Is God a liar?

[BobRyan]

As someone else has posted - science did not tell us about the incarnation of Christ - yet it is historic fact. Science did not tell us about the bodily resurrection of Christ - yet it is historic fact. Science did not tell us about the bodily ascension of Christ into heaven - yet it is historic, physical fact. An event that did happen in nature.

Science did not tell us that God made the world in a real 7 day creation week - the Bible tells us that.

Sometimes science will dig something up and try to determine if the thing they found was 'man made' or perhaps just a quirk event in nature creating the artifact. But having no video they must guess.

 

[Yarddog]

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?

I believe that Genesis is exactly what God intended for it to mean, revelation and prophesy.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Some "imaginative" interpretations of the data would indeed "suggest" that.

But God knows what actually happened - as we all know - so His Word is the more reliable source we have. Much better than the sweet imagination of atheists like Darwin who freely admit that their imaginative stored are not at all in harmony with the account God gives for "origins".

When one's own sweet "imagination" is taken as "Gospel Truth" on the doctrine of origins then when that imagination is contrasted with scripture the question they sometimes ask is "is God a liar"???

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

Is it CF board rule violation to call the Word of God into question -- to present the "is God lying" argument?

Or is it CF board rule violation to question the "is God lying and if so why" argument itself.?

Or is this the part where we merely discuss the two choices?

 

[Speedwell]

When one's own sweet "imagination" is taken as "Gospel Truth" on the doctrine of origins then when that imagination is contrasted with scripture the question they sometimes ask is "is God a liar"???

That argument is always raised by creationists, in the form of an accusation: "You're calling God a liar!"

 

[BobRyan]

That argument is always raised by creationists, in the form of an accusation: "You're calling God a liar!"

The "is God a Liar" initiative is not mine - someone else started this thread... not me.

I can't "always" be blamed for what someone else posts - not even when I quote them posting it.

 

[Speedwell]

The "is God a Liar" initiative is not mine - someone else started this thread... not me.

I can't "always" be blamed for what someone else posts - not even when I quote them posting it.

Did I say you personally? Nonetheless, the OP is a reflection of that creationist argument. Only creationists believe that the Bible (in particular, the Genesis stories) would be a "lie" if it is not 100% accurate literal history. To non-YEC Christians, the stories are true in a more important sense regardless and to atheists they are just ancient stories, not "lies."

 

[BobRyan]

Did I say you personally? Nonetheless, the OP is a reflection of that creationist argument. Only creationists believe that the Bible (in particular, the Genesis stories) would be a "lie" if it is not 100% accurate literal history.

Just not true in real life.

Darwin admitted it.
Dawkins admits it.
Provine admitted it.
P.Z. Meyers admits it.

They all agree (and none of them Creationists) that blind faith evolutionism is true and that the Bible is a lie when it comes to the doctrine on origins.. when it comes to the "truth" about what really happened.

There is a tiny group outside that think that you can marry the Bible to blind faith evolutionism. They are free to imagine it - but it does not work. No text on evolutionism starts with "for in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" as IF that is how you say "evolutionism".

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."

 

[Speedwell]

The Barr quote again? You ought to get some new material. Day-age creationism is the bunk, anyway.

 

[CrystalDragon]

As someone else has posted - science did not tell us about the incarnation of Christ - yet it is historic fact. Science did not tell us about the bodily resurrection of Christ - yet it is historic fact. Science did not tell us about the bodily ascension of Christ into heaven - yet it is historic, physical fact. An event that did happen in nature.

Science did not tell us that God made the world in a real 7 day creation week - the Bible tells us that.

Sometimes science will dig something up and try to determine if the thing they found was 'man made' or perhaps just a quirk event in nature creating the artifact. But having no video they must guess.

Are there any other writings outside of the Bible that show it as historic fact?

Not only was the Bible translated and retranslated over decades, and doctrine took 300 years to come to fruition, but there were many books that were considered for the Bible that weren't put in it, including over 60 Gospels of which only 4 were included because, according to the Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD, there are "four corners of the earth", "four winds", and there are four covenants, so there should be four gospels. That's it. So how can we be sure there weren't other "true Gospels" not included, and how can we know of those were really seen as the most true Gospels or just ones the early church liked best? What if those four Gospels are actually false and the ones closer to events were discarded?

Considering Jesus seemed to be so influential, there should be other writings by those who had heard of Jesus, right?

 

[Speedwell]

Are there any other writings outside of the Bible that show it as historic fact?

Not only was the Bible translated and retranslated over decades, and doctrine took 300 years to come to fruition, but there were many books that were considered for the Bible that weren't put in it, including over 60 Gospels of which only 4 were included because, according to the Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD, there are "four corners of the earth", "four winds", and there are four covenants, so there should be four gospels. That's it. So how can we be sure there weren't other "true Gospels" not included, and how can we know of those were really seen as the most true Gospels or just ones the early church liked best? What if those four Gospels are actually false and the ones closer to events were discarded?

Considering Jesus seemed to be so influential, there should be other writings by those who had heard of Jesus, right?

Are there any other writings outside of the Bible that show it as historic fact?

Not only was the Bible translated and retranslated over decades, and doctrine took 300 years to come to fruition, but there were many books that were considered for the Bible that weren't put in it, including over 60 Gospels of which only 4 were included because, according to the Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD, there are "four corners of the earth", "four winds", and there are four covenants, so there should be four gospels. That's it. So how can we be sure there weren't other "true Gospels" not included, and how can we know of those were really seen as the most true Gospels or just ones the early church liked best? What if those four Gospels are actually false and the ones closer to events were discarded?

Considering Jesus seemed to be so influential, there should be other writings by those who had heard of Jesus, right?

Not to mention extra-biblical texts which had nothing to do with Jesus but give us clues about contemporary literary practices, tropes, genres, etc. as a guide to interpretation.

But no, if such texts existed Creationists would not be allowed to consult them. They even reject Patristic works as being of no value.

 

[Meowzltov]

Some "imaginative" interpretations of the data would indeed "suggest" that.

Didn't you already reply to this post?

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

Adam and Eve are not described as fertile eggs in scripture.
And the Garden where they eat fruit from trees is not Eve eating from a sprouted seed.
So scripture does not describe a physically young earth of "zero" age.
People say the earth is "young", scripture does not.

 

[pat34lee]

Adam and Eve are not described as fertile eggs in scripture.
And the Garden where they eat fruit from trees is not Eve eating from a sprouted seed.
So scripture does not describe a physically young earth of "zero" age.
People say the earth is "young", scripture does not.

Exactly. The earth was created complete, with all ecosystems intact and running.

 

[SkyWriting]

Exactly. The earth was created complete, with all ecosystems intact and running.

That may have been the case. Jesus turned water into wine in an instant.
Perhaps the world was that way as well, but God choose to tell us it took days.
I dunno for sure.
Every important aspect of Christianity is reported on by
multiple writers spread over time. A young earth is not one of those things.
Scripture is clear on that.

6 He stood and surveyed the earth; He looked and startled the nations.Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered, The ancient hills collapsed. His ways are everlasting.

The Blessings of the Twelve Tribes
…14 And with the choice yield of the sun, And with the choice produce of the months. 15"And with the best things of the ancient mountains, And with the choice things of the everlasting hills,


olam: long duration, antiquity, futurity
Original Word: עוֹלָם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: olam
Phonetic Spelling: (o-lawm')
Short Definition: forever
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
long duration, antiquity, futurity
NASB Translation

According to scripture, the earth is (Transliteration: olam):

ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1).

 

[Meowzltov]

Adam and Eve are not described as fertile eggs in scripture.
And the Garden where they eat fruit from trees is not Eve eating from a sprouted seed.
So scripture does not describe a physically young earth of "zero" age.
People say the earth is "young", scripture does not.

sky, a creation myth teaches truths, but is not historical. you have to read genesis for the genre that it is.

 

[SkyWriting]

sky, a creation myth teaches truths, but is not historical. you have to read genesis for the genre that it is.

I guess you are confused about what a myth is then.
A myth is defined as a historical account.

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe that Genesis is exactly what God intended for it to mean, revelation and prophesy.

How is Genesis prophetic?

 

[SkyWriting]

Are there any other writings outside of the Bible that show it as historic fact?...Considering Jesus seemed to be so influential, there should be other writings by those who had heard of Jesus, right?

These sources covered various topics:

Thallus (52AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Celsus (175AD)
Josephus (37-101AD)
Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)

 

[SkyWriting]

Not only was the Bible translated and retranslated over decades, and doctrine took 300 years to come to fruition, but there were many books that were considered for the Bible that weren't put in it, including over 60 Gospels of which only 4 were included because, according to the Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD, there are "four corners of the earth", "four winds", and there are four covenants, so there should be four gospels. That's it. So how can we be sure there weren't other "true Gospels" not included, and how can we know of those were really seen as the most true Gospels or just ones the early church liked best? What if those four Gospels are actually false and the ones closer to events were discarded?

You are welcome to examine other texts and decide if they fit in.
Usually, the tone of the writing is completely off putting, for me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Exactly. The earth was created complete, with all ecosystems intact and running.

According to scripture, the earth took 3 days,
the sun on day 4, and life on day 5.