Is God a liar?

[Aman777]

Oh, baloney. The problem is that guys such as you, well meaning as you may be, propose all sorts of wacky comments that show you have no real education in the subject matter, don't really know what you are talking about, and fall into a habit of using highly inflammatory, character-assassination-type prose, as you did above, to hide the fact you really have no case at all and so the only way you can win is to try and insult your opponents. If you want me to take you seriously, buckle down, get yourself a real education, try and make a logical, rational case for your views and not seek to buoy up your bruised ego by dumping all over the other guy's character. I realize I am kind of dumping on you. But I believe you need a real kick in the ass if you are going to contribute to theological discussions, and deal with scholars.

Can you tell us WHEN in the past EVERY living creature was a Vegetarian as Gen 1:30 states? Can you tell us WHEN in the past Humans had dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature including Viruses, Mosquitoes and Polar Bears, as Gen 1:28 states?

Failure to explain will reveal that you do NOT know that Gen 1:28-31 is Prophecy of events which will NOT take place until AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth at Armageddon...as other Scripture clearly confirms. Unless you can answer the two above questions, everyone will see that You don't know what Day it is Scripturally. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Sure, that makes sense. God is so stupid He told us two conflicting stories of the Creation according to you. Are you sure you are speaking of the perfect God, Who cannot err, since He is all knowing? I'm beginning to suspect that there must be a Fox in the Hen house. Can you tell us HOW to be saved according to Scripture?

Hog:>>In fact, they would come back and you are the one who does not understand Genesis because you have not done your homework. The finest literary analysis of the Bible is done by Germans and they have a reputation of being almost obsessively thorough, which is why up to the end of WW2, they dominated the world of science, especially analytic chemistry, and many other fields. Much research on the Bible, then, is written in German and much has not been translate. Pity us poor graduate students, who came in with no knowledge of German but had to pass a doozy of a transition exam on some work in German, so that the profs can throw at you all sorts of books, articles, etc., in German and expect that you will read them ands o have loads of footless from German titles in your footnotes. Pity the poor American student who has to sit through a lecture by one of these visiting Germans. They are arrogant and they really push the notion that their "pure Teutonic scholarship" is totally superior to what is available in America. Arrogant a they are, they have a point. The Germans dominate in the literary analysis of Scripture. Why? Because they are so thorough. Believe me biblical research coming out of Germany is really solid stuff. Unfortunately, much is never translated. These Germans are real bean counters, believe you me. I mean they analyze Scripture right down to the smallest detail. Being o thorough, they tae into consideration all sorts of factors, the stated content of the text, the style of grammar, how subordinate clauses are handled in sentences, etc., the number of times a certain word appears, the spelling, the punctuation, etc.,etc. On and on it goes. Now, based on the solid literary analysis, which has been going on for about the last 150 years, it has been concluded that Gen. 2 was written long, long before Gen. 1, as well as the fact that no single author, not Moses, wrote the Pentateuch. So, I think it fair that it is you do not understand Genesis and, in the eyes of these Prussian-drill-master-type scholars, are just another lazy American urinating in a hurricane when it comes to biblical studies.

Really, then tell us WHY the all knowing Germans have concluded that God is just an idiot or a liar since He can't even tell the story of the Creation without making errors. Seriously, since they don't know what Day it is nor HOW the story of the Creation actually reads, nor Who the Author is, WHY do you follow such unbelieving idiots that you describe?

Here is God's Word on Who is the Author.

2Ti 3:16 ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, (God breathed) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

With your great knowledge of Scripture, WHY don't you know that God, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the Author of Scripture? Have you ever actually read the Bible or have you spent your life reading man made commentaries? Scripture tells us to try the Spirits 1Jo 4:1. Here is your test.

Did the Lord lie to Adam when He told him that "in the day" he disobeyed that he would surely die? There is ONE simple answer and I don't think you know it. Fool me.

 

[Hoghead1]

Aman, if Form Geschichte makes an idiot out of anyone, it is you, with your insensitive remarks, not God. Basically, you are peddling the inerrancy theory of Scripture, a humanmade, prescientific inerrancy theory of the Bible. So, what you are working from is just a mere theory about the Bible. As such it can be challenged. In the past, the church suppressed anyone questioning it's theory of Scripture. It was long ago noted that the Bible attributes no authorship to the Pentateuch, that the author of the Pentateuch is probably not Moses. When these points were brought up, the church told scholars to shut up. In the 19th century, when scholars were much freer of the oppressive hand of the church, the concept of a detailed literary study of Scripture was born. So don't give me this those-Germans-were-all-idiots stuff. That does not at all fit the facts and is highly insensitive remark anyway. Gertting back to the Bible, scholars were freer to publish studies of Scripture that put the inerrancy theory to the test and failed. It is a basic fact of Scripture, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, that the Bible contains many contradictions, due to its incorporation of many traditions, etc. The naïve notion that God dictated Scripture word for word though purely passive scribes went out the window/ That doesn't make an idiot out of God, just of guys like you who stick the inerrancy theory. So you need to tone it down, stop making rude remarks, and do some studying.

 

[Aman777]

Aman, if Form Geschichte makes an idiot out of anyone, it is you, with your insensitive remarks, not God. Basically, you are peddling the inerrancy theory of Scripture, a humanmade, prescientific inerrancy theory of the Bible. So, what you are working from is just a mere theory about the Bible. As such it can be challenged. In the past, the church suppressed anyone questioning it's theory of Scripture. It was long ago noted that the Bible attributes no authorship to the Pentateuch, that the author of the Pentateuch is probably not Moses. When these points were brought up, the church told scholars to shut up. In the 19th century, when scholars were much freer of the oppressive hand of the church, the concept of a detailed literary study of Scripture was born. So don't give me this those-Germans-were-all-idiots stuff. That does not at all fit the facts and is highly insensitive remark anyway. Gertting back to the Bible, scholars were freer to publish studies of Scripture that put the inerrancy theory to the test and failed. It is a basic fact of Scripture, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, that the Bible contains many contradictions, due to its incorporation of many traditions, etc. The naïve notion that God dictated Scripture word for word though purely passive scribes went out the window/ That doesn't make an idiot out of God, just of guys like you who stick the inerrancy theory. So you need to tone it down, stop making rude remarks, and do some studying.

Sorry, but I'm not a compromiser who tries to peddle the idea that men authored the Bible. I notice that you didn't try to refute the Scripture I posted which shows that God, the Holy Spirit is the Author. He breathed His Truth to the men from inside them. Also, you have failed to answer a single question I have posted. Are you afraid to answer the following?

Can you tell us WHEN in the past EVERY living creature was a Vegetarian as Gen 1:30 states? Can you tell us WHEN in the past Humans had dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature including Viruses, Mosquitoes and Polar Bears, as Gen 1:28 states?

Failure to explain will reveal that you do NOT know that Gen 1:28-31 is Prophecy of events which will NOT take place until AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth at Armageddon...as other Scripture clearly confirms. Unless you can answer the two above questions, everyone will see that You don't know what Day it is Scripturally. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Can you tell us WHEN in the past EVERY living creature was a Vegetarian as Gen 1:30 states? Can you tell us WHEN in the past Humans had dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature including Viruses, Mosquitoes and Polar Bears, as Gen 1:28 states?

Failure to explain will reveal that you do NOT know that Gen 1:28-31 is Prophecy of events which will NOT take place until AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth at Armageddon...as other Scripture clearly confirms. Unless you can answer the two above questions, everyone will see that You don't know what Day it is Scripturally. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Amen, I m a serious scholar. I find your emails offensive, rude, out of step with any form of scholarship, and I want you to stop emailing me. I am registering a complaint against you with the moderators.

 

[Aman777]

Amen, I m a serious scholar. I find your emails offensive, rude, out of step with any form of scholarship, and I want you to stop emailing me. I am registering a complaint against you with the moderators.

I, too am a serious scholar who can support his views Scripturally. I have NEVER e-mailed you but know of you only on this message board. I'm really surprised since it is you who has said:

>>Oh, baloney. The problem is that guys such as you, well meaning as you may be, propose all sorts of wacky comments that show you have no real education in the subject matter, don't really know what you are talking about, and fall into a habit of using highly inflammatory, character-assassination-type prose, as you did above, to hide the fact you really have no case at all and so the only way you can win is to try and insult your opponents.<<<<

Since I didn't whine while you were making such offensive statements, WHY do you feel it necessary to falsely accuse me of something which you are guilty of? I'm sorry IF you disagree with my point of view and I will be happy to explain my position, in more detail, IF you wish. God Bless you

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, if you feel insulted, we're even. The feedback I gave you, though without any sugar to make it sweeter, is precisely what any scholar would tell you. It was intended to give you honest feedback. If you are a scholar in Bible, theology, etc., it certainly does not appear here. If you are upset by what I say, then just don't email me again. Frankly, I am hoping you don't, because I don't find you anywhere near a good intellectual sparring partner.

 

[Gottservant]

Well, if you feel insulted, we're even. The feedback I gave you, though without any sugar to make it sweeter, is precisely what any scholar would tell you. It was intended to give you honest feedback. If you are a scholar in Bible, theology, etc., it certainly does not appear here. If you are upset by what I say, then just don't email me again. Frankly, I am hoping you don't, because I don't find you anywhere near a good intellectual sparring partner.

I have a good sparing partner, I tried to argue He should duck and He drew blood before I knew what it was: then I ducked the window that wasn't the mirror, and He didn't even let me begin to guess.

Who else would know and have known the difference between the Holy Spirit and you should apologize to who being what if not also where in the context of _____? _____ _____ ?

 

[Aman777]

Well, if you feel insulted, we're even. The feedback I gave you, though without any sugar to make it sweeter, is precisely what any scholar would tell you. It was intended to give you honest feedback. If you are a scholar in Bible, theology, etc., it certainly does not appear here. If you are upset by what I say, then just don't email me again. Frankly, I am hoping you don't, because I don't find you anywhere near a good intellectual sparring partner.

Honest partners, in things involving the details of the Creation, should post supporting Scripture, and NOT the thoughts of men, to confirm their views. When one has only the theology of mankind to offer, it's a denominational view and NOT Scripture. Since there are more than 30k denominations, HOW can we believe just one? Amen?

 

[Gottservant]

The same liar to God, is a problem He has forever rejected (as an excuse at best).

 

[Hoghead1]

I can't make any sense out of your comment. You need to work on your sentence structure.

 

[BobRyan]

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

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

One more among many "little things" that evolutionists do not share when discussing this point with Creationists

Bob, the fact there have hoaxes about evolution (I'm surprised) you didn't mention that) does not mean the whole approach is wrong. Any how, if you want to discuss hoaxes, you will find plenty in Christianity. Indeed, one thing the Reformation did was to crack down on these hoaxes. Calvin, from example, note that they had enough wood from the cross of Christ to build Noah's ark. So, I consider you point a very weak attack, one that could easily backfire on you.

Then you are glossing over the details in that demonstration of equivocation.

Calvin's claim about fake relics used by the RCC throughout the dark ages - and to this very day in places like Catholic Digest - is a claim made about a religious organization that today is stlll promoting veneration of relics- AND is today promoting blind faith evolutionism. My examples of evolutionist fraud (that you are responding to in your post above) are examples showing more of the same "relics" - showing how evolutionists use fakes to support their claims.

You appear to have unwittingly argued that "Christianity" is the opposing position to evolutionism. Did you mean to agree with me on that point???

What I would like you to do is present the evidence and case for evolution

Why would I want to promote false religion??

, as this concept did not come out of thin air. Next, go through the case, showing why it is weak and why yours is better. So far, I'm just seeing a lot of name-calling in these emails.

Simplest of all examples -- "What we still don't know" by Nobel prize winning atheist cosmologist Martin Reese and Physicist Leonard Susskind
"the Felix Bloch professor of Theoretical physics at Stanford University, and director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests include string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology.[1] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences"

Look at the 18:25 min:sec point here

Here they tell you flat out - that observations in nature be darned - they did not "want" to believe what the data, what the observations in nature told them so they "imagine" something like 10^500 other entire universes to try and save their materialistic religious views of origins.

How is their "easter bunny" level story for how you get from gas, dust and rocks -- to human brain -- a "better explanation" than intelligence as the explanation?? In their "story" the rocks and gas "are the magic bunny" fully capable of producing the human mind.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bod, I am sure you are a fine person trying to do the best you can. However, I am compelled to say, based on my clinical background, that you have fallen into a state of mass hysteria here accompanied by paranoid delusions. In a way, I sympathize with you. Many people today are skeptical about the scientific establishment. And, basically, such skepticism is good. However, too many persons today, too many yuppies seem to want to reinvent themselves as 60's style hippies and shout their version of down with the establishment. Hence, matters, especially in the mass media, get carried to undue extremes. On TV and online, there are vocal groups shout out that NASA fakes all its data, that there was no moon landing, that the astronauts are all liars, etc. Another online group is the flat-earth society arguing that the only reason why we think the earth is round is that devious scientists biased their instruments to show us such an illusion. A large amount of media space is given to undue attacks on the field of archaeology. Hence, there are many TV shows promoting the idea that all of modern archaeology is a conspiracy to suppress the real truth, which, as we should all know, is that ancient astronauts built the pyramids, etc. Mention the name Jesus Christ, and many will stand up and say Brown was right, the Vatican is definitely a conspiracy to hide away in secret vaults the real truth about Christ, which is that he definitely was married, had a child, and that child is the grail. Recently, another group was on TV, proclaiming they and they alone had found the true Ark of the Covenant. The only problem is that the Israeli archaeologists are all in a conspiracy to hide the truth, by cementing up the entrance to the entrance to this find. Too bad they never presented any hard evidence. On and on it goes. Those of us who have had a solid education in these fields simply shake our heads and wonder what they will think up next. As far as I am concerned, the problem is that our schools shave failed to provide many was a suitable education in science and related areas, so that individuals such as yourself unduly fall for this media hype.

 

[BobRyan]

Bod, I am sure you are a fine person trying to do the best you can. However, I am compelled to say, based on my clinical background, that you have fallen into a state of mass hysteria here accompanied by paranoid delusions.

You could not have discredited yourself more effectively than that - had you been trying.

I presented the point of view of science in both the video and the various quotes - from atheist scientists themselves - and you choose "fluff" as the response???

Please be serious.

Your misdirection to a focus on fictions about supposedly "fake moon landings" not withstanding the points in the post remain.

 

[-57]

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?

It could mean you have misinterpreted the scientific evidence.
For instance soft dinosaur tissue recovered from fossilized dinosaurs clearly indicate the dinosaurs fossils are not as old as the "Old Earth" scientist think they are.
C14 is found in coal which also tells us the coal isn't as old as the OE scientist believe.

Did God lie and create a world with false scientific data? I think not. The fossils you mention above were a result of the world wide flood of Noah's time.

"All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth."...is a false statement.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, I simply do not have the time to read every book or visit every video or website recommended by members here. If anything, I should be off, making my own. If you feel some source made a telling point that I should be aware of, do me a favor, give your version and post it. That way, I can respond to it. As I have mentioned to other here, I have made an extensive study of apologetic material from creationists, both online and elsewhere. Regarding those online, I had extensive correspondence with many. I realize that they can appear very attractive to lay persons. However, to those of us lucky to a more advanced education in science, biblical studies, etc., they appear for what they are: just the unqualified judgments of unqualified self-styled apologists, many of whom, unfortunately, sport totally false credentials, in the first place. So I use caution and don't just jump in whenever someone suggests some creationist apologetic source. Again, if you feel some source made a point that I should consider, please post this point online here, where I can respond to it.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I simply do not have the time to read every book or visit every video or website recommended by members here.

Which is why I reduced that down to 90 seconds starting at the 18:25 min:sec point and I also included the quote of Patterson which takes even less time to read.

If you feel some source made a telling point that I should be aware of, do me a favor, give your version and post it.

Which is why I also posted this "my version" summary --

"Here they tell you flat out - that observations in nature be darned - they did not "want" to believe what the data, what the observations in nature told them so they "imagine" something like 10^500 other entire universes to try and save their materialistic religious views of origins."

So now - I have posted it twice

That way, I can respond to it. As I have mentioned to other here,

any time now...

I have made an extensive study of apologetic material from creationists, both online and elsewhere. Regarding those online, I had extensive correspondence with many.

Interesting -- but I am not quoting creationists. By contrast I gave evidence from actual diehard world renown atheist scientists making very frank observations about details that many here simply gloss over. Turns out their observations are "instructive".

I realize that they can appear very attractive to lay persons. However, to those of us lucky to a more advanced education in science, biblical studies, etc., they appear for what they are: just the unqualified judgments of unqualified self-styled apologists, many of whom, unfortunately, sport totally false credentials, in the first place.

Your condemnation of Bible believing creationist sources "noted" -- this is one of the reasons I stick with quotes of atheist scientists to make my case -- it is a group that those against Bible creation will seldom question.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, I am not quite sure what you are talking about here. Is it the matter that some scientists have posited multiple universes all existing at the same time? If so, that is not really an issue in this discussion of evolution. We are concerned about evolution in this universe, period. Whether or not there are others alongside ours is an open question. And supposing there are such universes, it would simply mean that God's creativity is on a far greater scale than the ancients and church fathers imagined. One source, I think, for the multiple-universe hypothesis is that there may be other special dimensions we cannot sense. Einstein was open to Kaluza's (sp) hypothesis that gravity leaks in and out from another special dimension. Another source seems to be string theory, which requires more wiggle or vibration space than what is provided by three dimensions. All of this, of course, is still up for grabs. There is hope Cern will shed light on this. If two particles are crashed together as hard as they can be, and there is no debris found, then obviously there is another special dimension into which the debris what shot. Form my perspective, I have no trouble assuming that there have been many universes, as I view God as continually creative. Before this one, there was a different one, etc. I'm not much into multiple-universe thinking. I am concerned with some versions that argue they exist because every potential I have at the moment must be actualized. If I chose not to kill someone right now, there is another me who does do that. This creates a major dilemma in responsibility. How does God view me? Does he hold me responsible for this killing on the fact I did so in another universe, even though I claim I didn't, etc.?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I am not quite sure what you are talking about here. Is it the matter that some scientists have posited multiple universes all existing at the same time? ?

No -- they are free to imagine whatever they wish.

Rather the point is that in that 90 second statement - they freely admit that observations in nature not withstanding they prefer to "believe" something entirely different than what science actually shows them to be the case in nature.

i.e. the salient point for our present discussion.