Anything else implies a God that is not eternal and unchanging.
Another approach: If there is anything that is not God, then perfection, etc. cannot be attributed to that thing in the same way as it can to God. So the proposition "There is that which is not God," includes the possibility of evil, death, all like that there, especially if one understands evil as a "privation of good." To create light is to create the possibility of shadow, maybe?
With respect to prooftexting: Absolutely. But I'm also VERY antsy about saying that such and such a line in the OT is just wrong. Incomplete, yeah, but wrong?
And again, Maybe if I were smarter I wold have studied philosophy and linguistics, because my persistent sense is that one thing we are looking for in Theology is "The right way to say it," since our first concession has to be that every predication we make about God is wrong.
SO, with that as prolegomenon, what I take from the OT (and from the use of "abba" in the NT) is that it is licit and helpful to use personal language about God, as LONG as one holds onto the guiding principle that everything we say is wrong (but some things are WAY wrong, while others are just wrong.)
Do you have a comment on "Knowing (or seeing) isn't causing"?
With one correction "There is that which is not of God." The Creation is not God. What God created was good. Evil is not a creature of God. God did not create evil. Evil does not exist. If all mankind suddenly turned to God, evil would "vanish" instantly.
as LONG as one holds onto the guiding principle that everything we say is wrong
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.
Do you have a comment on "Knowing (or seeing) isn't causing"?
I am not sure where this comes from. It's a sweeping generalization. Please elaborate.