Evolution or God the deceiver

[GodSaves]

Lately, I have been talking with many Christians who are theistic evolutionists and say that if the earth is not old then God is a liar and a deceiver.

I have been defending against this thinking. I find to be of great harm because if one is wrong in their own interpretation they then will blame God for it by calling Him a liar and a deceiver. Basically calling Him Satan.

I think this brings up some interesting points. If the earth is young, then it is not God who has been deceiving and lying, but rather is has been Satan who has been at work. I would conclude that Satan has already been attending to his work because many Christians believe if they are wrong then God is a liar. I would think that this is what Satan would want, for a Christian to call God a deceiver.

I have not yet seen any creationists say that if they are wrong the God is a deceiver. I would be out spoken against those who would say this as well. Hence, I am not just trying to pick on theistic evolutionists. Neither am I trying to pick on them as a whole, rather focusing on those who say these things.

Ok, now the real point to my post here, a few questions. I think we as YEC have been told many times that we are the ones who are limiting God by our beliefs in creationism. But maybe it could be the other way around. Let me explain:

God created Adam, not as a fetus in the womb, but as a man. This man I would assume would appear to be a man to my eyes, even though he was created just moments ago. So if my interpretation of Adam is that he is 30 years old, but God just made him 30 seconds ago, would my interpretation be wrong or shall I tell God He is a deceiver and a liar?

In Genesis it tells us of God creating a full functioning universe. It does not say God created the moon, and the moon was still forming on day 133456704. The same day God looked and saw the moon, completed, and He said it was good.

First, many argue the meaning of good. We must remember that God said our thinking and His thinking are nothing alike. So what is good to God, may well be perfect to us. Just a thought.

So inorder for God to put man on earth, the earth and the universe need to be full functioning. Otherwise man cannot survive. So God creates the universe in six days, around 6000 years ago.

Sorry I am long winded I know, just please bare with me.

Evolutionists state that the universe has to old, it cannot be young. Theistic evolutionists seem to agree. I think the real problem is this. If the universe is young then God is a deceiver. This is what many I have encountered have basically said. I think this is where they limit God. If God did not go through the natural laws they claim He is a deceiver. So is God confined to man's interpretation of the evidence and the natural laws? I think this is where some limit God, calling God a deceiver if He made a man out of nothing that looked 30 years old even though really he is 30 seconds old. Same can be said of the universe.

Just my thoughts. Curious what other YEC think.

God Bless

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Some very good points. Things were obviously created with age as you pointed out. We can't blame God for our theories not being true. Not only that but things like a world wide flood would cause even more appearances of age but every evolutionist I have ever met denies there every being a world flood. What's even worse is that some of the same ones say it's possible that Mars could have been covered in water at one time!

 

[herev]

I have not yet seen any creationists say that if they are wrong the God is a deceiver. I would be out spoken against those who would say this as well. Hence, I am not just trying to pick on theistic evolutionists. Neither am I trying to pick on them as a whole, rather focusing on those who say these things.

Please note--this is not for debate, but for clarification.

A question for Godsaves. Based on your overall post, I agree that we must be careful with such comments that say if God used...then...fill in the blank. He is, afterall, still God, regardless.

But I was wondering as to your thoughts on this quote from a creationist?
"Thus, a God that used evolution is little better than there being no God at all."
from this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9189472&postcount=63
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Tommy

 

[Beowulf]

I don't think anyone is calling God a deciever but the arguement goes that if you don't accept the evidence as they see it then you are in danger of calling God a deciever. Kind of like an "If/Then" statement without an "Else".

I think science could answer a lot of those questions but there's more motivation to "dig up" evidence to point in another direction and chuck the stuff that doesn't match up. One would HAVE to accept God as the creator to go in any other direction and secular science isn't going to do that. No way.

Secular science is not blind. Maybe in other areas yes, but when it comes to evolution there's a lot of motivation to prove God innocent because He wasn't there. And there's no alibis either. He just wasn't there since it's believed He doesn't exist anyway.

I'll bet the topic of this thread doesn't remain here long.

 

[Tachocline]

What's even worse is that some of the same ones say it's possible that Mars could have been covered in water at one time!

No one claims Mars was globally covered though.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

No one claims Mars was globally covered though.

Here is an article that will explain what I mean better that me trying to explain it.

 

[GodSaves]

Herev I will answer your post in a few moments. First I would like to address Beowulf. I have talked with a few theistic evolutionists who do say God is a deceiver if the earth is young:

Yes, the master of all creation can do as he pleases but the bible would seem to point to a master of all creation that would have the integrity to do it in a way that is not deceptive. Showing people visions of an exploding star that never existing would cause me to question this integrity. I'm not defining God, I'm using God's own definition to understand the creation. God would not lie to me so YEC must be incorrect.

There many like this, even ones that flattly say if the earth is young God is a liar and a deceiver. I think the problem that exists is that some minds cannot grasp the idea of a mature universe that is young. Kinda like the Trinity issue, where God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same, but yet different too. As with the later we must have faith that what God said is true.

I understand that many who believe in evolution say they have faith too. But they do not have faith that the creation happened the way Genesis says it does in a literal sense. The earth and its evidence as well as the interpretation of scientists have been elevated to speak for God which contradicts Genesis in the literal sense. Anyone can just take Genesis 1:1 and discard or put aside the rest to fit in with the scientific interpretations. I believe if God did use evolution then Genesis 1:1 would be all that is said about the creation, or there would be statements that assert evolution. But there is not, so i cannot believe evolution when I believe God teaches differently.


OK, herev. Sorry to answer your question last. I think the sentence you have quoted above is a bit out of context. Here is the complete statement:

Evolution, by it's nature is a scientific explanation "hell-bent" on explaining everything through natural explanations only, aka excluding God. Thus, you can see my problem in simply saying, "well, God used it," because according to evolutionists, everything has been explained without God and could have just as easily happened on its own, thus God becomes this irrelevent idea in the back of my mind that is pushed farther and farther away as more things are "explained" naturally and independently from Him. Thus, a God that used evolution is little better than there being no God at all.

I think what is meant by the author is that evolution makes no statement regarding God. No Glory has been given to God, in the evolutionary theory. Thus the author says God is pushed to the back of his mind when creation is talked about through evolution. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are theories used to explain how we came about without a supreme being. Maybe the intent was not to exclude God, but they certainly do not include God. No Glory for God in these theories. Theistic evolutionists I believe see the science, believe the science and try to bring some Glory back to God. The authors concluding statement I think is saying that because there has been no thought of God in the theories then believing this is God's method is not giving full Glory to God.

I know that this is going to be used against me but, I don't see where the author stated God is a liar or deceiver if his belief is wrong. I don't think he was saying if God used evolution then it is no better then no God at all as his belief, but rather concluding to the overall statement. That being evolution in the theory gives no Glory to God, and evolution is how man evolved without God.

Now his next paragraph is a bit over the top. I am not fond of people stating that if God did this then He is a liar, deceiver, sadistic, evil, or anything like this. We don't know for a fact how it happened. We do know that God gave us His Word, and His Word does say how creation happened.

Anyways that thread got a bit too much and I stopped reading it soon after my posts there. Too many people assert that if they are wrong, then God is this and that. Whoever says this or does this is in the wrong. If I have done this then I was wrong.

Well I hung myself out there for you, maybe I will read about what I said in the debate area in the future, written by someone else.

God Bless you all!

 

[Beowulf]

Ok GodSaves. Point taken.
Good post BTW.

 

[herev]

OK, herev. Sorry to answer your question last. I think the sentence you have quoted above is a bit out of context. Here is the complete statement:



I think what is meant by the author is that evolution makes no statement regarding God. No Glory has been given to God, in the evolutionary theory. Thus the author says God is pushed to the back of his mind when creation is talked about through evolution. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are theories used to explain how we came about without a supreme being. Maybe the intent was not to exclude God, but they certainly do not include God. No Glory for God in these theories. Theistic evolutionists I believe see the science, believe the science and try to bring some Glory back to God. The authors concluding statement I think is saying that because there has been no thought of God in the theories then believing this is God's method is not giving full Glory to God.

I know that this is going to be used against me but, I don't see where the author stated God is a liar or deceiver if his belief is wrong. I don't think he was saying if God used evolution then it is no better then no God at all as his belief, but rather concluding to the overall statement. That being evolution in the theory gives no Glory to God, and evolution is how man evolved without God.

Now his next paragraph is a bit over the top. I am not fond of people stating that if God did this then He is a liar, deceiver, sadistic, evil, or anything like this. We don't know for a fact how it happened. We do know that God gave us His Word, and His Word does say how creation happened.

Anyways that thread got a bit too much and I stopped reading it soon after my posts there. Too many people assert that if they are wrong, then God is this and that. Whoever says this or does this is in the wrong. If I have done this then I was wrong.

Well I hung myself out there for you, maybe I will read about what I said in the debate area in the future, written by someone else.

God Bless you all!

thanks for taking the time to answer

 

[notto]

Since my quote was used to make a point, I feel it is appropriate to respond.

Maturity does not equal a history. The universe shows us a history that never happend if YEC is correct. No creationist has addressed the whole star exploding thing. If the earth is young, we have seen the explosion of stars that never existing and even today, we are seeing them travel the heavens in locations and arrangments that are nothing but fiction and that never happened or that never will happen.

I can't fit this type of deception into the description of God given in the bible. God's creation cannot lie, only mans interpretation of Gods word.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Since my quote was used to make a point, I feel it is appropriate to respond.

Maturity does not equal a history. The universe shows us a history that never happend if YEC is correct. No creationist has addressed the whole star exploding thing. If the earth is young, we have seen the explosion of stars that never existing and even today, we are seeing them travel the heavens in locations and arrangments that are nothing but fiction and that never happened or that never will happen.

I can't fit this type of deception into the description of God given in the bible. God's creation cannot lie, only mans interpretation of Gods word.

What you have said it not true. The star issue can be answers several different ways. Here is a good article that goes over some of the answers.

 

[Micaiah]

Lately, I have been talking with many Christians who are theistic evolutionists and say that if the earth is not old then God is a liar and a deceiver.

I have been defending against this thinking. I find to be of great harm because if one is wrong in their own interpretation they then will blame God for it by calling Him a liar and a deceiver. Basically calling Him Satan.

There is no conflict between Creation and Scripture, only man's warped interpretation of the evidence and God's truth. Unfortunately, TE's choose to reject the plain teaching of Genesis because it does not align with the popular view of origins promoted by those who do not believe God's truth. They elevate mans speculation above God's truth. Worse, they then accuse God of lying in creation.

 

[Beowulf]

Well, the way I see it it's Satan that's lying, creating the deception. He's very good at it and entices us with "Did God REALLY say..?"
"Hath God said"

 

[GodSaves]

Excellent point Micaiah and Beowulf.

Notto, it is not a matter of the creation or God lying, it is a matter of whether or not those who interpret creation are interpreting it correctly. And if they are not, why then must people who call themselves Christians turn and blame God by calling God a liar and a deceiver because of man being wrong?

I really do apologize, but I cannot understand why if man is wrong man must blame God by calling God names. Why is it God's fault that man interprets incorrectly? Is anyone willing to stand before God and say man was not incorrect in his interpretation, its was YOU GOD who lied. Because that is what is being said right here and right now by many Christians. Then these same Christians wonder why other Christians try and tell them differently. You CANNOT blame GOD for YOUR MISTAKES.

Anyone who does blame God for their mistakes, whether it be interpretation or anything else, they are falling in the same trap that Satan did. It is Satan's doing to have man say 'if I am wrong God is a liar.'

If you want to believe in evolution, fine. If by chance you are wrong, don't blame God for you being wrong.

God Bless

 

[Beowulf]

Thank you GodSaves.

To all,

Our struggle isn't against the flesh but against the powers and principalities perpetrating the deception. Remember, it's the unbeliever in the vast majority of cases that embrace an idea of the beginnings of life without God. It is by man's efforts, the energy of the flesh, that fuels the search for the beginning of life on earth when it's right there through the inspired word of God. "I" will show where life came from, "I" will enlighten the world, "I" will bring forth the evidence of life's beginnings and "I" will get the glory and the credit "I" so justly deserve.
Nobody, not me, not the TE, not the YEC or the unbeliever is immune to the constant barrage of lies put forth by Satan. I accept some while others accept something else. Let's point our arrows at the proper target with a common focus, at the source of the lies that we sometimes succumb to even though our spirits are willing but our flesh being weak.

 

[notto]

Excellent point Micaiah and Beowulf.

Notto, it is not a matter of the creation or God lying, it is a matter of whether or not those who interpret creation are interpreting it correctly. And if they are not, why then must people who call themselves Christians turn and blame God by calling God a liar and a deceiver because of man being wrong?

I really do apologize, but I cannot understand why if man is wrong man must blame God by calling God names. Why is it God's fault that man interprets incorrectly? Is anyone willing to stand before God and say man was not incorrect in his interpretation, its was YOU GOD who lied. Because that is what is being said right here and right now by many Christians. Then these same Christians wonder why other Christians try and tell them differently. You CANNOT blame GOD for YOUR MISTAKES.

Anyone who does blame God for their mistakes, whether it be interpretation or anything else, they are falling in the same trap that Satan did. It is Satan's doing to have man say 'if I am wrong God is a liar.'

If you want to believe in evolution, fine. If by chance you are wrong, don't blame God for you being wrong.

God Bless

Again, I can't and am not calling God a liar. Please don't continue to misrepresent my position. The earth looks old. The creation and God cannot lie, therefore the earth is old. If this is the case then our interpretation of scripture must be incorrect.

The old earth argument really has little to do with evolution. Christians determined that the earth was old and that a young earth interpretation of the Bible was incorrect independent of evolution.

Your post is a significant misrpresentation of what I have said or what I have called God. I am certainly prepared to say that man has incorrectly misinterpreted scriptures. If the interpretation of scripture directly conflicts with the actual creation, then our interpretation must be incorrect.

 

[GodSaves]

Notto, if I have misrepresentated you then I apologize. So we can clear this up quickly then, could you answer me this? If the earth really is young, is God a liar and a deceiver, or is the interpretation to give evidence to an old earth wrong?

If you go here, this is exacly what I have been seeing some Christians say.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9245904&postcount=11

I apologize, God Bless

 

[notto]

Notto, if I have misrepresentated you then I apologize. So we can clear this up quickly then, could you answer me this? If the earth really is young, is God a liar and a deceiver, or is the interpretation to give evidence to an old earth wrong?

If you go here, this is exacly what I have been seeing some Christians say.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9245904&postcount=11

I apologize, God Bless

If the earth is young (even though it doesn't look that way), then God is a deciever because God has made it look old. The YEC position, if true, paints God as a deceiver. My position does not. The creation is as old as it is and is as old as it looks. The YEC position is that the earth is really much younger than it looks (not simply by appearance of age, but by appearance of history - events that never took place but we have evidence that tells us they did).

If God created the earth last Tuesday, would that make god a deceiver? Why or why not?

 

[Beowulf]

Well, God created Adam an adult male. 5 minutes after that creation Adam would appear a lot older than 5 minutes, quite possibly in his mid twenties or older but certainly not a new-born.

The creation is recent but that which was created appears older than the event of creation. I see no deception.

 

[Remus]

If God created the earth last Tuesday, would that make god a deceiver? Why or why not?

Not if He said "I created the earth last Tuesday".

That’s really what it all comes down to: what is it that we believe that God says.

To and to add to Beosulf’s example, God said that Jesus was not conceived of man. However, to everyone around, it would have appeared that he was. I see creation in the same way. Neither miracle is a deception since we’ve been told otherwise.