Explanatory Notes for Chapter 1 [PART 2], from "Satan, Devil, and Hell."

EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR CHAPTER 1 "THE ORIGIN OF EVIL," [PART 2] FROM MY UPCOMING BOOK, "SATAN, THE DEVIL, AND HELL." This book is scheduled to be published, perhaps, in the first week of January. I will keep you posted! In the meantime, you can visit my official ministry page for this book to read even more there: https://seekingthegospel.com/satan-an... ... This present post is PART 2 of the Explanatory Notes for chapter 1's "The Origin of Evil."

Explanatory Notes for Chapter 1
The Origin of Evil
[Part 2]

*6. Did the devil just place it within the Mind of Man, or what?... Again, I have to ask that if God didn’t create wicked evil, as many contend, then where did it come from? This reminds me very much about the problem with the Big Bang Theory* of Evolutionists (i.e. of Cosmic or Macro-Evolution**). It’s an elaborate theory about how the universe was formed, and is referenced as The Big Bang; for, it once was considered (and is still considered by many) that a micro, tiny piece of dirt (matter) had spun very fast, then exploded, and then expanded at a rapid rate to form the universe. Of course, that base theory has been updated by some. However, and whatever they may say had exploded, or just simply expanded, they cannot answer the question of where that tiny piece of dirt (matter) had even come from to begin with, which eventually exploded or expanded to make all that we see today … Similarly (as is the case for all the forwarded explanations of what all the “Big Bang” consisted of), folks can say all the day long how that there is a devil, and of what all his activities are, but how can those folks explain where evil come from to begin with? Can it be proved that the devil is a creator, too? If so, where is it written in the biblical text? All I see, once again, is that God created evil. That statement is at least written therein, even if folks have other theories as to what that means … I’ve also heard it explained that evil is just like darkness, in that it wasn’t “created,” it’s just there, and has always been. That answer seems too simplistic to me, and an avoiding of the issue. The same author that I read that from also said that the Bible does NOT say that God created evil. How he missed Isaiah 45:7, along with its Hebrew definitions, I cannot say! But, then he went on to explain that just suddenly, and out of nowhere, people just decided to do bad things that was opposite and contrary to light and goodness. Again, that’s just too weak of an explanation for me. Darkness, light, good and evil are a part of God’s plans – just as much as other things that have parallels, such as cold, hot; happiness, sadness; etc. A lot of people, for years, have been enveloped in the definition that darkness isn’t really in existence, that it’s just an absence of light
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness).
The true answer, for many, though, is just as puzzling and limited as it is to answer where that pesky, little piece of dirt (matter) had initially come from that finally exploded or expanded to make our universe. We’re limited if we believe in science only and not God; a God, that is, who actually created science (of which statement, by the way, is not insinuating that all who believe in science cannot believe in a Supreme Being. But, is a statement for those who don’t believe in God). However, if God is truly God, then His realm has to be outside the confines of science, and outside anything that has to obey the rules of physics and universal laws. Again, we limit ourselves to say that darkness is non-existent; or, that it (as a negative non-component nothingness, which is void of anything observable and demonstratable), has just always been, and that it was never “created.” How can we know that? Especially when we can’t even fathom the thought that God Himself has always been, and had no beginning … Let’s take the air, for instance. We can’t see it, so how do we know that it’s a real thing? Well, we can feel it; we can see its effects when it whisks things away (the same is true, incidentally, for the Spirit of God; in that we can’t literally see it, but we can certainly feel it!). But, darkness actually can be observed itself. Don’t believe it? Then, turn off a light bulb and you’ll see it. How limiting are things, really, when we read this verse, which I’ve already quoted?

Colossians 1:16-17
For by him were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Darkness can at least be seen; and, yet, He even created things invisible, too. The absence of light, giving way to darkness, in that darkness isn’t a color or a substance of any sort, we must know is a theory that has been forwarded by man and is not an established fact. Therefore, to say with confidence that there are some things demonstratable and observable by visuals – that are actually subject for dismissal – is something that all scientists should bark about; for, if darkness weren’t a substance, as is said by many, then how do we know it’s even there to begin with? Again, it can be observable by simply turning off of a lightbulb ... The same is true for evil. For, if evil is not real (or, even to say that it just magically popped up somewhere unexpected one day), then why do we even try to fight it? Can evil, as the wind and air, be observable and demonstratable? It certainly can! Therefore, it’s a substance that’s as real as darkness, light, goodness, bad, hot and cold. So, it had to have a beginning sometime. And, if somebody can actually prove that the devil “created” evil (within the confines of the Word of God, and of an initial creation), then I take my hat off to them for being so clever, because I haven’t found any such scripture myself. For, we must remember, and as I had explained in an earlier Explanatory Note, that there’s a huge difference between “creating” something and in “continuing or expanding” in something that had already been initially created by God. The only answer that we can give with absolute confidence, and from the Word of God, is that God Himself had created evil; for, we at least have a scripture that says so! But, not only – the same verse actually says that God “created” darkness, too; showing us that darkness, indeed, is a substance of creation:

Isaiah 45:7
I form [H3335] the light, and create [H1254] darkness [H2822]: I make peace, and create [H1254] evil [Ra: H7451]: I the LORD [not the devil!] do all these things.

Form, Yâtsar (yaw-tsar'), H3335, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: Probably identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); (compare H3331); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively to determine (that is, form a resolution): - X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make (-r), potter, purpose.

Create, Bârâ' (baw-raw'), H1254, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

Darkness, Chôshek (kho-shek'), H2822, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

What else can be said of this?

*Big Bang Theory… For the record, I just want to say that I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory – as if that’s a surprise for my readers! And, just because I don’t believe it in the way many Evolutionistic teachers and professors explain it, it doesn’t make me a religious fanatic, either. What a lot of folks don’t know or consider these days is that a science theory is just that – a theory! However, and despite this, modern science now concludes that when a theory is a science theory, it’s not a mere theory anymore, it’s now a fact. So, with that, we have to update our dictionary meanings to also mean fact when we look up the word theory. If that’s not so, then anybody should be able to forward a theory without being shot-down by the scientific community – such as, the Christian Creation Scientists. But, saying that a theory is an established, unquestionable fact is all bologna, anyway. Why? Because, with each advancing year, the Evolutionists’ “factual-theories” advance and get updated themselves. So, if it does get updated (i.e. changed), then how was it ever a fact to begin with? … Science is really based on learning and updating when new and better data comes in.

Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang:
“Significant progress in Big Bang cosmology has been made since the late 1990s as a result of advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of data from satellites such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE),[71] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.”

Well, I say that is fine – but, again, how does that justify past factual-theories as to being actual facts? This is how some Evolutionist Scientists gain the upper-hand in the Evolution versus Creation debate by saying that Creationists are not real scientists, but are, instead, religiously unscientific minded folks – or, are simply religious fanatics – and, that their science theories are just that: unproven theories (a term – theory – which can only be factual for “real” scientists); and, which theories (that, in many cases, are based upon the biblical text), and, in many of their opinions, simply cannot be proven factual in the consideration of earth and steller sciences … However, and despite these sort of thoughts, all endeavors of science (it must be understood) should really be equally looked upon and considered – whether it’s embracing Evolution in its entirety, or toward a strict Christian Creationist model – and, even for those who fall in-between those categories somewhere – especially giving equal times of intelligent consideration for the sakes of students – who deserve a well-balanced education; for, the best observations should be considered and kept, even if it irks many preconceived ideas and biases ... On the Wikipedia webpage, that I gave the address for a moment ago, and when considering the question of what had exploded (or, they’re now saying “expanded”), they have absolutely no answers to give:

“The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available…”

Then, further on, they admit that The Big Bang Theory cannot answer all questions about the beginnings of life:

“One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space was caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.”

So, how can it be truly said that it’s impossible for God to have created energy, time, space, matter, and the universal laws? Many avoid such a thought, and with much passion, too! … I’m also well aware that many people see a “harmony” between “science and religion,” saying that God possibly was the one who had “created” the Big Bang. Without getting into that subject here, for I’ve already went-over former college professor Phillip E. Johnson’s wonderful words (from his book 'Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,' [1997 InterVarsity Press]) in my book “In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start,” in saying that there really “isn’t” harmony between Evolutionistic science and – not religion! – but, Creation Science. Please either consult his book for this discussion (which had been well written and thought-out), or my former book on the matter … Big Bang theorists have much to say on their subject, but they cannot explain the very beginnings of the universe, or of how matter came to be. But, if they never consider a Creator to have had a hand in it somewhere, somehow, then they’ll never know; for, first of all, they cannot see or understand the things that are “outside” the realms of science – which is the true origin of natural matter. That is, God created all things!

Romans 1:20a
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…

Colossians 1:15b
…the invisible God…

1 Timothy 1:17b
…the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God…

So, if Evolutional science cannot explain the origins of their own theories (for, they have no true model to begin from), then how can we even believe that they have “dates” as to when all this happened? Which “dates,” by the way, extends to billions and billions of years ago.

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang:
“The known laws of physics can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang at around 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.”

Do you not know that anything could have happened in that length of time? Do you realize how long ago that really was? In a YouTube video by credentialed scientist Eric J. Lerner (who, in 1991, wrote the book: “The Big Bang Never Happened”), you can see just how much this man damages the theory, for many things have to be ignored to even believe in it: “The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Big Bang Never Happened:”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkhR...
Also, there are many pages online which refute the theory, as well – and, not all participants can be proved to be religious fanatics … Too, one of the worst things that Wikipedia adds to this topic, and I’ve heard this before, is:

“…it [The Big Bang Theory] has become one of the liveliest areas in the discourse between science and religion…”

Do you see what this is insinuating? Anybody that does not believe the real experts in science are only religious fanatics who scoff at science and are still living in the dark ages. No, this is not a matter of science vs religion, this is a matter of science vs science – and, especially, when it comes to the shaky Big Bang Theory.

**Cosmic or Macro-Evolution… – Of which, The Big Bang Theory is certainly a part of … Actually, and according to https://creationtoday.org/six-meaning..., there are really six meanings to the one word Evolution: 1) Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the Big Bang; 2) Chemical Evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen; 3) Stellar Evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds; 4) Organic Evolution: life begins from inanimate matter; 5) Macro-Evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another; and 6) Micro-Evolution: variations form within the “kind” … By the way, only the last one of these, Micro-Evolution, has anything to do with real science … When discussing or considering Evolution, you have to take into consideration (and, you'll do yourself a big favor by doing so!) that there is a huge difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution (I speak on Macro and Micro Evolution here because it’s the most popular topic that’s discussed on the general subject of Evolution; for, again, Macro says that one kind of an animal can change into a completely, incompatible and different kind of animal) … If you simply say, to those who hold such beliefs, that there’s no Evolution, they'll think you a moron and an uneducated oaf; for, it's now turned into a words-game! So, what's the difference? Micro-Evolution tells us that there are "changes" in and on the earth over time; which, is actually true (as I'll explain further in a moment). But, Macro-Evolution says that there are changes within "species" themselves. Such as a human had "evolved" from a type of a long-ago extinct ape, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ago. That's where proof is actually lacking. But, Evolutionist educators try to have you buy into Macro-Evolution because they can actually prove Micro-Evolution. It's the 'ol bait-and-switch game! But, even so, what's Micro-Evolution boil down to? Well, you can have small changes within a "species." Such as, you can get a little dog from a bigger dog. You can get a variety of different kinds of dogs from other kinds of dogs. You might even get a wolf from a dog. But, that's just it – they're still changes within the same "kind" of animal. And, that kind of science can actually be observable, demonstrated, and provable – which is what we call "empirical science," or "empirical evidence;" which Wikipedia says "is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation." But, what's not observable, nor empirical, is that you can get one kind of an animal from a completely different kind. That's where we start having problems with Evolution. For example, you'll never be able to get a deer to mate with a jackrabbit and get a Jackalope. It just simply doesn't happen, folks. And, yet, we're all supposed to buy into it because Micro-Evolution can be observed ... Hum! ... By the way, I purposely "put into quotations" both the words "species" and "kind" because I do not believe there to be such a thing as a species (that is, as the term is so forwarded by Evolutional Scientists – which wording is adopted by them to examine Macro-Evolution***); but, I do believe in kinds, as is so expressed by the Bible.

Genesis 1:21-25
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And, yet, it never said that a different "kind" would come from another different kind. And, again, it cannot be proved by any scientific observations; nor can it ever be empirical science. But, all the year-long we can watch a variety (micro-evolution) of animals breed with each other, who are of the same kind as they ... But, what exactly is a kind, one may ask? Well, it's simpler to answer than of what a species is – that's for sure! There are dog kinds; there's horse kinds; cat kinds; elephant kinds; etc. In other words, animals who can successfully breed with one another are the same kind ... For more information on this controversial debate, please go to: https://www.creationscience.com/onlin..., the official website of Dr. Walt Brown. But, especially beginning on this page: https://www.creationscience.com/onlin..., which deals exclusively with Micro and Macro Evolution, and of their differences.

***Which wording is adopted by them to examine Macro-Evolution... No, Evolutionists did not invent the word "species," but they certainly adopted it instead of the word "kind." However, and ironically, the original use of the word, and the original meaning, actually did mean "kind."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/species: Late 14c. as a classification in logic, from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type" (opposed to genus [which word some scientists may use instead of species, since it may get more specific for them in their minds]), originally "a sight, look, view, appearance," hence also "a spectacle; mental appearance, idea, notion; a look; a pretext; a resemblance; a show or display," typically in passive senses; in Late Latin, "a special case;" related to specere "to look at, to see, behold," from PIE root spek- "to observe." From 1550s as "appearance, outward form;" 1560s as "distinct class (of something) based on common characteristics." [i.e. not different kinds] Biological sense is from c. 1600. Endangered species first attested 1964.

Be that as it may, I guess different folks will observe this word – as they do science – with their own goggles. But, is that wrong to do? That is, to see things how you would like to see them? And, that is, whether it's right or wrong? Nay, friends, it's not wrong. But, what is wrong is in forcing others to believe them with you ... You'll find the guilty parties in all facets of life: in business, in science, in entertainment, in education, etc.; and, even – God forbid – in religion!

*7. Made… What may or may not make much difference to some folks is that the word “made” is actually another word used for “create” in the King James Version’s book of Genesis, during chapter 1, when it’s describing the initial creation of the planet and people. Such as:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:7a And God MADE the firmament…

Genesis 1:16a And God MADE two great lights…

And, etc. Showing us that the words “made” and “create” can be, at times, interchangeable with each other … The only problem, though, is that the original Hebrew word, which was translated into “made” for these Genesis passages, and the Hebrew word for Proverbs 16:4, are NOT the same Hebrew words! (‛Âśâh and Pâ‛al). However, and what should be noted, is that both of the meanings of these two words are very similar to each other – so much so, that the King James translators had used both to describe the English word “made.” Let’s compare them:

Made [from Proverbs 16:4], Pâ‛al (paw-al'), H6466, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: A primitive root; to do or make (systematically and habitually), especially to practise: - commit, [evil-] do (-er), make (-r), ordain, work (-er), wrought.

Made [from Genesis chapter 1] ‛Âśâh (aw-saw'), H6213, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary: A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

Even though the Hebrew word for “made” in the Genesis account gets into a very long spiel, we should take note of both of their first entries, of how they begin in the very same way: “to do or make…” Which should tell us that both are leaning toward the same idea – of “making” something; and that, and just like the Genesis verses boldly tells us, is from scratch – making something from nothing, and at the very beginning.

*8. Like pottery on a potter's wheel...
Isaiah 29:16
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Isaiah 64:8
But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Romans 9:20-21
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

I WILL POST CHAPTER 2 FROM THIS BOOK VERY SOON...