# Evil or calamity?



## JM (Jan 17, 2009)

What would be the best translation of the word ra‛, evil or calamity?

I found this definition of the word.



> ra‛, ָרָעה
> rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9; Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22). It was necessary for a wise king to be able to discern the evil or the good in the actions of his people (Ecc 12:14); men and women are characterized as evil (1Sa 30:22; Est_7:6; Jer 2:33). The human heart is evil all day long (Gen 6:5) from childhood (Gen 8:21); yet the people of God are to purge evil from among them (Deu 17:7). The Lord is the final arbiter of whether something was good or evil; if something was evil in the eyes of the Lord, there is no further court of appeals (Deu 9:18; 1Ki 14:22). The day of the Lord's judgment is called an evil day, a day of reckoning and condemnation (Amo 6:3). Jacob would have undergone grave evil (i.e., pain, misery, and ultimate disaster) if he had lost Benjamin (Gen 44:34). The word can refer to circumstances as evil, as when the Israelite foremen were placed in a grave situation (Exo 5:19; 2Ki 14:10).
> 
> The word takes on the aspect of something disagreeable, unwholesome, or harmful. Jacob evaluated his life as evil and destructive (Gen_47:9; Num_20:5); and the Israelites considered the wilderness as a threatening, terrifying place. The Canaanite women were evil in the eyes of Isaac (i.e., displeasing [Gen 28:8]). The rabble's cry within Israel for meat was displeasing in the eyes of Moses (Num 11:10). This word describes the vicious animal that killed Joseph, so Jacob thought (Gen 37:33). The despondent countenances of persons can be described by this word; the baker's and the butler's faces were downcast because of their dreams (Gen 40:7). It can also describe one who is heavy in heart (Pro 25:20).
> ...


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 17, 2009)

Isaiah 45:7

KJV- I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create *evil*: I the LORD do all these things.

ESV- I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create *calamity*, I am the LORD, who does all these things.


Lamentations 3:37-38

KJV- Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not *evil* and good?

ESV- Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and *bad* come?


----------



## Grymir (Jan 17, 2009)

Evil. It has a spiritual aspect to it that the verses are trying to convey.

Calamity has a more naturalistic aspect to it. Like earthquake, fires, natural disasters. Same thing with 'bad'.


----------



## JM (Jan 17, 2009)

That was my thought...


----------



## Archlute (Jan 17, 2009)

It's not as simple as what has been presented above. Words do not just mean one thing or another in most cases, but have a range of meanings for which they have been employed. Sometimes that semantic range even changes for a word as time progresses. To say that it must mean either evil or calamitous in any given situation displays a misunderstanding about how languages function. Attempting to back that up by a comparison of English translations is even less helpful. 

The Hebrew term referenced above not only can mean evil or calamitous, but also can speak of other deficiencies or problems such as an ugly aesthetic, or a cheap currency. It takes the help of some good lexical work, word studies, and thinking about the context to try and pinpoint what a word means in a given situation.

If you want to roll up your sleeves and get down to business you could check out some resources such as the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by Archer and Harris, or the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by William VanGemeren. Those works are both readable, and informative. Lexica such as Holladay or Brown-Driver-Briggs are a little more difficult to decipher for the lay reader, and sometimes present their own biases underlying the evidence that need to be weeded out.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 17, 2009)

Yes, Adam. There is an incredible danger in "defining" a word (i.e. its semantic range) using its translation in a couple verses and a Strongs.

For example, are cows "evil"? Do they have "a spiritual aspect"? I guess so, for:



> ESV Genesis 41:20 And the thin, *ugly *cows ate up the first seven plump cows,
> 
> KJV Genesis 41:20 And the lean and the* ill favoured* kine did eat up the first seven fat kine:
> 
> NAS Genesis 41:20 and the lean and *ugly *cows ate up the first seven fat cows.



How about a defect?



> ESV Deuteronomy 15:21 But if it has any blemish, if it is lame or blind or has any serious *blemish *whatever, you shall not sacrifice it to the LORD your God.
> 
> KJV Deuteronomy 15:21 And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill *blemish*, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the LORD thy God.
> 
> NAS Deuteronomy 15:21 "But if it has any defect, such as lameness or blindness, or any serious *defect*, you shall not sacrifice it to the LORD your God.



And yet it can have "evil" as a meaning:



> ESV Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were *wicked*, great sinners against the LORD.
> 
> KJV Genesis 13:13 But the men of Sodom were *wicked *and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
> 
> ...



It is like what is important in real estate: "context, context, context."


----------



## turmeric (Jan 17, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Yes, Adam. There is an incredible danger in "defining" a word (i.e. its semantic range) using its translation in a couple verses and a Strongs.
> 
> For example, are cows "evil"? Do they have "a spiritual aspect"? I guess so, for:
> 
> ...


 
Here we get into the *art* of translation...


----------



## Grymir (Jan 17, 2009)

Which all of the above goes to my point. Here in Iowa, there's a big difference between an ill-favored cow and an ugly cow.


----------



## JM (Jan 18, 2009)

Grymir said:


> Evil. It has a spiritual aspect to it that the verses are trying to convey.
> 
> Calamity has a more naturalistic aspect to it. Like earthquake, fires, natural disasters. Same thing with 'bad'.



In the context, context, context of the verse I understand what you mean.  The following was posted on another forum.

Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987, pp. 185-188:

The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, “ra, translated ‘sorrow,’ ‘wretchedness,’ ‘adversity,’ ‘afflictions,’ ‘calamities,’ but never translated SIN. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

Now the most remarkable point about Scofield’s note is that he told the truth when he said, “RA . . . [is] never translated sin.” How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of RA in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of RA with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that RA in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated WICKEDNESS. In fact RA is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, RA is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word EVIL, a partial list of verses in which this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where WICKED or WICKEDNESS is used.

Going through the Bible, Scofield must have read as far as Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; 6:5; 8:21; 44:4; 48:16; 50:15, 17, 20. “The knowledge of good and EVIL” is simply a knowledge of sorrow or calamity; it is primarily a knowledge of disobedience and sin. Similarly, Genesis 3:5, 22 refers as much to sin as to its punishment. In fact Genesis 3:22 hardly refers to punishment at all. True, Adam was banished from the garden; but the word EVIL in the verse refers to his disobedience and sin.

Whatever lame excuse can be given for excluding sin and retaining only punishment in the previous four verses, Genesis 6:5 is clearly and indisputably a reference to sin. God did not see “adversity” or “afflictions”; he saw sinful thoughts. RA, in this verse at any rate, means sin. The same is true of Genesis 8:21. In fact sin and its punishment are separated here. God will not again curse or smite, as he had just done, for man’s heart is evil. The flood was a punishment, but the evil was the sinful heart of man.

Toward the end of Genesis RA refers to an alleged theft, many sins from which the Angel had redeemed Jacob, and three times the brothers’ sin against Joseph. In 50:17 again the sin is easily distinguishable from the feared punishment.

Is it necessary to plod through all the Old Testament to show that RA often means sin as distinct from its punishment? It should not be necessary; but to show the pervasiveness of the doctrine and the perverseness of Arminianism, something from II Chronicles will be listed: 22:4; 29:6; 36:5, 9, 12. Ahab did EVIL in the sight of the Lord. Our fathers have trespassed and done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Manasseh did evil in the sight of the Lord. He wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord. Jehoiakim did evil in the sight of the Lord. . . .

Evil, RA, is not once TRANSLATED sin. Very strange, but true.

Then there is Isaiah 56:2; 57:1; 59:7, 15; 65:12; 66:4. All instances of RA, or EVIL.

Now, if Scofield knew that RA was never translated SIN, he must have known that it was often translated WICKEDNESS. WICKEDNESS or WICKED, as the translation of RA occurs in Genesis 6:5; 13:13; 38:7; 39:9. Also in Deuteronomy 13:11 and 17:2. Also in I Samuel 30:22 and II Samuel 3:39. I Kings 2:44; Nehemiah 9:35; Esther 7:6, 9, 25. And Proverbs 21:12; 26:23, 26. Nor are these the only instances.

Scofield told the literal truth when he said it is never translated SIN. But nothing could be more false than his statement, “ God created evil ONLY in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

The scriptural meaning of the word RA, has now been abundantly made clear. But there is another point too. If RA means simply external calamities, then the word PEACE, which God also creates, can mean only military peace. The phrases are parallel. But this interpretation reduces the verse, orTHIS PART OF THE VERSE, to triviality. Even verse one can hardly be restricted to purely political matters. Verse three speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God. Jacob my servant and Israel my elect are not phrases to be restricted to politics and economics. Verse 6 speaks of the extension of the knowledge of God throughout the world. Then comes “I make peace and create evil.” Merely military peace? Not peace with God? The next verse speaks of righteousness dropping down from heaven, not like dew, but like pouring rain. Bring forth salvation, let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord have created it.

O, Arminian, Arminian, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told your children the plain truth . . . and ye would not let them understand! NOTE: This is an alternate of Dr. John Gill’s unique translation of this verse, which Clark was very fond of! He was not so fond of certain aspects of his other interpretations.

There is still more in this chapter from Isaiah. Once again we find the potter and the clay. It indicates that God is not responsible to man. Woe to the man who complains that God has made him or anyone else a vessel of dishonor. The clay has no ‘rights’ against the potter. Nor does it have any free will to decide what sort of a bowl or jug it shall be.​


----------

