If he allowed them to perpetuate their own myths, then it isn't God lying simply because God didn't correct them. God didn't correct them about the Sun going around the Earth either, but the Bible talks about the Sun moving. And that pertains even better since it's really about how we perceive our natural universe.
I forget where it is, but there's a battle that the Israelites needed more time to win, so it says God stopped the Sun in the sky. Now that doesn't make any sense, since the Sun isn't moving. God probably stopped the Earth from moving, but let the author describe it inaccurately. That isn't a lie is it? It still got the point across that God intervened in miraculous ways, who cares if our perspective describes the "how" of it all wrong? He doesn't seem to mind.
And in my estimation, Nick, I think you're quite right in saying that God permits us our phenomenological perspectives about the ways in which He interacts and communicates with us in the world.
All these accusations about "lying" stem from people having a different belief about how directly God inspired scriptures. It isn't 100% word for word God breathed. The various authors of the books in the Bible all have their own styles. And once we're under 100% it comes down to interpretation just how much God directly controlled the writing of scripture. That's what I think 2PhiloVoid has been talking about in his last few posts. We can't know exactly how directly God inspired scripture except to say it has inspiration in at least the most pertinent parts, but not as much as 100%.
Yes, there's that. And then there's also my contention (with my more Fundamentalistic brethren) that the process of inspiration itself need not be seen as conforming to any one mode or method by necessity, but rather that God provided the impetus, whether internally or even externally, for various individuals among His people to feel the need to "construct" writings as a form of testimony for the benefit of the public of Israel and/or the Church. And the consideration as to the accuracy level, along with possible artistic license used in the production of the writings themselves, is another issue altogether ...
In the case of Genesis, we have to consider at the least that the entire book came before Moses' time, and we don't have much in the way of many clues that tell us he did or did not have access to various historical records from previous generations and eras. Fundamentalist like to think the whole book came from the mouth of God; I rather think that it came as a construct, an artful one at that, which was written by one (or ones) who wished to create an account that was seemingly coherent with the social identity of Israel and its relationship with this One God.
So, we don't know exactly the purpose of its writing, and we each (although corporately) have to glean this for ourselves from what remains of the vestiges of what can be gathered about the historical handling of the Bible. It's anything but purely objective. And things get even more interesting if we bring various considerations of historiography, the philosophy of history, and A.N.E. studies into the picture. However, I do think Conrad Hyers was on to something which brings some coherence to the ongoing project of investigation.
I also think it is pertinent to consider that Genesis, being a book of Jewish thought, may be better understood if we take into consideration the hermeneutical approaches of not just the Christian Church in its 2,000 years of diverse opinion, but also of some of the approaches applied by Rabbinical-Judaic interpreters. For instance, Jacob Neusner (2004), a Jewish philosopher and expert on the Talmud, has this to say about the general mode and approach that the Rabbis have taken in interpreting the Law and the Prophets (which would include Genesis, of course):
In this reading of the Torah, time and change signify nothing. In its normative statements Rabbinic Judaism is ahistorical because it is paradigmatic in its structure and sensibility. So, with the loss of the experience of memory in favor of a different kind of encounter with time past, present, and future, time as a concept in the measurement of things ceased to serve. Time simply is not a factor in thinking about what happens and what counts. Instead, transcendent and permanent paradigms for the formation of the social order govern, so that what was now is, and what will be is what was and is. Paradigmatic thinking treats the case not as a one-time event but as an example; it seeks the rules that cases [of investigation] adumbrate; it asks about the patterns that narratives realize in concrete instances. It is like a mathematical model, which translates the real world into abstract principles, and like social science in that it seeks to generalize about particularities. Both disciplines are able to account for local variation by defining the norm. (pp. 6-7)
So, if Genesis does indeed represent a collection of various vignettes, written to represent paradigmatic truths (or morals to be applied), yet in a collective manner connected by way of Hebrew genealogies as a framework, then this would contribute to our understanding of why someone like Josephus would say the things he says in his preface to
The Antiquities of the Jews:
But because almost all our constitution depends on the wisdom of Moses, or legislator, I cannot avoid saying somewhat concerning him beforehand, though I shall do it briefly; I mean, because otherwise those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much philosophy (Preface 4:18)...for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly (in Preface 4:24).
In Josephus, we see some vestiges of the Rabbinical type of thinking, a kind of thinking that may also contribute to explaining why Paul says little about the life and times of Christ, but concentrates on what he sees as the "timeless" truth about Jesus as the Lord and Messiah of Israel. It may also help us understand why Paul references the importance of the Scriptures as being a foundation of sorts, although mysterious in its message, for understanding the work and will of God in the world. It also may help us have insight as to why Paul would say in Romans 15:4, "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." And then in 1 Cor. 10:6,11 "Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted...Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come."
If God lets people record things inaccurately when they don't have an impact on the message He is trying to get across it isn't lying. If it is, then by that standard, the Bible contains provable lies.
Yep!!
Neusner, Jacob. (2004).
Judaism and the interpretation of scripture. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
The Works of Josephus.
