scripture, it doesn't appear that you have a basis for saying that there is a genetic passing of this sinful nature.

[RBerman]

Well, unless you're going to claim that Adam and/or Eve's DNA was changed in the fall to pass on whatever it is you think was passed on (and by whom?), and you can support that in Scripture, it doesn't appear that you have a basis for saying that there is a genetic passing of this sinful nature.

I think that the very structure of the universe changed as a result of Adam's sin. That may have involved a change in Adam and Eve's DNA, or a change in the way the laws of physics interacted with the unchanged DNA. It's not a topic that Scripture discusses in detail, and of course not in our modern scientific jargon.

[themuzicman]

I think that the very structure of the universe changed as a result of Adam's sin. That may have involved a change in Adam and Eve's DNA, or a change in the way the laws of physics interacted with the unchanged DNA. It's not a topic that Scripture discusses in detail, and of course not in our modern scientific jargon.

So, what evidence do you provide of this supposed change?

[RBerman]

So, what evidence do you provide of this supposed change?

Well, as it's now structured, men grow old and die. Something must have been different before.

[themuzicman]

Well, as it's now structured, men grow old and die. Something must have been different before.

So, in spite of the bible saying that God cut Adam from the tree of life so he wouldn't live forever, you think it's something else?

gen 3

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

[RBerman]

So, in spite of the bible saying that God cut Adam from the tree of life so he wouldn't live forever, you think it's something else?

gen 3

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

That certainly has to do with it, but how exactly? What was specific effects did the curses of Genesis 3 have, and how?

[themuzicman]

That certainly has to do with it, but how exactly? What was specific effects did the curses of Genesis 3 have, and how?

Snake loses legs. Woman has more pain in giving birth and will "desire after her husband." The ground will produce weeds, man produces food with pain. Both will "return to dust". Death was the penalty of the fall, so separation from the tree of life was a logical consequence.

Nothing here about a DNA change.

(And TBH, other than the snake legs and maybe weeds, a lot of this is just consequence of the fall.)

[RBerman]

Snake loses legs. Woman has more pain in giving birth and will "desire after her husband." The ground will produce weeds, man produces food with pain. Both will "return to dust". Death was the penalty of the fall, so separation from the tree of life was a logical consequence.

Nothing here about a DNA change.

(And TBH, other than the snake legs and maybe weeds, a lot of this is just consequence of the fall.)

Sure, but how was it all mediated? What was it about the "tree of life" that would have prevented them from dying? (There's debate as to whether they were stopped from eating of that tree again or in the first place, but the text is inconclusive and probably doesn't matter for our discussion.) What exactly changed in the ground, in the woman, in the snake?

[RonC]

Hi RB,

Yes; within his providence,

What does this even mean? I see no scriptural evidence that Elohiym endowed any aspect of that which He created and proclaimed very good with the power to change it. Please cite the scriptures.

God decreed that men and angels could rebel against Him.

Out of personal interest, please cite the scriptures… however rebellion and changing creation are very different thing. Elohiym is the only existing one who can create and alter creation… at least according to the scriptures.

The concept of evil is eternal,

So “evil” existed before the creation (b’re’shiyth)? Moses doesn’t teach that…

since it's the antithesis of the concept of God, which is eternal.

elohiym is not a concept, elohiym is a reality… the Creator… are you comparing the reality of elohiym with the concept of ra’? There was a tree in the garden which was ra’ for Adam and Eve… it existed…

But I wasn't talking about evil as an abstract possibility "in the mind of elohiym." I was talking about actual occurence of evil. We don't have much detail about the circumstances which led the serpent to tempt Eve, for instance.

The scriptures are incomplete? I think not. I think that they reveal all truth… and when we don’t like what they… when it doesn’t fit our personal beliefs we then call them “unclear” or “incomplete”… or maybe there were “scribal errors…” The scriptures are divine revelation… but we need more details…?

Genesis 3:1 would seem to indicate that the answer is "yes."

Well at least we can agree that elohiym created the serpent…

Revelation 20:2 identifies "that ancient serpent" with Satan and with the dragon that's been fighting God throughout the book of Revelation.

One verse from Revelation… no words or teaching of Moses or Jesus… nothing in the writings of Paul or Peter or Luke… of course you know that as far back as Origen and Clement Revelation was addressed as allegorical… in later years Reformist figures like William Tyndale agreed, “The Apocalypse or Revelations of John are allegories whose literal sense is hard to Find in many places” (Revelation: the apocalypse of Jesus Christ by Kovacs and Roland page 244). Justin, Irenaeus, Tellurian, also seem to share the understanding that the “binding of satan” is allegorical… and John left Lucifer out of the equation all together… I think that addressing Revelation as if it is a literal work is highly suspect.

Best,
RonC

[themuzicman]

Sure, but how was it all mediated? What was it about the "tree of life" that would have prevented them from dying? (There's debate as to whether they were stopped from eating of that tree again or in the first place, but the text is inconclusive and probably doesn't matter for our discussion.) What exactly changed in the ground, in the woman, in the snake?

Well, what missing in this section is any discussion of a "sin nature" change. You'll notice that God leaves out any discussion about changes in their fundamental desires with respect to morality or sin. (IMHO, even the woman desiring after her husband and the man producing food with pain are simply results of gaining the knowledge of good and evil.) It is possible for a physical change in the woman or in how infants are born to be necessary because of being in this world with a cursed ground. But, again, nothing about changes with respect to a genetic sin nature. Just tougher living conditions and physical death.

So, there still remains no basis for a genetic "sin nature."

[RBerman]

What does this even mean? I see no scriptural evidence that Elohiym endowed any aspect of that which He created and proclaimed very good with the power to change it. Please cite the scriptures...Out of personal interest, please cite the scriptures… however rebellion and changing creation are very different thing. Elohiym is the only existing one who can create and alter creation… at least according to the scriptures.

It's implicit in Genesis 3, in which the serpent, the man, and the woman all do evil things despite God having declared creation "very good" back in Genesis 1. Which Scriptures say that only God can alter creation? You're "altering creation" right now simply by breathing and giving off body heat.

So “evil” existed before the creation (b’re’shiyth)? Moses doesn’t teach that… elohiym is not a concept, elohiym is a reality… the Creator… are you comparing the reality of elohiym with the concept of ra’? There was a tree in the garden which was ra’ for Adam and Eve… it existed…

"Reality" and "concept" are not mutually exclusive. Anything which exists in reality necessarily exists as a concept. Some things only exist as concepts, e.g. unicorns.

The scriptures are incomplete? I think not. I think that they reveal all truth… and when we don’t like what they… when it doesn’t fit our personal beliefs we then call them “unclear” or “incomplete”… or maybe there were “scribal errors…” The scriptures are divine revelation… but we need more details…?

I didn't say the Scriptures were "incomplete." Neither do they say everything that is true, however. I don't need more details than the Bible gives me, even though sometimes I would like more.

One verse from Revelation… no words or teaching of Moses or Jesus… nothing in the writings of Paul or Peter or Luke… of course you know that as far back as Origen and Clement Revelation was addressed as allegorical… in later years Reformist figures like William Tyndale agreed, “The Apocalypse or Revelations of John are allegories whose literal sense is hard to Find in many places” (Revelation: the apocalypse of Jesus Christ by Kovacs and Roland page 244). Justin, Irenaeus, Tellurian, also seem to share the understanding that the “binding of satan” is allegorical… and John left Lucifer out of the equation all together… I think that addressing Revelation as if it is a literal work is highly suspect.

I don't treat Revelation as "a literal work." But it does refer to things that actually exist, like God and Jesus and Satan. Within the story of Revelation, Satan is the dragon. But when he's called "that ancient serpent," it seems reasonable to link him to Genesis 3 as well. Why do you not want to do so?

[RonC]

Hi RB,

It's implicit in Genesis 3,

What you see as implicit some may see as not there…

in which the serpent, the man, and the woman all do evil things

You judge them as evil things… interestingly elohiym does not express that…

despite God having declared creation "very good" back in Genesis 1.

elohiym expresses nothing that indicates man created anything other than what elohiym had created…

In this regard, I guess I could have been a bit clearer and said: I see no scriptural evidence that elohiym endowed any creature (created thing)all of which he declared very good (including the serpent) with the power to create anything other that what God created in Genesis 1.

Which Scriptures say that only God can alter creation?

I know of no other power that can create anything different… that would require the power to create.

You're "altering creation" right now simply by breathing and giving off body heat.

I hope I made myself clearer above…

With regard to Revelation we agree, it is not literal, it is allegorical… that means that the things stand for things… the dragon is an allegorical figure… whose meaning is clarified by citing other scriptural figures… the verse does not mean that the dragon is literally satan the devil, etc.

Best,
RonC

[RBerman]

What you see as implicit some may see as not there…
You judge them as evil things… interestingly elohiym does not express that…

He curses them for their behavior. One doesn't curse someone for doing good.

In this regard, I guess I could have been a bit clearer and said: I see no scriptural evidence that elohiym endowed any creature (created thing)all of which he declared very good (including the serpent) with the power to create anything other that what God created in Genesis 1. I know of no other power that can create anything different… that would require the power to create.

I never mentioned creation.

With regard to Revelation we agree, it is not literal, it is allegorical… that means that the things stand for things… the dragon is an allegorical figure… whose meaning is clarified by citing other scriptural figures… the verse does not mean that the dragon is literally satan the devil, etc.

Sort of. Satan is allegorically referred to as a dragon and linked to the serpent of Genesis 1.