Dear david f,
Interesting translation. Most versions use the words "calamity" or "disaster" instead of "evil".

But context is everything. Just as Jesus said "if your hand or eye causes you to sin, cut it off or pluck it out", He was obviously using hyperbole.

The text does not say "I create(d) evil" as in "I originated it". It merely refers to the common person's perception regarding God's righteous punishment for the grievous sins of the nation.

Just as a young child does not see a parent’s punishment or discipline as "just" for their errant behaviour, so a wayward nation would declare that the actions of a righteous God are "evil". God merely inspired Isaiah to write in the common vernacular and viewpoint.

From people smarter than I is the following explanation:
Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm, which has many meanings, mostly related to the wellbeing of individuals. Râ âh, the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's (Concordance) H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."

Oliver, as for: "what good was Satan’s evil contrasted before the Creation?"
The perfect goodness of Heaven.

And relda, I don’t know where you got your definition of "prophetic" from, but it is fanciful to say the least. Prophecy is an inspired utterance, a divine revelation, a prediction. Saul's prophesying was a sign to the people that God was working through him. Merely singing or spouting poetry would be meaningless in the context of the passage.

bushbasher,
CORRECTION:
In my last post, please replace

“people ... who are also convinced that they have “evidence” for their world-view (based on faith in their case), and regard ...”

by

“people ... who are also convinced that reason can support ONLY their world-view (where the bible often takes the role of science to support their claim), and regard ...”

since you probably do not claim to have “evidence” for your atheism. My apologies for the clumsy formulation.

Seeing how we are talking on the bible and god thing I just thought that someone might like the following

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/6289679/nobel-winner-slams-bible-as-handbook-of-bad-morals/

Have a good life from
Dave

On the question of evil, I think one of the aspects of religion in general which upsets many atheist/agnostics, is the related matter of 'fate'.
I think Dawkins mentioned in one of his books his distaste for a certain Hindu, and his callous disregard of a beggar. The Hindu's attitude was, the beggar must have done something terrible in his former life to deserve such a fate, and is thus not worthy of our compassion.
Similarly, I believe there are many midwest American fundamentalists who support Zion, simply because it is a prerequisite of the second coming.
Such people are clearly not too concerned about Global Warming, or land degradation or pollution, as these are trivial matters when the Lord's acomin'.
Many Americans, proud of the poetic words of the Declaration of independence, appear to indulge in 'doublethink'. While they take pride in their own achievements, they seem to think that since everyone is 'created equal', the unfortunate only have themselves to blame.
I've always considered the words 'rich Christian' to be oxymoronic, (I even wrote an article about it) yet they do exist in large numbers. Most seem to justify their wealth by the belief that “that's how God must want it”.
Is this attitude not evil?
More 'rational' Christians will no doubt claim such people are not 'true' Christians; that their interpretation is faulty. David f has explored this fallacy fairly thoroughly, and I won't reprise.
Once again, it all comes down to interpretation, doesn't it.

bushbasher,
Conservative Evangelicals despise Richard Dawkins while actually believing in the kind of God he rightly rejects, as if the existence of God were, in principle, demonstrable, as if the proposition “God exists” were a hypothesis to be affirmed or denied, as if God were simply the hugest of individuals. The crass mistakes, however, made by not only Dawkins but also many others are that the arguments aren't just about God or just about religion. Both Dawkins and many Christians reject Thor and Vishnu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and any other super-being you might care to imagine.

Essentially theology is like any other intellectual discipline - it is potentially an endless (evolving) process of argument. It is often counter intuitive and its ‘knowledge’ non-dogmatic. The task of the Christian apologist is certainly not to establish a deity.

Dawkins, however, makes the misinterpretation (and the mistake made by many) that theology doesn't need to conform to the rules and demands of reason, i.e., “Anything goes”, where theologians can say anything they like nor have to engage in reasonable argument, released also from the tenets of science. Traditionally, this is the Christian heresy known as fideism (the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason). But all kinds of rationalities, theology included, have been non-scientific for quite a time and yet still conform to the procedures of reason.

MartinS,
The ‘prophet as fortune teller' has always been the most popular held conception for the ‘office’ of the ancient prophet – and remaining so today. This portrait actually demeans them as ‘vague fortune tellers'. They were poets, articulating in poetic imagery their faith in God, their hopes for the future, and their vision of the inevitable triumph of justice. The ‘seer-prophet’ apprehends not necessarily what is ‘smooth’, but emphatically that which is right. So, yes, there’s more to it than “merely” poetry.

I generally agree you, Grim – especially your inference regards the ‘prosperity gospel’ - particularly prevalent in fundamentalist America and one of its established clones here in Oz - i.e., Hillsong.

Dear Relda,

I don't know that the prophets believed in the eventual triumph of justice. I think they believed that they should speak out against injustice whatever the cost and hope that righteousness would triumph. Injustice will prevail if no one speaks to it. The prophets spoke for justice and hoped it would prevail.