Is God a liar?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Note: this is a spin-off of a thought I put into another thread that is deserving of its own thread because of its centrality to the debate.

God commissioned every one of us to tell others about the Gospel and spread the Kingdom of God. Hopefully no arguments there. But read closely: is God responsible for the incidental, irrelevant errors about peripheral matters (politics, sports statistics, even doctrinal matters such as eschatology, etc.) that I unwittingly make when I witness to someone? Can God "put His name" on my testimony if it's not completely accurate in every possible way? Is He, in effect


By my lights, this is a precise parallel to what God has done with Scripture. He is responsible for commissioning the men who wrote the Scriptures to testify to the truth He had revealed to them. Is it not foolishness to assume that the truths intended to be conveyed could not have been couched alongside the misconceptions of the men whom He commissioned to testify to the truth He had revealed to them? So what if the Hebrews didn't know how the earth was created. So what if they didn't understand that the earth was not the center of our solar system. So what if those misconceptions show up in Scripture. God commissioned the Bible as the testimony of godly men to bear forth a certain set of truths, and we believe that the results of that intention were perfect and infallible and were clarified in the personage of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, the Word of God.
 
C

Critias

Guest
God is never a liar, period. I disparage every time I see anyone say God is a liar if they are wrong or if some scientist(s) is/are wrong.

To me, that is pitting man's fallibility against God's infallibity and saying if man proves to be who he is, fallible, then God is the liar.

It is simply judging God in the event man is wrong. There is no right time to cast sinful actions on the Almighty God.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Critias said:
God is never a liar, period. I disparage every time I see anyone say God is a liar if they are wrong or if some scientist(s) is/are wrong.

To me, that is pitting man's fallibility against God's infallibity and saying if man proves to be who he is, fallible, then God is the liar.

It is simply judging God in the event man is wrong. There is no right time to cast sinful actions on the Almighty God.

So let's set it out in proper context.

God is not a liar. God never lies.

But people make God out to be a liar when they proclaim as God's truth what is not true. In so doing, they actually commit blasphemy against the name of God.

That is the true sense of the matter.

It is the one who proclaims falsehood to be true (possibly quite sincerely, because s/he is convinced the falsehood is true) and who calls God to witness that it is true, who is the problem.

So when others respond: if God really said what you say, then God is a liar, they are not really trying to judge God. Rather they are telling the speaker that there is an inconsistency between what s/he is saying and what is true. So God cannot be called on in support of the speaker's assertion, because the assertion is not true, and God is not a liar. And the speaker is in danger of committing blasphemy because s/he is calling on God to affirm what is false--something God cannot do.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
gluadys said:
So let's set it out in proper context.

God is not a liar. God never lies.

I thought that was what I said. :scratch:

gluadys said:
But people make God out to be a liar when they proclaim as God's truth what is not true. In so doing, they actually commit blasphemy against the name of God.

All I can do is say here is the Bible and here is what it says about origins. Those who have faith in God know the Bible originated from God.

gluadys said:
That is the true sense of the matter.

It is the one who proclaims falsehood to be true (possibly quite sincerely, because s/he is convinced the falsehood is true) and who calls God to witness that it is true, who is the problem.

So when others respond: if God really said what you say, then God is a liar, they are not really trying to judge God. Rather they are telling the speaker that there is an inconsistency between what s/he is saying and what is true. So God cannot be called on in support of the speaker's assertion, because the assertion is not true, and God is not a liar. And the speaker is in danger of committing blasphemy because s/he is calling on God to affirm what is false--something God cannot do.

There are better ways of stating what one believes is truth than stating if they are wrong God is liar. If you feel convicted that your belief is the truth, then you don't need the veil threat of saying anything else proves God to be the liar.

Simply put, you and I don't know truth as God knows truth. We are fallible, He is not. Our understanding is limited, His is not. One day truth for us is truth, the next day it isn't. Man assumes what he says is truth and believes it. Yet, there is no proof other than his/her point of view and/or bias.

The only way is through His Spirit that we may know His Truth.

I can try and show from my point of view how I see God in Creation and this would be truth as I know it. But, from another persons perspective who doesn't know God, will not see God in Creation. And that is truth as they know it.

So, is mans truth absolute as God's truth is absolute?

As secular science currently understands, the Evolutionary Theory is truth in their perspective, but this can change tomorrow with new findings. Therefore, this truth is subjective and cannot be viewed as God's truth.

The only thing that can be view as God's truth, is God and His message. Him and His message is what I hold onto dearly. That is where I put my faith.

I understand the fallibity of man's truth and so I do not put my faith into mans truth so that I use it to interpret God's truth. This is where you and I differ and where we probably will never agree. So, shall we go round and round as if we think we can make the other agree?
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
46
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟8,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Critias said:
So, shall we go round and round as if we think we can make the other agree?
Just a suggestion, but if you want to make comments like that convincingly, you should make them in lieu of going another round, instead of tacked on to the end of a post that goes another round. The way you've done it, you've already answered your own question, at least as far as it pertains to you. ;)
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Critias said:
I thought that was what I said. :scratch:

You did. I agree with you.

There are better ways of stating what one believes is truth than stating if they are wrong God is liar.

Again I agree. That's why I wanted to set it out properly. Because I don't think anyone has stated it that way. I think we would all agree that if we are wrong, it is we who are wrong, not God who is a liar.

But if we are wrong and stick to our position and refuse to consider that we are wrong, and claim not only that we are not wrong, but God affirms our position too, then, since we are wrong, we have drawn God's name into our error.

Yet, there is no proof other than his/her point of view and/or bias.

Not proof. But there is reasonable evidence that is observable and remains what it is in spite of various biases.

I can try and show from my point of view how I see God in Creation and this would be truth as I know it. But, from another persons perspective who doesn't know God, will not see God in Creation. And that is truth as they know it.

The more pertinent question in this forum is what about others who do know God, who do see God in Creation, but disagree with what you call truth on the question of evolution. When you associate the person who accepts evolution with the perspective of one who doesn't know God and will not see God in creation, you are again subtly accusing TEs of atheism. Until you can get past that falsehood, we go nowhere.

As secular science currently understands

Science is no more secular than Christian or Buddhist or Marxist. Science transcends these perspectives. It is the same no matter what the belief system of the person practicing or studying science. The idea that science is different for different people is another falsehood you need to give up in order to further your understanding.


The only thing that can be view as God's truth, is God and His message. Him and His message is what I hold onto dearly. That is where I put my faith.

But you continually short-circuit your understanding of God's message by refusing to listen to a part of it---creation itself.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
gluadys said:
But you continually short-circuit your understanding of God's message by refusing to listen to a part of it---creation itself.

Creation is interpreted by humans. Creation itself says nothing about when it was created or how. Humans make such assertions, not creation itself. This assertion, created by humans, you call equal to God's truth, which I do not agree with.

God's infallibly Truth is not equal to mans fallible truth.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
-Mercury- said:
Just a suggestion, but if you want to make comments like that convincingly, you should make them in lieu of going another round, instead of tacked on to the end of a post that goes another round. The way you've done it, you've already answered your own question, at least as far as it pertains to you. ;)

Duely noted, thanks. :)
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
Critias said:
Creation is interpreted by humans. Creation itself says nothing about when it was created or how. Humans make such assertions, not creation itself. This assertion, created by humans, you call equal to God's truth, which I do not agree with.

God's infallibly Truth is not equal to mans fallible truth.

How about:

The Bible is interpreted by humans. The Bible itself says nothing about when it was created or how. Humans make such assertions, not the Bible itself. This assertion, created by humans, you call equal to God's truth, which I do not agree with.

God's infallible Truth is not equal to mans fallible truth.


See how that works.

Ultimately this isn't a dichotomy between God's infallible Truth and man's fallible truth ... The dichotomy is between man's fallible interpretation of scripture and man's fallible interpretation of nature -- that's the debate.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Critias said:
Creation is interpreted by humans. Creation itself says nothing about when it was created or how. Humans make such assertions, not creation itself. This assertion, created by humans, you call equal to God's truth, which I do not agree with.

God's infallibly Truth is not equal to mans fallible truth.

What Tinker Gray said.

It is not true that I equate human assertions about creation with God's truth.

My position is that creation itself is God's work and is a truthful testimony to how God accomplished that work.

Of course, we have to use observation and reason to determine what the witness of creation is

But we also have to use observation and reason to determine what the witness of scripture is. Theologians would have no calling and thousands of books need never have been written if the message of scripture were clear in all details.

I know you read my conversation with Vossler on this point. Like him you persist in speaking of two realities when there are actually four. These realities are 1) creation 2) scripture 3) human interpretations of creation and 4) human interpretations of scripture.

You continue to misrepresent your own position by calling your interpretation of scripture (4) God's truth revealed in scripture (2). And you continue to misrepresent my position by saying I place human interpretations of creation (4) on a par with God's truth revealed in scripture (2). I don't. Human interpretations of creation (4) are on a par with human interpretations of scripture (3), not with God's truth revealed in scripture (2). And it is not human interpretations of creation (4), but creation itself (1) which reveals God's truth just as scripture (2) does.

We can be assured that (1) creation and (2) scripture both reveal God's truth and should inform each other, since both come from the Lord of truth.

We should understand that all failures to reconcile both sources of truth lie in the fallibility of interpretations whether of creation (3) or scripture (4), since these come from human minds.

But as long as you fail to distinguish between God's truth revealed in scripture and your fallible interpretation of scripture, you will not be able to re-assess your interpretation, because you think you are dealing with God's truth instead of with your perception of God's truth. And for the same reason you will misunderstand the TE position as an "attack" on God's truth rather than as an attempt to understand God's truth in all its facets without setting part of God's truth against another part of God's truth.

We constantly come back to the same fundamental questions:

Did God create a real world?

Is this world rational and knowable?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" it follows as night does day that the earth is very old and the universe as a whole much older still and evolution (including common descent) is a fact. That is the direction to which all the evidence points. And again and again in these discussions we see that attempts to avoid the implications of the evidence lead into denial of the reality and/or rational knowability of creation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
It is interesting to note that AiG says that God is wrong if they are wrong. From their statement of faith:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

Firstly:

Basics, 1 and 2:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.


Setting the stage. Everything in Scripture is the word of God. Not only that, but every interpretation of Scripture is by Scripture itself, which therefore means that every interpretation of Scripture is itself also the word of God (or, to be less strong, that its validity rests on the validity of Scripture itself and vice versa). Dangerous. Especially in the light of the following statement:

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

(Basics 3) This statement is an interpretation of Genesis. Because AiG believes that Scripture interprets Scripture, they imply that this statement has equal authority with the word of God, and furthermore that it is inerrant to the extent that the word of God is inerrant.

And of course, everybody's favourite generalization:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

(General 6) Now as defined, A contradicts B if for A to be true, B must be false. i.e. A contradicts B if A -> !B. And we all know that the "evidence" here is evidence for evolution. AiG themselves say that evidence for evolution contradicts the Scriptural record, therefore it is not valid. But this means that if evidence for evolution is true, then the Scriptural record is false, and since the Scriptural record is the word of God then the word of God is false and God is a liar. Furthermore, any evidence against AiG's interpretation of Scripture that proves to be true also implies that the word of God is false and God is a liar, since Scripture is interpreted by Scripture.

The long and short of it is that AiG says that if they are wrong God lied in the Bible. Isn't it wonderful how much authority some people have? :)
 
Upvote 0

RITB

Member
Nov 14, 2005
14
0
36
✟7,624.00
Faith
Protestant
Didaskomenos:

Well, why, then, does Paul tell Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living" (2 Timothy 3:16)?

This is totally contradicted by your assertion that God allowed men to include their [incorrect] thoughts in their without stating "I tell you on my authority" as Paul often does with reference to relationships. How can truth be taught from the Bible when itself is in error? A logical absurdity! Here we have a book claiming that you can use it to teach the truth, yet it has errors. How can a book that itself contains faults correct? How can it rebuke error when itself has errors? Despite this being hypocritical - which is one thing that Jesus slammed while on Earth - it is also foolish.

Peter gives us an idea of what being divinely inspired is like (cf 2 Peter 1:16-21): "For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God" (2 Peter 1:21).

I believe sternly that all Scripture was written in this way - the people were influenced or under the control of the Holy Spirit as they wrote what He moved them to write. They would have been very faithful, such as Moses - who wrote Genesis - and very open to the prompting and movement of the Holy Spirit.

Those things you listed that the Israelites didn't know are utter rubbish and unbiblically supported. They knew how the universe was created because God had chosen to reveal it to them in the Scripture which teaches the truth, rebukes errors and corrects faults. Also, the Bible does not teach geocentrism.

gluadys:

Have you ever stopped to think that at least the creationary view is supported by Scripture, yet evolutionary theory - the very means by which God supposedly created everything - is unbiblical and contradictory to what the whole Scripture says from Genesis 1:1 through to the end of Revelation? Now, who, biblically, has the better case - the creationist or the evolutionist? You cannot tell us how Genesis should be interpreted and support your view of reading Genesis against criticism and scrutiny. I can support my view of Genesis in light of scrutiny.

If the answer to both questions is "yes" it follows as night does day that the earth is very old and the universe as a whole much older still and evolution (including common descent) is a fact. That is the direction to which all the evidence points. And again and again in these discussions we see that attempts to avoid the implications of the evidence lead into denial of the reality and/or rational knowability of creation.

Incorrect. The evidence doesn't "speak" per sé, it is the interpretation of the evidence that leads one to believe that "X" is evidence for an old Earth or old universe. That same scientific evidence "X" could be interpreted differently (without lies and the usual unsubstantiated rhetoric) and become evidence for a young Earth or young Earth. Change the assumptions behind the dating methods and you'll get a dramatically different date. Also, having radiocarbon in rocks that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old is a paradox. You have radiocarbon that can only exist in rocks up to 50,000 years old in a rock that is supposedly hundreds of millions of years old... These dating methods are obviously in conflict - one or the other is wrong or right or they are both wrong. Other dating methods may come up and say that the rock is only tens of millions of years old, or billions of years old. There is very little consistency and the dates that are out of the ball park are seldom explained properly, according to Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (geology) in 1977.
 
Upvote 0

RITB

Member
Nov 14, 2005
14
0
36
✟7,624.00
Faith
Protestant
shernren,

Basics, 1 and 2
Setting the stage. Everything in Scripture is the word of God. Not only that, but every interpretation of Scripture is by Scripture itself, which therefore means that every interpretation of Scripture is itself also the word of God (or, to be less strong, that its validity rests on the validity of Scripture itself and vice versa). Dangerous.

Basically, what this means is that they look at the context that the verse is in, the historical background, the type of text the verse or passage is and then the correct reading and meaning is revealed. There is nothing "wrong" or "dangerous" about this. If you want to know the true meaning of a passage of a text, you need to look at all these things to determine it's true meaning and reading. This is particularly more so with the Old Testament being written in Hebrew, whose writing is very different from modern day English. The smallest descriptive language or repitition and so on, give some BIG clues on what the author intended to be the main points and so on.

What is, however, "dangerous", is when Christians take ideas from outside of the Bible and shove them into the Bible and twist the Bible to make it fit them and then justify those worldly views from the Bible. Which is, um, to put it bluntly what Christian theistic evolutionists do.

(Basics 3) This statement is an interpretation of Genesis. Because AiG believes that Scripture interprets Scripture, they imply that this statement has equal authority with the word of God, and furthermore that it is inerrant to the extent that the word of God is inerrant.

What they are saying is that this reading of Genesis is the only one that the Bible supports and the only conclusion that an unbiased reader could come to from the text. In other words, the context, historical background, text style and so on, all point to this reading as the true or intended reading or understanding of this passage.


Now as defined, A contradicts B if for A to be true, B must be false. i.e. A contradicts B if A -> !B. And we all know that the "evidence" here is evidence for evolution. AiG themselves say that evidence for evolution contradicts the Scriptural record, therefore it is not valid. But this means that if evidence for evolution is true, then the Scriptural record is false, and since the Scriptural record is the word of God then the word of God is false and God is a liar. Furthermore, any evidence against AiG's interpretation of Scripture that proves to be true also implies that the word of God is false and God is a liar, since Scripture is interpreted by Scripture.

Since that is what the Bible says and all the evidence from it and historical background and considering the context and so on points to this view of Genesis is true, and since the Bible is the Word of God whose author does not lie, then it is a reasonable conclusion to make.

Also, it's the interpretation of the evidence that "supports" evolution - not the evidence itself because the evidence can't speak. It is viewed in light of a theory or a person's opinion - nothing more. If it is consistent with the belief and that beliefs assumptions and presuppositions, then it may provide some evidence for it -- but note that this evidence is based on the larger assumption that the presupposition of the theory is true.

This occurs many times in dating rocks with fossils inside of them. As Dr Monty White explains:

"Of course, the proof of the accuracy of the different dating methods should be that different methods give the same age for teh same rock sample. However, as I searched the literature I became aware of articles in which it was reported that different methods gave different ages for the same rock. In these papers the authors spent a great deal of space discussing why there were discrepancies and why the age should be deterined from the fossil content of the rock or from teh fossils in the adjoining rocks. But there is circular reasoning here:
* The age of the rock is determined from the age of a fossil, the age of which in turn is determined by evolution;
* The proof of evolution is the age of the rocks in which the fossil is found.

In other words, I saw that the basis for dating rocks is evolution and the only proof of evolution is the ages of the rocks in which the fossils are found. The assumption of evolution is, therefore, the main evidence for evolution."

Just so you know, Dr Monty White already looked at the fossil record as he explains on pages 261-262 of his article in In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation. During his college life, he became a Christian and then when he did a geology course he became a theistic evolutionist.

He was challenged to explain 1 Corinthians 15:22 by his wife which got him thinking about just who Adam was. He recounted, "I remember thinking that if I believed in a literal Adam, I would also have to believe in a literal Eve, a literal Garden of Eden, and a literal six-day creation. If I did this, I would have to commit intellectual suicide, for at that time, I knew no one who blieved creation. Everyone I knew believed evolution. Every book I read, even those written by Christians, taught evolution." He examined how the New Testament figures (including Jesus) thought of the early chapters of Genesis. He said, "I soon realized that in the New Testament all of the events that are recorded in the first chapters of the Bible - the creation, Adam, Eve, the fall, Noah, the flood, and so on - are accepted as being literal and historical. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament about their being mythical, allegorical, legendary, or even evolutionary."

All this confusion led him on a study of evolution. Ironically, he claims, "It may therefore come as a surprise to realize that I became a creationist as a result of reading about evolution!" [He wasn't aware of any anti-evolution/pro-creation book, article or organization at that time.]

The long and short of it is that AiG says that if they are wrong God lied in the Bible. Isn't it wonderful how much authority some people have?

It is, in a sense, the only conclusion that one can come from given a reading of Genesis and considering those things listed above.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
RITB said:
Well, why, then, does Paul tell Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living" (2 Timothy 3:16)?

This is totally contradicted by your assertion that God allowed men to include their [incorrect] thoughts in their without stating "I tell you on my authority" as Paul often does with reference to relationships. How can truth be taught from the Bible when itself is in error? A logical absurdity! Here we have a book claiming that you can use it to teach the truth, yet it has errors. How can a book that itself contains faults correct? How can it rebuke error when itself has errors? Despite this being hypocritical - which is one thing that Jesus slammed while on Earth - it is also foolish.
The OT (which is what "scripture" refers to in the NT) is exactly what 2 Tim. 3:16 says! But "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" are all things the Bible was commissioned for. "Teaching the truth" does not refer to teaching physics or meteorology, but to teaching the truths of the Spirit. Likewise for the "reproof" ("rebuking error" in your translation) and "correcting faults". It says nothing of double-dribbling or your car's engine the right way - it's talking about Scripture's aptitude for pointing out what God requires, where we fall short, and what we should do about it.

Peter gives us an idea of what being divinely inspired is like (cf 2 Peter 1:16-21): "For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God" (2 Peter 1:21).

I believe sternly that all Scripture was written in this way - the people were influenced or under the control of the Holy Spirit as they wrote what He moved them to write. They would have been very faithful, such as Moses - who wrote Genesis - and very open to the prompting and movement of the Holy Spirit.
Did you miss the part about "prophetic message" (lit. "prophecy")? By definition, prophecy is of directly divine origin, and whatever instance there is of prophecy in the Bible, they are or divine origin. The question is, why didn't Peter say "no Scripture"? And your translation is atrocious! The original says nothing of "control" - it says that "men of God carried by the Holy Spirit gave utterance". I believe as well as anyone that the prophets weren't speaking hogwash - didn't I say that they testified to the truth that God gave them? And that is infallible. But not all Scripture is prophecy.

Those things you listed that the Israelites didn't know are utter rubbish and unbiblically supported. They knew how the universe was created because God had chosen to reveal it to them in the Scripture which teaches the truth, rebukes errors and corrects faults. Also, the Bible does not teach geocentrism.
It didn't teach geocentrism, a young earth, or any other errors that so many modern Christians believe it teaches. It's in the Bible because the people already believed them. The new information that's in the Bible is divine in origin and true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Critias said:
God is never a liar, period. I disparage every time I see anyone say God is a liar if they are wrong or if some scientist(s) is/are wrong.

To me, that is pitting man's fallibility against God's infallibity and saying if man proves to be who he is, fallible, then God is the liar.

It is simply judging God in the event man is wrong. There is no right time to cast sinful actions on the Almighty God.

I see you ignored my post. What I said is that you (or at least most YEC's on this forum) reject my view on what Scripture is on the grounds that if there are any mistakes or misconceptions in the Bible we must conclude that God makes mistakes (i.e. "lies"). Your camp is saying that if we're right, God lied. I'm saying that's hogwash. God communicates in spite the flaws and limited knowledge of his messengers.

Now do you actually have a reply to what I said?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
RITB said:
gluadys:

Have you ever stopped to think that at least the creationary view is supported by Scripture, yet evolutionary theory - the very means by which God supposedly created everything - is unbiblical and contradictory to what the whole Scripture says from Genesis 1:1 through to the end of Revelation?


I quite disagree with your opinion. I find nothing unbiblical or contrary to scripture in evolution. You are not stating a fact here. You are simply telling us which interpretation of scripture you favour. That does not make your interpretation of scripture correct or equivalent to the meaning intended by the inspired author or by God.

So I understand that from the perspective of your bias it looks like evolution contradicts scripture. But I do not see it that way.


Now, who, biblically, has the better case - the creationist or the evolutionist?

Oh, IMHO, the evolutionist has the stronger biblical case. I know you won't agree with that, because it would mean changing how you have chosen to read scripture.


Incorrect. The evidence doesn't "speak" per sé, it is the interpretation of the evidence that leads one to believe that "X" is evidence for an old Earth or old universe. That same scientific evidence "X" could be interpreted differently (without lies and the usual unsubstantiated rhetoric) and become evidence for a young Earth or young Earth.

No, it can't be interpreted any other way and be faithful to our repeated observations.

There are only a very few ways to "re-interpret" the evidence.

One is to call our capacity to know the world through sense and reason into question. This amounts to drawing a line between reality as it is and reality as we perceive it. God may have given us a real world, but he has not given us the means to relate to its reality. Does that fit with your theology of creation?

The other is to call in a miracle to deal with evidence whose implications one does not wish to accept. This amounts to saying that the world as it appears is not real. Does that fit with your theology of creation?

As long as one sticks to the parameters of science, the evidence is not susceptible to alternate interpretations. Alternate interpretations only exist when evidence is ambiguous due to lack of sufficient information. The point of science in this case is to determine which of several alternate interpretations is the best available.

For the age of the earth, that task was completed nearly 200 years ago. And no discovery since has invalidated that conclusion. For evolution, all the evidence discovered in 150 years, in dozens of scientific fields from physics to geology to genetics, anatomy, taxonomy and geography has supported the currect theory. ALL the evidence.

Change the assumptions behind the dating methods and you'll get a dramatically different date.

Which assumptions, specifically?

Also, having radiocarbon in rocks that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old is a paradox.

Not when you know the source of the radiocarbon.

Other dating methods may come up and say that the rock is only tens of millions of years old, or billions of years old. There is very little consistency and the dates that are out of the ball park are seldom explained properly, according to Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (geology) in 1977.

1977? What would he say today?

The reason scientists use these methods is because they have proven to be consistent with other independent methods. What makes you think scientists would use inaccurate dating methods? How is that going to help their research?
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
Didaskomenos said:
I see you ignored my post. What I said is that you (or at least most YEC's on this forum) reject my view on what Scripture is on the grounds that if there are any mistakes or misconceptions in the Bible we must conclude that God makes mistakes (i.e. "lies"). Your camp is saying that if we're right, God lied. I'm saying that's hogwash. God communicates in spite the flaws and limited knowledge of his messengers.

Now do you actually have a reply to what I said?

I did give you my answer. Maybe you didn't like it. Here it is again:

God is never a liar, period.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.