Is God a liar?

[SolomonVII]

God hardened Pharaoh's heart after Pharaoh had hardened his own heart time after time after time. Satan was also similarly already set against God. God does not trick those sincerely trying to follow him. I'm horrified by what you have said. You have turned Our Heavenly Father into a mere Loki or Coyote or Monkey King of the pagans.

You can be horrified all you want.


It doesn't make anything I said about God any less scriptural.

It doesn't make him any of the other things you called him either.

The terribleness of God is a very real thing. The difference between being filled with awe and being filled with horror is not a whole lot different.

Many, many who have accepted secular society in its completeness have hardened their hearts against God too.

As you yourself note, it is those people who are the ones that God has no qualms about duping. "God hardened Pharoah's heart" for those very same reasons.

 

[Open Heart]

It doesn't make anything I said about God any less scriptural.

There is nothing in Scripture that makes God a "trickster" or a "liar."

The terribleness of God is a very real thing. The difference between being filled with awe and being filled with horror is not a whole lot different.

God fills me with fear. Not horror. Horror is directed at bad things. God is not bad.

Yes, God is a God of power and might. His holiness reacts to sin--it is justly wrathful, and deals out justice. It is terrifying to know that God could strike us down in but a moment. He could obliterate the entire world. But this terror is not horror at something bad. AND when combined with the love we feel for a merciful Father, becomes the feeling of worship, that feeling of falling flat on our faces and crying, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts..."

 

[Radrook]

Weren't Adam and Eve created fully mature?
Anyone meeting them would have assumed that they had experienced a childhood.

 

[Stillicidia]

The Fear of the Lord is a fear of hurting him. People avoid doing sins and abominations, and yes he does get wrathful, but you don't do abominable things, because even you would hate to see things that are abominable to you.

There is a heavy amount of love, and a positive nature that goes into both life and creation people don't know about. He loves the trusting and fruitful, and hates the unfruitful and dangerous, and obscene things, but not really persons, anymore, since Jesus. Before jesus he would be wrathful against many persons. Now he would desire everyone be saved, if they could do so themselves, and not pollute heaven.

Today, the people who may see his wrath, (not speaking end times) are the ones who are dangerous toward his plans, and his people he loves, and he even may cause some to die.

Accepting Jesus is mandatory for everyone. He would love for his people to be fruitful and turn people to Jesus. He won't allow those who would pollute Heaven, into Heaven, however. It was written that after the rapture this occurred. That is because everyone in Heaven wanted all the christians on earth to come to them, because they couldn't bear being without them. Then comes the saying, there were those who had candles with or without oil. This got long.

 

[pat34lee]

ROFLMAO!
But if you really want me to explain it to you, you are going to have to be honest with me: what university level science courses have you completed? Math courses?

How many does it take to know 0 + 0 =/= 1; meaning you don't get
something from nothing?

 

[pat34lee]

And it's God's idea of good, not necessarily ours, and not necessarily fully known to us, anyway. When a Creationist says, "God pronounced what He created to be very good, therefore it must be thus-and-so." what follows is self-serving speculation.

Actually, we usually don't have very high standards. For God
to say it is very good, it should be nigh perfect. Everything in
the universe was perfect. There could be no sickness, disease,
death, rebellion (No, Satan fell later). No earthquakes, tidal
waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, or other catastrophic events.

 

[pat34lee]

Sure it does and the story of the Creation, in Genesis, tells us of another world, another Heaven, which was totally destroyed in the flood. The details are found from Genesis to Revelation. Do you know them? There are also the discoveries of Science and Historic accounts, and they all fit together like a glove with God's Truth....IF you go by what Genesis actually says, instead of trying to fit the traditional religious view into it. Want to see? It's one of the keys to the kingdom and ONLY the people alive in the last days of this Earth can possibly understand. Amen?

No, what you're doing is like taking a sentence or two from different
chapters of any large book, like "Tale of Two Cities", and rearranging
them to make a statement unrelated to anything in the book.

 

[pat34lee]

Weren't Adam and Eve created fully mature?
Anyone meeting them would have assumed that they had experienced a childhood.

And if Adam and Eve could have seen the whole world, they
would have seen fully mature forests, prairies, all types of
environments we have today, except no deserts yet, and no
frozen poles. Temperatures would have been pleasant all
over the planet, and it would have been like spring year round.

 

[Aman777]

No, what you're doing is like taking a sentence or two from different
chapters of any large book, like "Tale of Two Cities", and rearranging
them to make a statement unrelated to anything in the book.

Not so, but I am doing what Scripture tells us to do.

Isa 28:9 ¶ Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

The Fact that my understanding AGREES, in every way, with every discovery of Science and History, is impossible to show, unless it's God's Truth, which is the Truth in every way. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

And if Adam and Eve could have seen the whole world, they
would have seen fully mature forests, prairies, all types of
environments we have today, except no deserts yet, and no
frozen poles. Temperatures would have been pleasant all
over the planet, and it would have been like spring year round.

There is no comparison between today's Earth and Adam's flat Earth, which was only 22.5 feet at it's highest elevation. Gen 7:20 There was a difference in atmosphere since it rained for 40 days and nights when the windows on high were opened. Gen 7:17 The Ark went upon the face of the waters on the same 40th day after the rain began. As the firmament sank, it released the Ark into Lake Van, Turkey, 11k years ago, and History records the arrival of the FIRST Human farmers on this Planet of people who descended from Apes. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

What is exciting is that the bottom part of the firmament is STILL in the bottom of Lake Van awaiting Science or a TV Evangelist to find it. It's miles in width and worth it's weight in Gold for it is tangible, empirical, evidence of life from another world.

 

[pat34lee]

Not so, but I am doing what Scripture tells us to do.

Isa 28:9 ¶ Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

The Fact that my understanding AGREES, in every way, with every discovery of Science and History, is impossible to show, unless it's God's Truth, which is the Truth in every way. Amen?

History goes back about 6000 years, surprisingly.
And man's facts are not God's truth. Don't try to
reconcile the fallen man's attempt to replace God
with God's truth. They are not the same.

 

[Aman777]

History goes back about 6000 years, surprisingly.
And man's facts are not God's truth. Don't try to
reconcile the fallen man's attempt to replace God
with God's truth. They are not the same.

What I show is that the most recent discoveries of Science are confirming what God told us in Genesis more than 3k years ago. God hid His Truth in the increased knowledge of the future and our generation is the first to have online access to it. One example is that God told us He made 1 heaven on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 and other Heavens on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

The first heaven, Adam's world, was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Pet 3:6
The present second heaven of today is scheduled to be burned. ll Pet 3:10
That is when ALL Christians will be taken to the 3rd Heaven of ll Cor 12:2 and Rev 21:1. Science has just had a glimpse of another Heaven within our Multi-verse. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ight-spots-Big-Bang-universe-bumping-own.html

God's Truth is the Truth in every way, literally, scientifically and historically IF you have the proper interpretation. God Bless you

 

[Radrook]

And if Adam and Eve could have seen the whole world, they
would have seen fully mature forests, prairies, all types of
environments we have today, except no deserts yet, and no
frozen poles. Temperatures would have been pleasant all
over the planet, and it would have been like spring year round.

Well, they have found frozen Mammoths in Siberia with tropical vegetation in their mouths.

 

[RickG]

Well, they have found frozen Mammoths in Siberia with tropical vegetation in their mouths.

Tropical vegetation in their mouths? Source?

 

[Radrook]

Tropical vegetation in their mouths? Source?

All I could find was this.

However, the Siberian steppes during the last ice age were not covered in ice and snow as they are now, nor was the ground frozen. The reason is that so much of the available water was locked up in the arctic ice pack -- primarily in North America -- that the subarctic steppes were much drier than today. As a result, the Siberian soil thawed to a greater depth and supported a richer variety of plant life. This included nutritious grasses. The stomach contents of preserved mammoths indicate that they fed on such grasses, as well as mosses, sedges, herbaceous pollens and spores, and fragments of willow and bilberry. Some rare poppies and buttercups have also been found in addition to small amounts of arboreal material such as larch needles, willows, and tree bark. Such variety indicates the mammoths lived in a variety of climates in Siberia. These ranged from dry and steppe-like to slightly wet to swampy to arctic/alpine.



References

Sutcliffe, Anthony J., On the Track of the Ice Age Mammals, Harvard University Press, 1985.

Guthrie, R. Dale. Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe, 1990, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.

Pfizenmayer, E. W., Siberian Man and Mammoth, 1939. Blackie and Son, London

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

 

[RickG]

All I could find was this.

Thus, no tropical vegetation. And there was a reason they were woolly. Now granted there has been tropical growth in that area but it preceded mammoths when the continents were in a different position and warm ocean currents prevailed because there was no arctic ocean closure then.

 

[Open Heart]

Tropical vegetation in their mouths? Source?

The main proponant is a guy called Ted Holden who holds no degrees that I can find. He primarily trolls a Usenet site called talk.origins. He has a long list of bizarre ideas such as:

• Earth, Venus, and Mars were all populated in the past and we could teleport between them.
• Saturn used to hover over the North pole, decreasing the earth's gravity so that dinosaurs could stand up.
• People used to communicate telepathically before we had verbal language.
• And more.

Dr. Morris, PhD. Institute for Creation Research, backs up Ted Holden.
IOW, not from a real Scientist involved in the field.

The mammoth in question died eating grasses, which are hardly tropical. It was not frozen to death suddenly, but was mummified over a long period of time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

 

[BobRyan]

Open Heart said: ↑
Genesis 1 is myth. It's not SUPPOSED to be scientifically or historically accurate. .

God takes it literally as we see in His own summary of the Genesis 1:2-2:4 "Account" -- historic "account"

As already noted -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

Gen 2 -
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20 - legal code (not poetry - not symbolism)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

this is a bible detail that cannot be ignored when admitting that the Bible describes a real - literal "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" 7 day week for creation that maps exactly to the week of Exodus 20.

Irrefutable.

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

So much so that atheists have no problem admitting to what the text says -- even though they do not agree with its teaching.

Open Heart said: ↑
Genesis 1 is myth. It's not SUPPOSED to be scientifically or historically accurate. .

Atheists (who take the Bible as "myth" without question) often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

In this case the genre the "kind of writing that it is" -- is the kind of writing known as historic account - as even atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities - the will admit.

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.’

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

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not


Bible believing Christians are not in a conflict-of-interest on this Bible detail because they freely reject blind faith evolutionism - so no Bible bending the text of Genesis for them.

Atheists are not in a conflict of interest position on this Bible detail because they freely reject the Bible - so they too do not engage in Bible bending in Genesis as Dr Barr points out.

Atheists also take the Psalms as songs without question. Does it make it wrong simply because atheists believe it?

You missed the point entirely.

Here is the quote you are responding to .... it shows that your wild speculation that God's Word is myth that was never meant to be taken seriously is so utterly false - even the atheists know better.

This is the quote.

==============================================begin

Open Heart said: ↑
Genesis 1 is myth. It's not SUPPOSED to be scientifically or historically accurate. .

Atheists (who take the Bible as "myth" without question) often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

In this case the genre the "kind of writing that it is" -- is the kind of writing known as historic account - as even atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities - the will admit.

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.’

----

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not


Bible believing Christians are not in a conflict-of-interest on this Bible detail because they freely reject blind faith evolutionism - so no Bible bending the text of Genesis for them.

Atheists are not in a conflict of interest position on this Bible detail because they freely reject the Bible - so they too do not engage in Bible bending in Genesis as Dr Barr points out.

========================== end quote.

Had you paid attention to what you were responding to - you would notice that atheists like Barr are not quoted as examples of ignoring the Bible - but rather are quoted as an example that the Bible is so easy to read - even Atheists can do it.

===============================================next

Saying something is mistaken just because the "bad guys" believe it is a fallacy known as "guilt by association." Remember that that understanding that Genesis 1 is a creation myth is understood by most people in this world, who are not atheists.

Here again you miss the point entirely.

The argument is not "Atheists don't believe the Bible so that means that failure to believe the Bible is bad". Rather the argument is that it is very easy to see "what the Bible actually says" when it comes to Genesis.

Choosing to believe the Bible or not is one thing ... pretending not to even know what is says is inexcusable for Christians since even the atheists can figure that much out when it comes to Genesis!!

I think you have admitted a few times that you don't actually read the posts that you respond to...

I must say that it is no "secret" -- when you respond as if you have no idea what the post said.

 

[SolomonVII]

God fills me with fear. Not horror. Horror is directed at bad things. God is not bad.

There is a terribleness to this world that cannot help but fill us with horror. People die horrific deaths every day. Hell is horrific.
God, by definition, is not bad. God is that whom no greater can be conceived, and nothing greater can be conceived than an omnibenevolent God. An evil being would be a lesser god, and therefore contrary to the nature of who God must be, by definition.
But God is also, by definition, not an inhabitant of our imagination. What we conceive to be the greatest such that no greater can be conceived, must also exist in reality.
And the reality of our world is not all sugar plums and candy canes. The terribleness of God is a very real thing.
The Crucifixion defines horror.
And God willed it. This is not to argue against Good Friday not being good. It is to reveal the terribleness of God.

 

[Open Heart]

Atheists (who take the Bible as "myth" without question) often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

What you are saying is convoluted. Atheists don't actually reject that it says what it says. They admit the Bible says that Jesus was born of a virgin. And they admit that the author is teaching it really happened, that it is a historical text. They simply disagree that it actually did happen. In the case of Genesis, they also admit that the Bible says God created the world was created in six literal days. They also agree that the author does not mean this literally. They ALSO agree that the author is using this story to teach that God created the world. They still disagree with this eternal truth.

So?