Is God a liar?

[Calminian]

So you hear inanimate objects speaking to you?

If you read Genesis 1 you will notice something interesting. EVERYTHING that was created was in its mature state. Birds were created in flocks. Oceans became teeming with fish immediately. Trees bearing fruit pre-dated the sun. Adam could walk and talk immediately. There is NOT ONE SINGLE ITEM in creation that needed even a few thousand years to be in its ready state. You say that scientists "hear the voice of the earth." Rubbish! Science is the study of the physical world around us. It takes what is know and extrapolates into the unknown and sometimes unknowable. We see things in their mature state and assume age; like a tall oak tree that we presume must be 100 years old. Science can't account for the fact that God could simply will a forest full of them and they would exist.

God TOLD US how old the world is, how He created it, WHY He created it, why He will destroy it, and why we have an eternal destiny. You're listening to the wrong voices.

This is a great argument. Makes me think of the wine miracle at Cana. If God made the world complex and fully functional, you'd expect science to have difficulty discerning its age, just based on the rules of methodological naturalism.

 

[Colter]

You clearly haven't done your homework on this. Better skeptics are coming up with better objections, like immigration arguments from the mideast. I highly recommend Martin's book for all skeptics that want to sharpen their game on this.



Do you have children? Did you know in advance they would make mistakes? Do you feel your children are a mistake?



And now you're resorting to assertions because you've run out of arguments. The problem is, I can answer a assertion with another assertion—The flood story is not a fabrication—Chinese history is not more accurate than biblical history, etc.

Now if you have some arguments, let's hear them.

We shouldn't have to argue about it, we were to stop reasoning like children long ago. The flood story is absurd on many levels. The earth is billions of years old, the dinosaurs died out 50-60 million years ago, they weren't on Noah's boat.

The Bible wasn't written by historians or philosophers, it was written by the same church government that put Jesus through a trumped up trial, lied about him then killed him.

 

[Willtor]

We shouldn't have to argue about it, we were to stop reasoning like children long ago. The flood story is absurd on many levels. The earth is billions of years old, the dinosaurs died out 50-60 million years ago, they weren't on Noah's boat.

This. The flood is an adaptation of an existing mythology that was not intended to do what creationists are doing, today. It was, instead, designed to be a memorable story that communicated important theological truths to its hearers. Trying to get T-Rex and all the rest onto the Ark does the author a disservice.

The Bible wasn't written by historians or philosophers, it was written by the same church government that put Jesus through a trumped up trial, lied about him then killed him.

There was no church government when Jesus went to trial. Judaism had also undergone radical changes between writing much of the OT and the time of Jesus.

 

[Calminian]

We shouldn't have to argue about it, we were to stop reasoning like children long ago. The flood story is absurd on many levels. The earth is billions of years old, the dinosaurs died out 50-60 million years ago, they weren't on Noah's boat.

The Bible wasn't written by historians or philosophers, it was written by the same church government that put Jesus through a trumped up trial, lied about him then killed him.

We shouldn't have to argue about it, we were to stop reasoning like children long ago. The flood legend is very reputable, as we see similar legends all over the world (including this flood tablet, said to be 4000 years old). The earth is not billions of years old according to most dating methods. We're now learning that many dinosaur fossils contain unfossilized soft tissue, showing the absurdity of millions of years. They were on Noah's ark.

The Dead Sea scrolls prove the antiquity preservation of the old testament, and the new carries more manuscript evidence that all other ancient documents of the world. The death and resurrection of Jesus is well documented and no other alternative explanation passes tests of credibility.

 

[Colter]

The temple was run by the same kind of elite priest class that mistreated and murdered the prophets before Jesus. That's what I mean by Church Government of corrupt men.

 

[Colter]

The Dead Sea Scrolls date to roughly the same period as the OT books. The real history books mentioned by the OT are nowhere to be found.

 

[Calminian]

The Dead Sea Scrolls date to roughly the same period as the OT books. The real history books mentioned by the OT are nowhere to be found.

Which is true of all ancient documents. Do you reject all manuscripts of all ancient documents? This is getting interesting. But the dead sea scrolls match what we have today, showing the accuracy of the hebrew scribes.

Not only this, archeology heavily depends on the old testament, and how proven the old testament to be accurate over and over again, from the discovery of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the city of Jericho, to even ancient clay tablets of the flood account.

 

[Calminian]

Colter, what I'm seeing in you, is faith. You're not looking to evidence, you're looking for any evidence that will prove what you desire to believe. This is a sign of religiosity not skepticism.

 

[Calminian]

The temple was run by the same kind of elite priest class that mistreated and murdered the prophets before Jesus. That's what I mean by Church Government of corrupt men.

The church is not a government. And yes, the Bible does tell of the wicked acts of men. The real question is, how would you possible have an opinion about evil? What is your authority? Yourself? If so what makes your opinion better than another's, based on your evolutionary world view? Isn't murder just natural selection?

 

[brinny]

Is God a liar?

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?

Was God's Word mistaken and/or lie when it states repeatedly that God is not a liar, that He CANNOT lie? Did Jesus lie when He called Satan the "father of lies"?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Open Heart]

So you hear inanimate objects speaking to you?

Not in words, but yes.

Psalm 19
1 The heavens are telling the glory of God
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech
and night to night reveals knowledge.

 

[Open Heart]

Is God a liar?



Was God's Word mistaken and/or lie when it states repeatedly that God is not a liar, that He CANNOT lie? Did Jesus lie when He called Satan the "father of lies"?

Thank you kindly.

Or perhaps you are simply not reading Genesis 1 in its correct genre. It's like saying God is a liar because trees don't literally clap their hands as the psalms say.

 

[brinny]

brinny said:
Is God a liar?



Was God's Word mistaken and/or lie when it states repeatedly that God is not a liar, that He CANNOT lie? Did Jesus lie when He called Satan the "father of lies"?

Thank you kindly.

Or perhaps you are simply not reading Genesis 1 in its correct genre.

Not following you. Please elaborate.

Thank you kindly.

 

[brinny]

Open Heart, Re: your post in #113 (which you apparently edited?) I am still not following you. Not sure how Genesis 1 relates to your post that i was originally responding to?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Colter]

Which is true of all ancient documents. Do you reject all manuscripts of all ancient documents? This is getting interesting. But the dead sea scrolls match what we have today, showing the accuracy of the hebrew scribes.

Not only this, archeology heavily depends on the old testament, and how proven the old testament to be accurate over and over again, from the discovery of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the city of Jericho, to even ancient clay tablets of the flood account.

The existence of ruins of old cities doesn't validate the exaggerated historicity of biblical text. Sodom and Gomorra was likely destroyed by a meteorite debri field naturally.

 

[Colter]

The church is not a government. And yes, the Bible does tell of the wicked acts of men. The real question is, how would you possible have an opinion about evil? What is your authority? Yourself? If so what makes your opinion better than another's, based on your evolutionary world view? Isn't murder just natural selection?

Cosmic evolution is the technique used for creation of the earth. Life on earth was started 550,000,000 years ago.

My perception of evil comes from a moral conscience.

 

[Colter]

Colter, what I'm seeing in you, is faith. You're not looking to evidence, you're looking for any evidence that will prove what you desire to believe. This is a sign of religiosity not skepticism.

Evidence? It's just common sense, the story of the flood is obveously human.

 

[Calminian]

Evidence? It's just common sense, the story of the flood is obveously human.

That's how all deeply religious people reason. "I don't have any evidence! I just know it's true!"

 

[Open Heart]

Not following you. Please elaborate.

Thank you kindly.

God of course is no liar. However, sometimes we don't read His word the way it needs to be read. If we read a psalm literally instead of figuratively (the way a song is supposed to be read) we might think a tree is literally supposed to clap. In the same way, many don't read Genesis in its myth genre, and then mistakenly think its statements are literal scientific and historically binding statements. As a myth we are to read it as a teaching story and get the point: God created.

 

[Colter]

That's how all deeply religious people reason. "I don't have any evidence! I just know it's true!"

I don't understand your criticism. Do you have any evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese, or maybe half cheese on the dark side? Do we need evidence to refute ridiculous claims?