Is God a liar?

BobRyan · Nov 24, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
Well, of course, Bob if you make the assumption that Scripture is inerrant, then you would assume evolution and God are incompatible.

The options here are limited to something like these choices

1. scenario-1: The Bible is full of half-truths and outright lies -- all of them well-intentioned by men living in pre-scientific age coming up with the best ideas they could think of at the time. In which case the Bible and blind faith evolutionism may well conflict but 'so what' since the Bible does not actually represent God's view on any particular subject.

2. scenario-2: the Bible is every bit the standard of truth, doctrine and historic fact that Christ claims it to be in Mark 7:6-13 and can reliably be used to condemn all false teaching, false tradition -- just as Christ claims in Mark 7.

Under the option-1 scenario it would be foolish to be a "virgin-birthist" or a "literal resurrection of Christ - ist" or a "Creation-ist" or a 'literal ascension of Christ - ist" or a "world-wide-flood-ist", or a literal "fall-of-man-ist" because none of those supposed historic "Accounts" can be trusted as if they were true in real life - they are at best stories "myths" meant to convey at most some moral idea - but not actual fact.

Scenario-1 looks like 'fluff". Not something for which you suffer the torment of lions, or being burned at the stake, or crucified upside down, or boiled in oil ...etc

In option 2 - the big question is "what does the Bible say" because once a person is able to read -- it becomes clear what one is to believe.

In option 1- it is as good to make-stuff-up on your own... as to read about the stuff others made up in pre-scientific ages.

However, I do not have that problem, largely because I do not view Scripture as inerrant. I come at Scripture out of modern biblical studies, and, based on the evidence I find there,

I am not aware that you are a theologian -- what seminary? MDiv? Phd in Theology??

I might point out that when laity look at Scripture, they do generally assume that if Scripture says so, it is so, that everything happened just like the Bible says. However, in rigorous scholarship, we hold that is a major fallacy.

Again - what seminary? What was the thesis for your PHD in Biblical studies, NT languages etc?

I did not participate in that program -- though I was a reference for one of the PHDs in theology at Walla Walla when he applied for that position.

There are, for example, about 42 gnostic Gospels that tell of the life of Christ. They are night and day from what we have.

They are not scripture - I do not claim they present God's view or that God authored them.

By contrast "The Holy Spirit says" -- is what we find in Heb 3 regarding the OT text. It is the very thing you claim is not possible - and yet God insists upon it.

=============================================

However - regardless if you choose scenario-1 or scenario-2 it should be "easy" to say whether blind faith evolutionism does in fact contradict what we find in the text of scripture.

The fact that option-1 does not care about such contradictions is a separate issue.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Nov 24, 2015

hence my prior post -

=================================================

As for "What the text says" --

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=============================================

Ex 20:11 "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day and made it holy."

BobRyan · Nov 24, 2015

Christ's method of condemning all tradition, teaching, doctrine that contradicts the OT text.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Aman777 · Nov 24, 2015

BobRyan said:
The options here are limited to something like these choices

1. scenario-1: The Bible is full of half-truths and outright lies -- all of them well-intentioned by men living in pre-scientific age coming up with the best ideas they could think of at the time. In which case the Bible and blind faith evolutionism may well conflict but 'so what' since the Bible does not actually represent God's view on any particular subject.

2. scenario-2: the Bible is every bit the standard of truth, doctrine and historic fact that Christ claims it to be in Mark 7:6-13 and can reliably be used to condemn all false teaching, false tradition -- just as Christ claims in Mark 7.

Under the option-1 scenario it would be foolish to be a "virgin-birthist" or a "literal resurrection of Christ - ist" or a "Creation-ist" or a 'literal ascension of Christ - ist" or a "world-wide-flood-ist", or a literal "fall-of-man-ist" because none of those supposed historic "Accounts" can be trusted as if they were true in real life - they are at best stories "myths" meant to convey at most some moral idea - but not actual fact.

Scenario-1 looks like 'fluff". Not something for which you suffer the torment of lions, or being burned at the stake, or crucified upside down, or boiled in oil ...etc

In option 2 - the big question is "what does the Bible say" because once a person is able to read -- it becomes clear what one is to believe.

In option 1- it is as good to make-stuff-up on your own... as to read about the stuff others made up in pre-scientific ages.

I am not aware that you are a theologian -- what seminary? MDiv? Phd in Theology??

Again - what seminary? What was the thesis for your PHD in Biblical studies, NT languages etc?

I did not participate in that program -- though I was a reference for one of the PHDs in theology at Walla Walla when he applied for that position.

They are not scripture - I do not claim they present God's view or that God authored them.

By contrast "The Holy Spirit says" -- is what we find in Heb 3 regarding the OT text. It is the very thing you claim is not possible - and yet God insists upon it.

=============================================

However - regardless if you choose scenario-1 or scenario-2 it should be "easy" to say whether blind faith evolutionism does in fact contradict what we find in the text of scripture.

The fact that option-1 does not care about such contradictions is a separate issue.

in Christ,

Bob

Amen. How can one believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures, and yet deny it's Truth from Genesis to Revelation? Deny God's Truth of Genesis and one denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ. IF so, how can one claim to be a Christian? Is there another way to be born again Spiritually?

Hoghead1 · Nov 24, 2015

Sorry, Bob, no link. The title is "The Doctrine of God." I do have a larger article online. However, I don't know if you would be interested in it or not. If so, google "Process Theology and Cosmic Ecstasy."

BobRyan · Nov 25, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
Sorry, Bob, no link. The title is "The Doctrine of God." I do have a larger article online. However, I don't know if you would be interested in it or not. If so, google "Process Theology and Cosmic Ecstasy."

Here is "a link" to it - on another web site.

http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/the-doctrine-of-god/

BobRyan · Nov 25, 2015

My point in this statement is that while they do not care that the Bible is in their own minds "false" they at least know what it says.

BobRyan said:
hence my prior post -

=================================================

As for "What the text says" --

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=============================================

Ex 20:11 "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day and made it holy."

-57 · Nov 25, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
Sorry, Bob, no link. The title is "The Doctrine of God." I do have a larger article online. However, I don't know if you would be interested in it or not. If so, google "Process Theology and Cosmic Ecstasy."

I googled "Process Theology and Cosmic Ecstasy"....and it seems to be a strange rabbit hole to go down.

Hoghead1 · Nov 25, 2015

Thanks, Bob. I had no idea it was there or how it got there.

mark kennedy · Nov 26, 2015

Open Heart said:
All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth. Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds. *IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right? So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

What do you believe?

All the Genesis account of Creation with regards to when the heavens and earth were created actually says is that it was in the beginning. God may well have created the universe long before Creation week. There is nothing at all in the Creation account with regards to Dinosaurs or birds except to say that God created life fully formed, evolution follows.
What you are calling 'scientific data' is filtered through naturalistic assumptions that have the whole issue so convoluted that an actual informed opinion is constantly backing up to the basic question of whether or not God can be considered the cause of anything in the natural world.

Hoghead1 · Nov 26, 2015

To be expected, Bob. You are coming out from the world of laity. Nothing wrong with that. I am coming our of the academic world. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that when we meet there is a huge town-gown gulf to overcome. The laity often have a very naïve concept of what goes on in the academic world, which is especially true of biblical studies and the0ology. They expect it to be a kind of extension of what they cherish, learned in Sunday=school, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. The academic world is a whole different world, a whole different value system. Concepts that laity cherish may have been long ago dumped once they entered the academic world. So it only to be expected that lay persons find what comes out of academic to be weird, crazy, etc. That's just the nature of the beast. Nothing you or I can do about it, except live with it and accept it.

Hoghead1 · Nov 26, 2015

Mark, I think you should note the point I just made to Bob here. You say it all appears to you a big confusing concoction coming our of academic. That is only to be expected. You are probably coming out of world of laity. Fine. I and much material here are coming out of the world of academia. When these worlds meet there can be a huge town-gown riff. Many laity have a very naïve expectations about the academic world, especially when it comes to theology. They maybe think its some sort of extension of their won world. Nothing could be further from the truth. The academic world is a whole out world, whole other ballgame. Hence, it is only natural that laity such as yourself will feel baffled or bamboozled by the academic side.

BobRyan · Nov 26, 2015

mark kennedy said:
All the Genesis account of Creation with regards to when the heavens and earth were created actually says is that it was in the beginning. God may well have created the universe long before Creation week.

Indeed. Gen 1:1 is a statement about the Universe. Then the focus narrows and Gen 1:2-2:4 is just about planet earth - our solar system etc. Then Gen 2:5 - end of chpt 2 - is focused on the Garden of Eden and the command about the tree of knowledge of good and evil- and marriage.

There is nothing at all in the Creation account with regards to Dinosaurs or birds except to say that God created life fully formed, .

Gen 1 does speak of birds.

Gen 1
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Aman777 · Nov 26, 2015

Ex 20:11 "11 For in six days (Yowm-periods of labor) the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and ALL that is in them, and rested (Ceased) on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day and made it holy."(set apart, hallowed, consecrated, holy)

In six periods of labor, God made the perfect 3rd Heaven and filled it with it's host of Christians, and the last sinner to be saved, is a part of the host of Heaven. Then, because everything has finally been finished and brought to perfection, God ceases creating forever on the 7th Day, which is separated from the other 6 Days because it's Eternity, and only those who are among the host of heaven will have survived our world of sin and death. Gen 2:1 Amen?

Hoghead1 · Nov 26, 2015

I beg to disagree with your assumption that Gen. 1 is about the universe, whereas Gen. 2 is just abut Eden. I view both accounts as dealing with the universe, and I hold these are highly contradictory accounts, written by different authors at vastly times. But let us move on. The problem I have with your view is that Gen. 2 makes no sense if just combined to a specific locality. That would mean two separate creations. God first created one group of animals, then a second for Adam. Why? Nothing in the text claims that. The other problem is that when your view was applied to Genesis, it led do a nonsensical two-wife theory. The latter was quite popular in the Middle Ages and goes like this. There are supposedly two women involved. One appears to have been created before Eden and then another , Eve, later. Now, the woman refereed to in Gen. 1 was Adam's first wife, Lilith. She liked to ride on top of him during sex, and Adam didn't like it and God didn't like either, so he gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who was more submissive and stayed underneath. Lilith ran off, became a witch, and haunts children. Hence, many cribs has something like "God save us from Lilith" inscribed on them.

BobRyan · Nov 26, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
I beg to disagree with your assumption that Gen. 1 is about the universe, whereas Gen. 2 is just abut Eden. I view both accounts as dealing with the universe, and I hold these are highly contradictory accounts, written by different authors at vastly times.

And in choosing that particular story you have to ignore a great many details in the text.

Not the least of which is that Gen 1:2-2:4 presents a time-boxed chronological sequence and Genesis 2:5-25 does not.

Hoghead1 said:
But let us move on. The problem I have with your view is that Gen. 2 makes no sense if just combined to a specific locality. That would mean two separate creations.

Not at all true. A few easy examples illustrate the point.

Mankind is created in Gen 1:2-2:4 and yet is not conflicted in any way with "added details" in Gen 2 that man was created before woman and that their names were Adam, and Eve. These facts "build" upon the facts of Genesis 1 - they do not create an conflicting time boxed chronological sequence.

Plants, trees and humans are created in Gen 1 - and in Gen 2 we also find that there is a tree of life, and a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Again -- we have details that add to the account in Gen 1 without creating a contradictory time-boxed chronological sequence.

Plants are created in Gen 1 - but in Gen 2 we learn that the planets are watered by dew rising up from the earth - rather than by rain. That is stated without creating a contradictory time-boxed chronological sequence.

By insisting that the accounts be in contradiction one ends up with the illogical claim that "someone" reads the first account and then "inserts a conflicting account" 1 page later. Whether it is all done by one person or two changes nothing in the fact that there is no logic to it.

Hoghead1 · Nov 27, 2015

Sorry, Bob, but I can make no sense at al out of your approach. It may satisfy you, but it just doesn't with me. I5t seems that you are claiming the author on one page used one chronology and then, for some reason, started jumping around on the next. Your argument is that is because he is giving different perspective's. OK, fine, Then why do you assume 2 is a further explication of 1? The way you have it, it's a totally different ballgame. You raised a good point about why someone would put tow contradictory accounts together. The reason is that Judaism has two of everything. Given three rabbis, you get 5 opinions, so to speak. Judaism had two conflicting nations: Israel and Judah. Israel produced two different Bibles: Pentateuch and Septuagint. Judaism actually did present two different list of commandments. There are 11 Commandments, for example, in the Samaritan Pentateuch. So I'm not surprised Judaism had two different traditions about creation. The biblical redactors butt edited them together, because they were trying to pull everyone into a unity by representing both sides here.

Job8 · Nov 27, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
I beg to disagree with your assumption that Gen. 1 is about the universe, whereas Gen. 2 is just abut Eden.

It is NOT an assumption to regard Genesis 1 as an overview and Genesis 2 as focused on Eden and mankind. A plain reading of the text makes this perfectly clear.

Even today, many authors will provide an initial overview of their subject, and then follow up with focused details. And Genesis 3 is not simply a continuation of the narrative but describes something that happened either very shortly after creation, or within a relatively small time span.

Job8 · Nov 27, 2015

Aman777 said:
Ex 20:11 "11 For in six days (Yowm-periods of labor) the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and ALL that is in them, and rested (Ceased) on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day and made it holy."(set apart, hallowed, consecrated, holy)

Why should "yowm" be converted to "period of labor" when the plain meaning is day in the context of the Ten Commandments? That is really stretching it. Both Strong's Concordance and the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (not exactly conservative)confirm that this is a simple 24-hour working day.

There is absolutely no reason to stretch out the days of creation when God restricts them with "evening and morning" which can only mean 24 hours.

Strong's Concordance
yom: day
Original Word: יוֹם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: yom
Phonetic Spelling: (yome)
Short Definition: day

Brown-Driver-Briggs
2 Day as division of time:

a. working-day Exodus 20:9,10 (E) =Deuteronomy 5:18; Exodus 16:26,30 (twice in verse) (J), Exodus 23:12 (JE), Exodus 31:15 (P),Leviticus 23:3 (H); יְמֵי הַמַּעֲשֶׂה Ezekiel 46:1.

-57 · Nov 27, 2015

Job8 said:
Why should "yowm" be converted to "period of labor" when the plain meaning is day in the context of the Ten Commandments? That is really stretching it. Both Strong's Concordance and the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (not exactly conservative)confirm that this is a simple 24-hour working day.

There is absolutely no reason to stretch out the days of creation when God restricts them with "evening and morning" which can only mean 24 hours.

Strong's Concordance
yom: day
Original Word: יוֹם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: yom
Phonetic Spelling: (yome)
Short Definition: day

Brown-Driver-Briggs
2 Day as division of time:

a. working-day Exodus 20:9,10 (E) =Deuteronomy 5:18; Exodus 16:26,30 (twice in verse) (J), Exodus 23:12 (JE), Exodus 31:15 (P),Leviticus 23:3 (H); יְמֵי הַמַּעֲשֶׂה Ezekiel 46:1.

Keep in mind, there are some out there who need to change the bible to force fit it to agree with evolutionism.

Is God a liar?

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Christian

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Christian

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads