The original Hebrew word used is "rah" and it does not necessarily mean moral evil. It means calamity and distress. It does NOT say God created evil.
You say that it does not NECESSARILY mean moral evil. So, it still COULD mean moral evil. Seeing as we are talking about the Bible, and moral evil is one of its favorite subjects, it certainly seems WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the rest of the Bible. And since when are calamity and distress GOOD things? Also its nice of you to admit that the Bible contains translation errors. We should DEFINITELY use an ancient and obsolete book that has not been translated properly and uses ambiguous language as the guidebook for our entire life. If I was all powerful, that's EXACTLY the medium I would choose to deliver my message.
You know, your defense here would almost be meaningful, except that throughout the Bible we have plenty of examples of God doing evil.
Also, you said "Is there such thing as darkness? No, it's the absence of light." yet this passage clearly has God saying that he CREATES darkness. In order to create something, it necessarily has to exist post-creation. How can God create something that does NOT exist?
Even your refutation of my objection is full of problems. That's the problem with faith. It always has to make excuses for the problems with the Bible, yet those excuses inevitably point out further issues with the Bible. You are still left with having to explain why the Bible does not mean what it says or say what it means. Why would God choose such an imperfect and unreliable means to transmit his message? If he can motivate himself enough to destroy all of his own creation, surely he ought to be able to effectively communicate a message. Yet he can't.
The best you have done here is show that God might
not create evil. Yet you don't feel confident enough to say that the word meaning "evil" in this case NEVER
means evil. It just doesn't necessarily
mean evil. I wonder if you give this much care to all potential cases where the meaning of such words is misconstrued to mean "moral evil", or if you only do in in cases such as this, where you need to find a reason to show that the Bible is not BS. My guess would be the latter.
Errors in translation, or consistency of translation, or meaning of translation, or interpretation of translations, is a problem for you, not me. You're the one who thinks that a 600 year old guy somehow crossed the ocean to continents that are never mentioned in the Bible (because no one knew that they even existed). This same old guy somehow captured, alive and without modern tranquilizers or restraining methods, a mating pair of wolverines (or 7 pairs, the Bible isn't really sure how many pairs of each animal Noah took). A wolverine can tear a moose limb from limb just like a Wookie, in spite of the moose being about 20 times its size. But yet we HAVE to believe that an ancient drunk did this for EVERY SPECIES ON EARTH?!?! Ok. sure. You can have "evil" mean "not moral evil". You've still got a LOT of work to do.