Is God a liar?

[Speedwell]

Moses was intelligent and educated.

Nobody ever said otherwise. But he was not educated in modern science and, more importantly, he was not educated in the modern historiography creationists try to force on the Bible.

Also, with God, there is no reason for billions of years. The only thing that demands this is the anti-God concept of evolution.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. The "biblical" age had been thoroughly discredited before Darwin--by scientists who were, for the most part, clergymen themselves. And, of course, the theory of evolution is not "godless." It merely interferes with the theology of a few upstart 19th century Protestant novelty sects.

 

[Papias]

We have no standards to calibrate the measurement. We have nothing that is certifiable to be 1million years old to hold the instrumentation to as a standard.

We've got something better, in fact. If we had just one calibration sample, then we would be relying on it not being off.

Instead, the age of rocks is well established by the fact that there are literally dozens of different methods, based on often completely different physical properties, that are all used to date rocks. When multiple methods are used on the same sample, they practically always give the same age.

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"

If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests. This holds true for dating methods that work for historical samples too. For instance, say a book is known by written records to have been written in 888 CE. It carbon dates to 888 CE, etc.

It's obviously measuring the actual age of the sample. Don't be fooled.

Trust in the word of God..........not the arrogance of man.

We are. Remember that God's revelation shows us how to interpret God's revelation. God has revealed His truth in both scripture and in His creation. Both scripture and creation show how to interpret scripture, instead of insisting on the arrogance of man's literal reading.

In Christ -
Papias

 

[JacksBratt]

I never said we did. I only pointed out Jesus speaks in parables and that it's obvious that everything in the Bibles is not intended to be interpreted literally.




You are asserting that any interpretation other than your literal one is "dismissing the words of the bible". It's not. Our non-literal interpretation is not "dismissing" God's word any more than your literal interpretation is.

Plus, you yourself know that a literal interpretation is often wrong - even in Genesis. You recognize, I hope, that the serpent is a symbol for Satan, that Satan never literally bit Jesus' foot (Gen 3:15), and that the world isn't flat (dozens of verses, including Genesis 1).

I hope you realize that there are many, many other places as well that are clearly not intended to be interpreted by your literal interpretation.

For instance, there are tons of verses that are clearly non-literal, such as exodus 19:4, which says that God flew the Jews out of Egypt using eagle wings. But God, of course, didn't fly the Jews out on literal eagle wings - they walked.

There are also plenty of verses that are false if interpreted literally:

In 1 Cr 22:14, the amount of gold on hand to build the temple is 4,000 tons ( 100,000 talents). That's more gold than existed in the whole world at that time. Even today, after 100 years of modern industrial gold mining, only the united states government has more gold than that.

Similarly, 1cr 21:5 lists King David's army as 1.5 million men. With women, children, and elderly, that gives a population of at least 6 million, and any country can only have a small fraction of men in the army (since general workers are needed), so the Israel/Judah population must have been over 20 million. But that's absurd - the whole world population then was only 50 to 100 million, with nearly all of them in India, China, and Africa. Another way to see how absurd an army of 1.5 million is, is to notice that this is more than today's whole United States military has only 1.2 million men- with a US population of 300 million people.

As mentioned earlier, in the Bibles, diseases are caused by demons (or by the divine decree of God himself) - today we know that it's not demons, but microbes. The Bibles never, ever, describe even one disease as being caused by germs.

Dt 32 describes eagles as carrying their young on their backs - but eagles don't do this.

The flood as literal history is impossible in too many ways to list, in addition to the fact that the flood, if real, would leave clear evidence, which doesn't exist - geologists are practically unanimous on this - including geologists who are Christians.

That's just a start - Going through all of them would take ages, and the Bibles are full of sections that, if read as literal truth, contradict science. I don't see these as "God lying to us", but rather as "God speaking in ways people will understand.".

How arrogant of mankind to insist on a literal interpretation, when the bibles are clearly much more than that.

in Christ-

Papias

Well, we've probably bantered back and forth on this before, Papias. So, I will say this:

You are right, there are numerous places where it is obvious that the bible is not to be taken as literal.
There are places that are metaphors and parables.

However, the Genesis account is plain and simple text with absolutely no reason, indication or context for which to take it any other way.

It is reinforced as 6 literal days throughout the Old and New Testaments.

The only reason man takes it as such is so that it will align with the babbling of atheistic scientific concepts.

If it were not for these anti-God atheists spouting on about billions of years, if it were not for their deathgrip on evolution and it's life support system of 48 billion years of time, if it were not for this worldly demand for something other than the one true God..............we would all believe it was 6000 years old.

 

[JacksBratt]

Nobody ever said otherwise. But he was not educated in modern science and, more importantly, he was not educated in the modern historiography creationists try to force on the Bible.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. The "biblical" age had been thoroughly discredited before Darwin--by scientists who were, for the most part, clergymen themselves. And, of course, the theory of evolution is not "godless." It merely interferes with the theology of a few upstart 19th century Protestant novelty sects.

So, I need to be educated in modern science to understand that an all powerful, all knowing, ever present God and creator could do what He said He did?
Do you think God was not capable of doing so?
If you could do an autopsy on Adam, would you find baby teeth, no knee caps, a skull that had not yet fully enclosed the fontanelles?
Do you think God struggled with how He was going to get the light from all the stars, hundreds and thousands of light years away, to appear on earth?
Do you think man is so much more intelligent now that they can argue with the words of God?

No, actually, you need an education, given by atheistic masses, to convince you that your God, who is perfectly capable of doing it just as He said He did.....didn't.

 

[JacksBratt]

Creationist interpretation goes way beyond basic concepts. It forces conclusions which have no connection to basic concepts. For example, when creationists insist that the Fountains of the Deep erupted with such force during the Flood as to blast chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt--because "it says so in the Bible."

Can you show me the places where it says such a thing?

 

[JacksBratt]

One big thing we must know is that hebrew word YOM - means cycle, not specifically day, so it could be cycles of millenia, when you adjust for that Genesis is mostly in the right order, the only issue is the sun, but if we explain it as being seen as a vision when genesis was written, if you watching the earth being created, the sun wouldn't appear like the sun until god had created the atmoshpere.

Sorry, but, bend it any way Beckham can, but God specifically stated "there was evening, there was morning, the first day". "there was evening, there was morning, the second day"."there was evening, there was morning, the third day"."there was evening, there was morning, the fourth day"."there was evening, there was morning, the fifth day"."there was evening, there was morning, the sixth day". On the seventh day He rested....

Do you think that just maybe God knew that people would argue over this... so.......He was specific about the days and then referred back to it and based biblical concepts on it all the way throughout the Bible?

 

[JacksBratt]

We've got something better, in fact. If we had just one calibration sample, then we would be relying on it not being off.

Instead, the age of rocks is well established by the fact that there are literally dozens of different methods, based on often completely different physical properties, that are all used to date rocks. When multiple methods are used on the same sample, they practically always give the same age.

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"

If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests. This holds true for dating methods that work for historical samples too. For instance, say a book is known by written records to have been written in 888 CE. It carbon dates to 888 CE, etc.

It's obviously measuring the actual age of the sample. Don't be fooled.



We are. Remember that God's revelation shows us how to interpret God's revelation. God has revealed His truth in both scripture and in His creation. Both scripture and creation show how to interpret scripture, instead of insisting on the arrogance of man's literal reading.

In Christ -
Papias

All it takes in your so called basis for dating of rocks if for one little variable that is unknown to man, to through a wrench in the scheme... it would affect all methods equally.

In analysis, one error that is the same in all methods creates invalid numbers in all methods.

We have absolutely no standard that can be held as solid with which to calibrate any of the dating methods.

All are speculation based on physics that have been shown to be in error in the past and will be shown to be in error in the future.

 

[JacksBratt]

Nobody ever said otherwise. But he was not educated in modern science and, more importantly, he was not educated in the modern historiography creationists try to force on the Bible.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. The "biblical" age had been thoroughly discredited before Darwin--by scientists who were, for the most part, clergymen themselves. And, of course, the theory of evolution is not "godless." It merely interferes with the theology of a few upstart 19th century Protestant novelty sects.

The theory of evolution survives on this one pillar............... extreme age the earth.... With anything shorter..........it dies.

 

[Robert Richborough]

All it takes in your so called basis for dating of rocks if for one little variable that is unknown to man, to through a wrench in the scheme... it would affect all methods equally.

In analysis, one error that is the same in all methods creates invalid numbers in all methods.

We have absolutely no standard that can be held as solid with which to calibrate any of the dating methods.

All are speculation based on physics that have been shown to be in error in the past and will be shown to be in error in the future.

I make no huge claim of knowledge, but I understand that things can be two ways when in Gods kingdom, for example the father can be the son and the holy spirit and the father at the same time, why not the universe is 6000 years old and 6 million years old simultaneously, we don't know if theres some sort of weird quantum physics explanation of how our universe came to be when adam and eve fell from Eden, but he was also "prototyping" the universe elswhere then he merged the two timelines ? we cannot know , what I do know is God is amazing.

 

[Speedwell]

The theory of evolution survives on this one pillar............... extreme age the earth.... With anything shorter..........it dies.

Yes* but the age of the Earth does not require or depend on the theory of evolution.

*Many creationists in this forum now assert that evolution happens, that evolution took place from the relatively few "kinds" aboard the Ark to the many species alive today since the Flood. So creationists apparently believe that evolution can happen rapidly.

 

[Speedwell]

Can you show me the places where it says such a thing?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walter T. Brown. It's a logical deduction from a literal reading of the Noah story, so it must be as true as the Bible, right? Just like your age of the Earth is never specifically stated in the Bible, but is a logical deduction from a literal reading of it's content--which deduction you regard as just as true as the Bible.

 

[Humble Servant of Christ]

Well, if there ever was a "big bang" it was what would have been heard when God said "let there be...."
All of this from nothing, could not be anything but from God.
As for talking to Moses.... I have absolutely no reason to believe that Moses was not intelligent enough to understand exactly what God was saying. Don't forget, Moses was taught by the Egyptian elite and he was very intelligent and well educated. If you think that we are more intelligent now, than they were, think again. Just look at the mega structures that they assembled.... we cannot do it today.

So, lets give up on any "they were nomadic tent makers" or they were "dumb shepherds"

There is a huge difference between those "uneducated while intelligent" and those who are "educated while arrogant and ignorant".

Moses was intelligent and educated.

Also, with God, there is no reason for billions of years. The only thing that demands this is the anti-God concept of evolution.

I believe that it was in fact God's word that brought into existence all of space, time and matter in the singularity of the Big Bang. I am glad we agree on this point. I disagree that the level of education for the ancient egyptians (believed in a flat earth and the sun was a god) would be adequate to understand nuclear physics or molecular cell structures. There are areas to disagree but I don't think is one of them. If your inference is that I am arrogant and ignorant, I believe our 2 posts provide clarity to that matter. Proverbs 12:16 "Fools show their annoyance at once but the prudent overlook an insult."

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes* but the age of the Earth does not require or depend on the theory of evolution.

*Many creationists in this forum now assert that evolution happens, that evolution took place from the relatively few "kinds" aboard the Ark to the many species alive today since the Flood. So creationists apparently believe that evolution can happen rapidly.

There is a huge canyon between God creating every "kind" of animal, from which we get many kinds of dogs, many kinds of cats, many kinds of horses.....

to a single cell organism which "somehow" obtained life, the ability to divide, the ability to replicate and the ability to respirate, the ability to eat, contained complex molecular structures called proteins that somehow formed into immensely complex strands of DNA that contain huge amounts of information, in each cell about every cell of the organism. This is not to mention the ribosomes, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, lysosomes, and all the other complex and necessary parts of a cell that Darwin was oblivious to.

In short, evolution is a pipe dream. You can change animals into different kinds of the same animal but you cannot breed amoeba's over and over again, until you get a star fish or a gopher or an elephant. You can breed different kinds of cats, but they are all still cats.

The Bible doesn't require an old earth. Only man does, in order for his feeble mind to wrap his head around the ramblings of atheistic ideas.


Further more, I could care less if there was only one Christian that believed in the truth and every single man on earth believed the lie..........the truth will not change.

Truth, is not a democracy.

 

[JacksBratt]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walter T. Brown. It's a logical deduction from a literal reading of the Noah story, so it must be as true as the Bible, right? Just like your age of the Earth is never specifically stated in the Bible, but is a logical deduction from a literal reading of it's content--which deduction you regard as just as true as the Bible.

So, you are saying that the book, written by Walter Brown, who I do know of and respect, has come to the conclusion, by studying the bible and other facts about the earth, has stated that chunks of rock were propelled into space..............

and you then state that the bible must state it if this man has come to that conclusion?

It doesn't work that way.

It does not say such a thing in the bible.

 

[JacksBratt]

I believe that it was in fact God's word that brought into existence all of space, time and matter in the singularity of the Big Bang. I am glad we agree on this point. I disagree that the level of education for the ancient egyptians (believed in a flat earth and the sun was a god) would be adequate to understand nuclear physics or molecular cell structures. There are areas to disagree but I don't think is one of them. If your inference is that I am arrogant and ignorant, I believe our 2 posts provide clarity to that matter. Proverbs 12:16 "Fools show their annoyance at once but the prudent overlook an insult."

They believed the sun was a God, yes. Today, thousands of people rush to read their horoscopes......how far we have come.

Many educated people today believe in a flat earth... your point?

If you sat Moses down and taught him about nuclear Physics, I'm sure he would have had the faculties to understand it....I do and I'm no genius. Molecular structures are taught in, what, grade 9?

In regards to the scripture which you took out of context. The fools who show their annoyance are those that have been indoctrinated by the atheistic academia that brainwashes everyone to believe that men know more than God.
Take a look at the anger anyone will impart if they talk of the farce of evolution, the young earth or the fossil record and the errors of the dating of rocks.

Watch as "Christians" bend and twist the scriptures to justify a belief that contradicts the simple, easy to understand words of God, in Genesis, that plainly describe, in detail, events that were easily within His power.

I didn't call any one person ignorant or arrogant. How could I do this for you? I don't even know you.

Are you saying there are not educated arrogant and educated people who are still ignorant?

I know many people who have degrees from university, yet they are not that intelligent. They walk around with chests sticking out and their diploma on the wall....yet they are nothing but hard drives repeating what has been stored in their brain and they couldn't think for themselves if their life depended on it.

 

[JeremyTheAnglercan]

Well, if there ever was a "big bang" it was what would have been heard when God said "let there be...."
All of this from nothing, could not be anything but from God.
As for talking to Moses.... I have absolutely no reason to believe that Moses was not intelligent enough to understand exactly what God was saying. Don't forget, Moses was taught by the Egyptian elite and he was very intelligent and well educated. If you think that we are more intelligent now, than they were, think again. Just look at the mega structures that they assembled.... we cannot do it today.

So, lets give up on any "they were nomadic tent makers" or they were "dumb shepherds"

There is a huge difference between those "uneducated while intelligent" and those who are "educated while arrogant and ignorant".

Moses was intelligent and educated.

Also, with God, there is no reason for billions of years. The only thing that demands this is the anti-God concept of evolution.

Moses was taught by the Egyptian elite. Fair enough, for their time they would have been educated. And for their time the structures were pretty impressive. But that's completely false when you say we couldn't achieve what they have today. They had an endless supply of slave labour, and the pyramids took years and years to build. We could build the Pyramid of Giza with greater precision today in a fraction of the time. We just haven't done so because a pyramid provides little return on investment because there's no space for offices that you can rent out.

And if from birth Moses was put into our school system he'd probably have a good grasp of modern physics. But he'd go stir crazy if you explained quantum mechanics to a 40+ year old from 1000 BC.

 

[JeremyTheAnglercan]

All it takes in your so called basis for dating of rocks if for one little variable that is unknown to man, to through a wrench in the scheme... it would affect all methods equally.

In analysis, one error that is the same in all methods creates invalid numbers in all methods.

We have absolutely no standard that can be held as solid with which to calibrate any of the dating methods.

All are speculation based on physics that have been shown to be in error in the past and will be shown to be in error in the future.

Just because you don't like the results, you can't claim there's a common error in all the different testing methods. It's the same scientific process that vetted those dating processes and still does that gives us all the rest of modern science. You cannot in good conscience accept some parts of science and not the rest. If you do, it's a failing of logic.

And I firmly believe God gave us our minds to investigate things and figure out more and more about the universe He created. The more we find out the more we find there is more to find out. It only makes His universe more impressive. The universe of a literal Genesis is tiny and unimpressive. It can only be 6000 light years across, which is minuscule. I think an ancient, complicated universe gives us a grander image of God than one He magicked into being.

And besides, with some basic math which even literal creationists cannot refute we know the universe is billions of light years across. If creation is only 6000 years old, God must be a liar because He is showing us stars that were dead upon creation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-distant-stars-and-galaxies-are/#134c4f0e1acb

 

[Speedwell]

So, you are saying that the book, written by Walter Brown, who I do know of and respect, has come to the conclusion, by studying the bible and other facts about the earth, has stated that chunks of rock were propelled into space..............

and you then state that the bible must state it if this man has come to that conclusion?

No, not me, creationists claim that the Bible is inerrant even as to conclusions drawn from its content. Creation "science" is based on that principle--calculations of the age of the Earth, the number of "kinds" of animals which could fit on the ark, that kind of thing, all given the force of scripture by Christians who read popular books by Whitcomb & Morris, Woodmorappe, Brown and their ilk.

It doesn't work that way.

It does not say such a thing in the bible.

It doesn't say how old the Earth is, either.

 

[JacksBratt]

Moses was taught by the Egyptian elite. Fair enough, for their time they would have been educated. And for their time the structures were pretty impressive. But that's completely false when you say we couldn't achieve what they have today. They had an endless supply of slave labour, and the pyramids took years and years to build. We could build the Pyramid of Giza with greater precision today in a fraction of the time. We just haven't done so because a pyramid provides little return on investment because there's no space for offices that you can rent out.

And if from birth Moses was put into our school system he'd probably have a good grasp of modern physics. But he'd go stir crazy if you explained quantum mechanics to a 40+ year old from 1000 BC.

So, you would agree, then, that he could have easily grasped a different method of creation, if that was the way God did it and God wanted to get Moses to write it?

People posted that Moses was too archaic to understand the concepts of the actual true creation account. So, God, told him a simple story.... This is not the case. Moses was quite capable and had the ability to grasp concepts of what people propose today, as the actual creation account.

 

[JacksBratt]

Just because you don't like the results, you can't claim there's a common error in all the different testing methods. It's the same scientific process that vetted those dating processes and still does that gives us all the rest of modern science. You cannot in good conscience accept some parts of science and not the rest. If you do, it's a failing of logic.

And I firmly believe God gave us our minds to investigate things and figure out more and more about the universe He created. The more we find out the more we find there is more to find out. It only makes His universe more impressive. The universe of a literal Genesis is tiny and unimpressive. It can only be 6000 light years across, which is minuscule. I think an ancient, complicated universe gives us a grander image of God than one He magicked into being.

And besides, with some basic math which even literal creationists cannot refute we know the universe is billions of light years across. If creation is only 6000 years old, God must be a liar because He is showing us stars that were dead upon creation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-distant-stars-and-galaxies-are/#134c4f0e1acb

I don't disagree that the universe is billions of light years across. You, however, put God in a box and state that this proves that the earth is billions of years old. This is not true. Can God not make a star, put it a billion light years away and make it's light visible today? Seriously? You think that God is confined to the physical laws that He created and controls?

Also, it's not me "not liking" the results. It's you "not liking" the basic scripture and what it says.

What we have here is a conflict between mans own observations and what the creator wrote in His communication to us. It is man saying that God told us a lie. God got it wrong. God made a mistake. God told us an allegory. Problem is the allegory is way off and has nothing to do with what man, in his magnificent arrogance, holds as a greater truth than the words of the all knowing God.

In a case like this.........I will always take the words of God over the erroneous and fallible observations of mere men.

If you had a hallway that went 20 feet straight and then took a 90 degree turn and went another 100 feet, and at the 90 degree turn you stood a mirror on a 45 degree angle, anyone looking down the hall would swear on their mothers grave that the hall was arrow straight and went 120 feet to the end.

That is all science takes to mess up hundreds of observations. One little error, missed by all observers. One little physical factor, unknown to man. One little fact of the universe that we are unaware of. That one little error can derail all the efforts, observations, predictions and conclusions of even the most intelligent scientist.

The only way to calibrate any instrument is with a known standard. Without that your quality control and quality assurance isn't worth dirt.

In the case of the hallway, even a 50 foot pole would debunk the observation of a 120 foot hallway.
Someone actually walking down the hall would do the same.

As for the measurement of ancient time...........we have not one solid standard. We have absolutely nothing to calibrate the method. It is all speculation and assumptions that all their calculations and projections.

It is......the wisdom of men. They will be shown to be fools.

Someday, whether God revels it in His coming, or some scientist stumbles on to it, there will be a factor that makes them all smack their foreheads and say....wow, that changes things.