Is God a liar?

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Well....it wouldn't by necessity have to mean that God lied. It could also mean that what was written (by Moses) was for different purposes and authored by way of different conceptual frames that what we like to assume it was. Personally, I see no indication in Genesis that it was to serve as some kind of comprehensive description and explanation for the Nature of Creation. But, we more Modern Christians definitely like to try to turn it into that kind of thing, don't we?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I see pictures of animals; then I see "lines" connecting them which is where the problems arise.

And theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms—like the oxymoron "act naturally". God can no more direct an undirected process than He can create a square circle. Yet this is precisely what theistic evolution presupposes.

You can believe in it, but it lacks logic.

Consider a sniper, who launches a bullet that, after it leaves his weapon, he can no longer direct. Yet the sniper sees that his target is hit. Since we know that happens, we have shown that even MEN can direct an undirected process in that way. It does NOT lack logic, then, to accept evolution and believe in God. The only reason you have for refusing to accept evolution is your doctrine; there is no scientific reason to deny evolution.

 

[SolomonVII]

Really? You think that God needs waves and photons in order to create light?

You think God needs a star or some planetary body to emit light?

Islam has tended to be a religion that believes that whatever rule God created yesterday is a rule that God could blot out tomorrow.

Christianity, or at least Catholicism at any rate, has tended to believe that God has created an ordered universe guided by stable laws. It is such a belief that makes scientific inquiry possible in the first place, a world in which it is possible to discover photons and waves and explore the rules and laws that guide their behaviors.

This really does go to the heart of the intent of this thread though. Did God really go about creating a universe only seemingly with order and immutable laws as a facade only? Is this a test of faith that we are to believe in a certain vision of God rather than our own lying eyes?

 

[Meowzltov]

It could also mean that what was written (by Moses) was for different purposes and authored by way of different conceptual frames that what we like to assume it was.

I liked your post

BTW, Moses did not write Genesis 1. It was written by the Elohist, I believe (we don't know his name). We call him the Elohist because of his extensive use of "Elohim" for God.

 

[Meowzltov]

Really? You think that God needs waves and photons in order to create light?

You think God needs a star or some planetary body to emit light?

The DEFINITION of light is a certain spectrum of waves/photons. Anything else is NOT LIGHT.

I think God is even smarter than we are. Don't you? So when in the beginning he created, he made space/time and the Laws of the Universe. These were sufficient for making everything else. All He had to do was sit back and enjoy the show and say, "It is good. "

 

[SolomonVII]

A world of perpetual creation defines chaos. It would be unlivable.

 

[JacksBratt]

Islam has tended to be a religion that believes that whatever rule God created yesterday is a rule that God could blot out tomorrow.

Christianity, or at least Catholicism at any rate, has tended to believe that God has created an ordered universe guided by stable laws. It is such a belief that makes scientific inquiry possible in the first place, a world in which it is possible to discover photons and waves and explore the rules and laws that guide their behaviors.

This really does go to the heart of the intent of this thread though. Did God really go about creating a universe only seemingly with order and immutable laws as a facade only? Is this a test of faith that we are to believe in a certain vision of God rather than our own lying eyes?

I believe that God made the universe with physical laws that we, the inhabitants must be constrained by. However, there are times when God can intervene and override the system so to speak. This happens in the scriptures. It happens when the shackles fell from Peter in jail and he walked out of the cells with the angel leading him. It happened when Elijah was taken up in a wheeled chariot. It happened when the sun and moon stood still. It happened when the sun went backward. It happened when Jonah was swallowed by a fish, that was prepared for that purpose, and spit out again.

These things are signs that God is outside the bounds of our physical laws and constraints. When God said "let there be light" He created light. It does not mean He needed a source. He, in fact, could have been that source. However, I don't believe it is outside God's ability for us to be in a totally enclosed room with no light source and still have the room totally illuminated. That is God. That is His ability, to do anything.

To say that God needs a source of photons and such is just limiting God.

Did Jesus need grapes, yeast, and time to make wine from water........of course not. Such arguments are folly.

 

[JacksBratt]

The DEFINITION of light is a certain spectrum of waves/photons. Anything else is NOT LIGHT.

So, now you are defining "light" and your definition of "light" is not just an energy that illuminates things so they are visible or or lit up..... No, it must be a spectrum of waves and photons....

I really get annoyed by such arguments. Anytime you point out something in scripture and people cannot accept that it is what God says, they pull the old "define the word X" card. Words like "theory" or "kind" or who knows. They go to the new definitions and state that what we are saying cannot be possible due to the "definition".

I find these arguments weak and useless.

If I was in a totally enclosed room. No windows and only a door. No place for light to come in.... then the room becomes bright. I can see everything in it........but, no light bulb, no flame, no window, no visible declarable light source.................

YOU are saying it cannot be light because it is not waves or photons or there is not source of such "energy"...... Really???? I will not be bound by some definition of pseudo science that constrains man.... If it allows me to see the ground in front of me....it is light. Period. It may not be waves/photons.... but it is light.

You have got to be joking. God has absolutely no limitations in this world.

I think God is even smarter than we are. Don't you? So when in the beginning he created, he made space/time and the Laws of the Universe. These were sufficient for making everything else. All He had to do was sit back and enjoy the show and say, "It is good. "

I think God is infinitely smarter than we are.

I think that He is so smart that He kept it quite simple.. He simply said "I made this, there was evening and morning, day one. Then, I made this, evening, morning, day two...........on day seven I rested..... You should do the same... work six days, rest one day..."

He told us these things, in this simple manner because we are so stupid that we will not believe Him..... We will dream up some cockomaymee story like "well between the first day and second day there must have been a billion years because Joe Blow in a white lab coat said so".

Well, I don't care what Joe "white lab coat" Blow says.......... I believe GOD and what God said.

I believe this because He said it and He could do it...........why would I doubt that?

He did it, then, instead of saying "It Is Good" and sitting back. He said "it is good" and then dwelt with Adam and Eve until they sinned and it was Not Good. Then He had to send His Son.

 

[Meowzltov]

So, now you are defining "light" and your definition of "light" is not just an energy that illuminates things so they are visible or or lit up..... No, it must be a spectrum of waves and photons....

*I* am not defining light. I am stating what light has been determined to be, as per scientific experimentation. Don't blame me for reality. That's God's doing.

 

[Meowzltov]

Words like "theory" or "kind" or who knows.

I didn't bring up "kind." You aren't talking to me are you? You are replying to an imaginary interlocutor. That's very rude of you.

 

[BobRyan]

I do dream dreams and see visions

Ok that makes one of us.

which have been of considerable worth to, but I mostly keep them to myself (I only share them if I feel led to),

You have free will.

But for me - when it comes to dreams and visions - I go with Numbers 12:6.

as I don't claim to be the next book of the bible.

now see - we do agree on something. That was not so hard.

I'm not writing the Epistle of Open Heart to CF. My opinions on this thread are not coming from a dream or vision. They are coming from common sense, the teachings of Christian scholars, my experience in Jungian Psychology (myth and archetypology) and my expertise in Literature.

Not sure if you are responding to my post at this point - or something else. What I said was that the Bible informs us in Numbers 12 that God communicates with his prophets through dreams and visions.

I am sticking with this point --- since Peter says this is why we call it "the Word of God"

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

RDKirk said: ↑
Your argument is that men simply made up Genesis out of their own imaginations, like Star Trek.

Yes. Which is a good thing, not a bad thing. .

Hard to believe we are getting this on a Christian discussion board.

Let's go back to the Bible -

2 Tim 3
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2 Peter 1
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

Sometimes on Christian message boards you will find a post that is of the form "more Bible - less making stuff up please".

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[BobRyan]

Joseph's dreams.
The Pharaoh's dream that Joseph interpreted.
Nebuchadnezzar's dream that Daniel interpreted.
Daniel's dream that an angel interpreted.
Paul's dream that his evangelism was to be in Europe rather than the Middle East.
John's revelation...a whole book of the NT there.

You can't make an argument from scripture that God would not have revealed creation to a man in a dream.

Good point.

Those who condemn the Bible - as myth as "not the Word of God" -- are not too hard to find. ATheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, ... even some Christians will argue in favor of that idea.

But for the rest of us - we just stick with the Bible accepting it as "the Word of God" as Christ said it is in places like Mark 7:6-13

I think both sides will agree to this - atheist evolutionists have a shoreless ocean of ideas for denying that the Bible is the Word of God. And they don't mind at all claiming that the Bible is just something "made up" by man.

By contrast Bible-beileving Christians will have been confronted by that endless stream of accusations against the Bible long before they would ever come to this board and discuss the subject of evolution. So it is nothing new to them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I liked your post

BTW, Moses did not write Genesis 1. It was written by the Elohist, I believe (we don't know his name). We call him the Elohist because of his extensive use of "Elohim" for God.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'm aware of the possibility that 'Moses' didn't write Chapter 1, reflecting one aspect of the application of the Documentary Hypothesis.

 

[BobRyan]

I liked your post

BTW, Moses did not write Genesis 1. It was written by the Elohist, I believe (we don't know his name). .

Christ called him "Moses". Those with a video of the event may call him "elohist" (we wont know since there are none of those around) -- and those with nothing at all to prove their speculation is true in real life will also sometimes call him "elohist".

Everyone has free will. They can speculate all the elohist they wish.

 

[JacksBratt]

*I* am not defining light. I am stating what light has been determined to be, as per scientific experimentation. Don't blame me for reality. That's God's doing.

Sorry, should have said "you are stating a scientific definition"
God is not defined by science. You are putting any illumination in the scientific box. You are confining God to the physical laws He created.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry, should have said "you are stating a scientific definition"
God is not defined by science. You are putting any illumination in the scientific box. You are confining God to the physical laws He created.

If someone asks you to shine a light on a dark patch of woods - is your only choice for light "nuclear fusion" a Hydrogen bomb? This is what is being argued by those who claim that God's only choice for light - was the sun.

 

[JacksBratt]

I didn't bring up "kind." You aren't talking to me are you? You are replying to an imaginary interlocutor. That's very rude of you.

I never said you brought up "kind". You are right, I am not talking aboutyou. I am talking to all of those people who pull up a scientific definition in order to confine God's work.
People, who, on these forums, will ask you to define this word and that word. Words that are used in the bible and then use a modern and new scientific definition to derail the truth of the word of God.
An example would be when the Bible states that each animal was made "unto it's own kind" and people will ask you to define "kind".

Understand?

You cannot pull up the scientific definition of light and then confine God to that definition.

I will ask you again. If you were in a room with no windows and only a solid door. Totally dark inside. Then God made the room light up without a light source.....

1/ Could He do it?
2/ Would it Have to be waves and Photons?

If answer to 1/ is "yes" and 2/ is "no" then the definition to "light" is void.

I answer to 1/ is "no" then I am done here.

 

[JacksBratt]

If someone asks you to shine a light on a dark patch of woods - is your only choice for light "nuclear fusion" a Hydrogen bomb? This is what is being argued by those who claim that God's only choice for light - was the sun.

I understand. They believe that God's only source of light is waves and Photons...

I am saying that that is bunk.

I am saying that that is the way He does it in our physical universe but not the only way it can be accomplished.

I am saying that when He said "let there be light" there was no need for a star a sun a wave or Photon....and yet........there was light.