Is God a liar?

[Calminian]

You will need to be less cryptic if you have a point. Did you have a chance to review the flood myth debunking link? While it should be common sense to any adult, the talk origins people went through and demonstrated the many problems with the Hebrews genealogy story. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I'm not following. What part did you thinks was cryptic?

Did you get a chance to look through Martin's book? And all the articles at answersingenesis.org, creation.com and icr.org, that refute the compromise you see on talkorgins? I could link them all for you if you like but they're easy to find.

But now you're changing the subject. We were talking about religious thinking vs. evidential thinking. Seems you're more of a religious thinker. You don't really know the arguments yourself, you merely post links to others you have faith in. What I'd like to hear from you is some good evidential reasoning, from your own mind. What do you think is the best explanation for the corroborating flood legends we see? I mean we can play my expert is better than yours all day.

 

[Colter]

I'm not following. What part did you thinks was cryptic?

Did you get a chance to look through Martin's book? And all the articles at answersingenesis.org, creation.com and icr.org, that refute the compromise you see on talkorgins? I could link them all for you if you like but they're easy to find.

But now you're changing the subject. We were talking about religious thinking vs. evidential thinking. Seems you're more of a religious thinker. You don't really know the arguments yourself, you merely post links to others you have faith in. What I'd like to hear from you is some good evidential reasoning, from your own mind. What do you think is the best explanation for the corroborating flood legends we see? I mean we can play my expert is better than yours all day.

Ok, I see. But you never mentioned those links.

If the Noah flood story was true there wouldn't be any flood legends from any other culture.....because they would have all been dead, no legends to pass down. As for the flood legends that ancient cultures do retain, NONE of the cultures on the earth remember being related to an 800 year old Hebrew guy. The Hebrew redactors were writing their exaggerated stories about themselves. The rest of the people on the earth had their own.

Its a difficult reality for Bible worshipers to realize, but outside the Bible bubble there is a whole other world.

 

[Calminian]

Or a crochet needle jammed through your brain.

Ok, I see. But you never mentioned those links.

If the Noah flood story was true there wouldn't be any flood legends from any other culture.....because they would have all been dead, no legends to pass down.

LOL. That's the argument made on talk origins?

Okay, so let me help you with this. If all peoples are from Noah's sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, as the Bible says (Gen. 9:19), and migrated all over the world and established all the nations of the earth, then we would expect them to have memories of a man on a ship with his family and animals. And we indeed see similar stories. Again, I recommend Martin's book if you really want to learn about this stuff.

As for the flood legends that their ancient cultures do retain, NONE of the cultures on the earth remember being related to an 800 year old Hebrew guy. ....

Wow talk origins has really slipped over the years. Okay, so Noah, actually was not a "hebrew guy." The origins of the term probably comes from one of Abraham's ancestors named Eber, who was a descendant of Shem. This is what first century historian Josephus believed. The term then came to be understood as the descendants of Abraham through his grandson Jacob. So, we would definitely not expect floods legends to contain any information about the hebrews, per se. The peoples of the earth split up at the time of the tower of Babel, prior to Abraham's birth, and began their migration.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other arguments.

 

[random person]

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?

The story of creation wasn't intended to provide genuine scientific data, it was written evidently with bronze age cosmology.

Propogating scientific truths is not the purpose of the creation account, but what spiritual truths one extracts from it is.

 

[Smidlee]

nm

 

[Colter]

LOL. That's the argument made on talk origins?

Okay, so let me help you with this. If all peoples are from Noah's sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, as the Bible says (Gen. 9:19), and migrated all over the world and established all the nations of the earth, then we would expect them to have memories of a man on a ship with his family and animals. And we indeed see similar stories. Again, I recommend Martin's book if you really want to learn about this stuff.



Wow talk origins has really slipped over the years. Okay, so Noah, actually was not a "hebrew guy." The origins of the term probably comes from one of Abraham's ancestors named Eber, who was a descendant of Shem. This is what first century historian Josephus believed. The term then came to be understood as the descendants of Abraham through his grandson Jacob. So, we would definitely not expect floods legends to contain any information about the hebrews, per se. The peoples of the earth split up at the time of the tower of Babel, prior to Abraham's birth, and began their migration.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other arguments.

No, that's just more nonsense. The point is when the Hebrews were preparing their new revised story of miraculous origins in Babylon they (the Hebrew priest) were trying to trace their own bloodlines back to Adam. Segregated through the self proclaimed chosen people arrogance, bloodlines were important.

People of the evolved earth were already racially diverse and all over the earth before the old Babel story.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, that's just more nonsense. The point is when the Hebrews were preparing their new revised story of miraculous origins in Babylon they (the Hebrew priest) were trying to trace their own bloodlines back to Adam. Segregated through the self proclaimed chosen people arrogance, bloodlines were important.
People of the evolved earth were already racially diverse and all over the earth before the old Babel story.

Or the story is accurate as written.
Shall we test the process and see if it happens again the same way?

 

[Colter]

Or the story is accurate as written.
Shall we test the process and see if it happens again the same way?

Ok, lets watch the Jews and see if they start having Chinese children again like Noah's kids. That would be a hoot!

 

[SkyWriting]

Ok, lets watch the Jews and see if they start having Chinese children again like Noah's kids. That would be a hoot!

Facial features are simply a variation in gene expression.
Here is one such result found in any part of the world

 

[Colter]

Facial features are simply a variation in gene expression.
Here is one such result found in any part of the world

Races have been on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years. NO race on earth traces their bloodlines to Noah. The Hebrew redactions of their secular history created a distorted and inaccurate view of history.

 

[lesliedellow]

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?

Do you think God should have fast forwarded the biblical writers by several thousand years, so that they could mention modern biology and General Relativity when talking about their essentially theological concerns? Even if Genesis was written today, and modern science did get a mention in talking about theological ideas, in another two or three thousand years our understanding of origins will have changed again. Would people living then be justified in calling God a liar because their scientific ideas were different to our scientific ideas?

Genesis is not about science, and the fact that science was not so much as even thought of when the biblical writers wrote, does not invalidate what they have to say about God being the creator and sustainer of all things. And neither does the fact that Genesis 3 does not record a historical event invalidate the doctrine of the Fall. What "really" happened is perhaps beyond our understanding, and just as Genesis 1-2 is not meant to teach us science, but theology, so Genesis 3 is not meant to teach us history, but theology, and essentially the fallen nature of man.

 

[Open Heart]

Do you think God should have fast forwarded the biblical writers by several thousand years, so that they could mention modern biology and General Relativity when talking about their essentially theological concerns?

I think Genesis 1 is just fine the way it is. You simply have to read it in the genre in which it is written, and not try to make it into a science book or history text.

 

[Colter]

I think Genesis 1 was sincerely written in ignorance about the ancient transactions that the older authors alluded to, further complicated by redactions, edits and history revisionism like ISIS is destroying history today in Iraq. That was very common for the victors to deface the history of the vanquished while elevating their own, declaring God had given them victory over so and so.

 

[Aman777]

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?

The problem is with ancient man's theology, which many people still follow, but God tells us that they could NOT understand. How did God hide His Truth for thousands of years? He told us things in Genesis which are just now being discovered by Science. As time passes, more and more of God's Scientific Truth will be discovered, thus confirming what He told us in Genesis.

A good example is the fact that God told us in Gen 1:6-8 that He made the first firmament which He called Heaven on the Second Day.

Then, in Gen 2:4, God tells us that He made other HeavenS on the THIRD Day, the SAME Day that Adam's Earth was made according to Gen 1:9-10.

That means that we live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Heavens. The European Space Agency is starting to launch LISA Pathfinder this year which will be able to detect the gravitation waves of other Universes within our Multiverse, thus confirming what God told us in Genesis.

The first Heaven was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:5

The present 2nd Heaven will be burned. ll Peter 3:10

The Third Heaven of ll Cor 12:2 is the object of God's Creation and it will be perfect Forever. God does NOT lie because He knows the secret of Eternal Life and that is to be perfect even as He is perfect. The only way to be perfect is to be in God, or in Christ Spiritually, since ONLY God is good according to Jesus. Mar 10:18 Everything else is evil. Amen?

 

[Open Heart]

He told us things in Genesis which are just now being discovered by Science.

Genesis is not a science book.

 

[Aman777]

Genesis is not a science book.

No, but Genesis IS true to Science and History IF you have the proper interpretation. Science is inexact and changeable, but Genesis is God's Holy Word and it changes NOT. Genesis got it right the first time. Amen?

 

[Open Heart]

No, but Genesis IS true to Science and History IF you have the proper interpretation. Science is inexact and changeable, but Genesis is God's Holy Word and it changes NOT. Genesis got it right the first time. Amen?

It's not. Genesis 1 is a Creation Myth, meant to teach us that God created the world. We must read it in its correct genre, and get the truth that it is teaching. It is not scientifically accurate, nor is it meant to be.

 

[Aman777]

It's not. Genesis 1 is a Creation Myth, meant to teach us that God created the world. We must read it in its correct genre, and get the truth that it is teaching. It is not scientifically accurate, nor is it meant to be.

Then please explain HOW ancient men (who you suppose wrote the Bible) knew:

That we live in a Multiverse composed of 3 Universes/Heavens. Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4
That the Big Bang of our Cosmos was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4
That the first Stars of our Cosmos didn't light up until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

Since the dating of how long it was between the BB and the first Stars was just confirmed in Feb 2015, tell us HOW ancient men knew these things. I don't think you can. Fool me.

 

[classicalhero]

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?

You are making the assumption that the dating methods are accurate, but the rely on too many assumptions based on how much radioactive material they had in them in the first place. Plus the fossil record doesn't show any change, in fact many evolutionists realise that is does and that they use the evolutionary stasis, meaning changing unchanging. But all of this evidence is about interpretation. It is about false interpretation of the data, since none of the rocks have been observed for all that time, plus there are plenty of anomalies in the dating, since many coal deposits have readable amount of C14, which is impossible if they were 100's of millions years old. Plus the current mutation rate doesn't help us to get from microbes to humans, there just isn't enough time, even based on evolutionary scales and if we are as old as we are, then based on today's mutation rate, we should have died over 100 times now. The evidence points to a Creator, just that man is wilful in their ignorance of him.

 

[gluadys]

Then please explain HOW ancient men (who you suppose wrote the Bible) knew:

That we live in a Multiverse composed of 3 Universes/Heavens. Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4
That the Big Bang of our Cosmos was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4
That the first Stars of our Cosmos didn't light up until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

Since the dating of how long it was between the BB and the first Stars was just confirmed in Feb 2015, tell us HOW ancient men knew these things. I don't think you can. Fool me.

They didn't know these things. You are taking your knowledge and adding it to the text. This is known as "eisegesis" (=reading into the text what you want to see there) as opposed to the proper way of interpreting scripture which is "exegesis" (reading from the text what the author intended).