It seems to me these two statements call God a liar if they are wrong. And perhaps you don't fit in this mold, and if you don't then I was not addressing you. I was addressing those who feel if they are wrong God is a liar.
No, I do not say that God is a liar "if I am wrong", because it has nothing to do with me. All it has to do with is the earth and universe the way God made it. The earth and universe God created has incontrovertible evidence that it is billions of years old. Either it IS billions of years old, or God created it very recently *with this evidence in place*. That would be deceptive. YECs believe that God did, indeed, create it recently, so this means they believe that God planted all this evidence of age. They may want to dance around the subject, and talk about the "World vs. God" etc, etc, but they can not deny the evidence. So, if they believe that God created 10,000 years ago, they BY DEFINITION, are asserting that all the evidence for a billions-old earth was planted there by God.
Now, you bring up another argument that we YEC are calling God a liar everytime we don't conform to the thinking of this world.
No, it has nothing to do with conforming to the thinking of this world. It is not the "thinking of this world" which provides this evidence for billions of years. It is Gods Creation itself. Either you believe the evidence from Gods Creation, or you ignore it. The "world" is not making this stuff up.
I have not seen one YEC say God intentionally planted evidence to deceive.
No, they dont say that outright, they just say the earth was created 10,000 years ago, which means the same thing since if God created 10,000 years ago, he had to have created it with all this evidence in place. While we can not talk about Gods intention, it can not be denied that if the YEC position is true, then God created in a way that would deceive.
EDIT: I have been asked to edit the language above, but rather than just delete it or change it, which might cause confusion, I will attempt to explain a bit. First of all, as I have said elsewhere, I do not believe God has ever deceived or that He even COULD deceive. And I am NOT saying that if YEC is true, then God DID deceive (since deception is an intentional act). My point is that if YEC is true, then the world is in a condition as we speak that looks exactly, in every last detail, like an earth that is billions of years old. This would necessarily cause those studying the earth to believe that it IS billions of years old. This means that if God created the world six thousand years ago, He did so in a way that would cause all those studying the earth to reach a false conclusion, for whatever reason. In other words, even without deceiving, He would have created a world *in a deceptive manner*. The difference is in his intent, as I mention above. God can never intend to deceive. But, since God knows how all these things will be viewed, I do not believe that God would create a world that would look in every single respect like a billions old planet if He only created six thousand years ago. It is possible, but it is just entirely contrary to my perception of God's nature.
Regardless of all that, of course, I believe in an old earth because this is what the evidence of God's Creation overwhelmingly points to and I have no theological reason to doubt the evidence when it is so clear.
Just as Adam was created a man, we don't say God deceived us into thinking that Adam has lived on this earth for 30 some years.
Well, first that assumes that we read the Adam account literally. But even if we did accept a literal Adam, there is a huge difference between creating in maturity and with full functionality and creating with specific evidence of a past that did not exist.
Nor do we say that God has deceived us when He said Jesus Christ was not conceived of a man. Many at the time would have thought he was conceived of a man. Just as we believe God's Word about Jesus Christ, so we believe God's Word about the miracle of creation as it is stated literally in Genesis.
Well, this is apples and oranges. We have no specific evidence that says God was not conceived of a man. So, Gods Word saying this is what happened is simply the explanation of a miracle. This is not a problem in the least for any Christian. The problem lies when there is *specific evidence* that the literal reading is not accurate, and that a non-literal reading is what was intended. We have such evidence is spades with Genesis, we have no such evidence regarding Jesus birth.
Now tell me, where do we call God a liar when we believe His Word over mans?
But you keep wanting to create this false dichotomy. This is not Mans word vs. Gods Word. It is the evidence of Gods Creation v. one interpretation of Scripture. You are insisting that your interpretation of Scripture IS "Gods Word".
The evolutionary thought is the one that has lead people to read Genesis allegorically because it fits nicely together when you make it work. Start with God in Genesis 1:1 and then stop and read man's theory to finish. Discard the rest of the creation account because Genesis 1:1 is all you need. Man can tell you the rest.
Well, this is wrong on many levels. First, you act as if the allegorical reading of Genesis is something new, something arrived at in order to conform to evolutionary thought. This just requires a knowledge of the history of the Church (and of Jewish interpretation as well) to know that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis was proposed as an alternative LONG before evolution was even considered. Many of the early Church fathers accepted an allegorical reading, including St. Augustine.
Second, it is very odd to think that a person who reads Genesis non-literally would wnat to discard all after Genesis 1:1. Just because it is non-literal does not mean it is not the true and holy message of God. All man can tell us through studying Gods Creation is some of the details of the hows and whens of creation. The Scripture alone tells us the WHO and the WHY.
It seems many trust man's interpretation of science more then they would trust a literal reading of God's Word.
Well, absolutely, I would choose the clear and obvious evidence of Gods Creation over a literal reading of Gods Word. Let me ask you, do you accept the evidence of heliocentrism or the literal Scripture which leads to geocentrism?
