Can God lie?

[Derf]

Of course I think of it as evil, but God can use the deeds of the evil as well as the deeds of the righteous for His own agenda.

I do indeed agree with Jesus, (John 8:44), and Paul, (Eph 5:9, 1 Tim 1:9-11), that lying is sin.

Not to mention Jesus in Revelation 21:8 — But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The question, then, is whether the Hebrew midwives and Rahab were rewarded for lying or something else. Because if they were rewarded for lying, but all liars are thrown in the lake of fire, God appears to be duplicitous, at the very least.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not to mention Jesus in Revelation 21:8 — But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Only if you assume that someone who lies once is considered part of the group known as "liars"...

But that's not the way it's meant, nor is it how those in the ancient Hebrew culture spoke.

Modern western culture tends to think in terms of individuals. But Throughout the Bible, you'll see it referring to and addressing groups, and even individuals as if they were groups (Adam comes to mind).

"Liars" here and in other verses is speaking of those who lie constantly, without reserve, those who are always telling lies. Not those who lie to defend the innocent, such as Rahab and the Hebrew women.

Thus...

The question, then, is whether the Hebrew midwives and Rahab were rewarded for lying or something else. Because if they were rewarded for lying, but all liars are thrown in the lake of fire, God appears to be duplicitous, at the very least.

It's a moot point

 

[Derf]

Only if you assume that someone who lies once is considered part of the group known as "liars"...

But that's not the way it's meant, nor is it how those in the ancient Hebrew culture spoke.

Modern western culture tends to think in terms of individuals. But Throughout the Bible, you'll see it referring to and addressing groups, and even individuals as if they were groups (Adam comes to mind).

"Liars" here and in other verses is speaking of those who lie constantly, without reserve, those who are always telling lies. Not those who lie to defend the innocent, such as Rahab and the Hebrew women.

Thus...



It's a moot point

Why would it be necessary to only lie once to be okay? I thought lying wasn't evil? And if not evil, then lying constantly wouldn't even be wrong. You seem inconsistent.

 

[Hoping]

Not to mention Jesus in Revelation 21:8 — But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The question, then, is whether the Hebrew midwives and Rahab were rewarded for lying or something else. Because if they were rewarded for lying, but all liars are thrown in the lake of fire, God appears to be duplicitous, at the very least.

What Law were they under that said lying was a sin?

 

[Derf]

What Law were they under that said lying was a sin?

What law was Cain under that said he shouldn't murder Abel? If no law has been given, did that make murder not a sin? No.

Romans 5:13 KJV — (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Even if there is no law against a sin, that doesn't make it not a sin, just not imputed.

 

[Clete]

Not to mention Jesus in Revelation 21:8 — But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The question, then, is whether the Hebrew midwives and Rahab were rewarded for lying or something else. Because if they were rewarded for lying, but all liars are thrown in the lake of fire, God appears to be duplicitous, at the very least.

Or your doctrine is wrong and lying isn't always a sin.

 

[Clete]

Why would it be necessary to only lie once to be okay? I thought lying wasn't evil? And if not evil, then lying constantly wouldn't even be wrong. You seem inconsistent.

No one has ever said, "Lying wasn't evil." That's you twisting what we've said into something you can argue against. What we've said is that lying isn't always evil.

From this point forward, all I'm going to do is to keep on repeating this same exact point until you acknowledge it.

 

[Tambora]

Not to mention Jesus in Revelation 21:8 — But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The question, then, is whether the Hebrew midwives and Rahab were rewarded for lying or something else. Because if they were rewarded for lying, but all liars are thrown in the lake of fire, God appears to be duplicitous, at the very least.

You'll need to keep walking through your assertion because the list in Rev 21:1 would include folks like Jacob, Abraham, David, etc.

Revelation 21​

(8) But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.​

Jacob lied.
Genesis 27
(24) He said, Are you really my son Esau? He answered, I am.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why would it be necessary to only lie once to be okay?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. That's not what I said.

I thought lying wasn't evil?

In certain circumstances, it is not. In other circumstances, it is.

And if not evil, then lying constantly wouldn't even be wrong. You seem inconsistent.

Making a habit of lying, meaning, you lie about everything, even in situations where it is not warranted, for example, lying to your wife about doing the laundry, or lying to a friend about why you can't go have a beer with him, instead of, as in the examples given, lying to defend the innocent.

Contrast the examples I gave earlier with David lying to Uriah, Bathsheba's wife, in sending him to his death. Clearly, David was wrong, while the people in the examples I gave were rewarded by God for their lies.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Were Rahab or the birthers under the Law?
No.

Who said anything about breaking a law?

We're talking about whether something is evil or not, in other words, something that goes against God's standard of morality.

I am glad we can agree on that.
If those woman had no Law to break, how could they be Law breakers?

Who said anything about being a law breaker?

Too much work for you?

Clearly not, else I wouldn't have bothered posting the verses.

Rahab? The birthers?

Including the person who lies to the Nazis or the slavers to protect the Jews or slaves, respectively.

Neither were under the Law so the question is moot.

As Derf said:

What law was Cain under that said he shouldn't murder Abel? If no law has been given, did that make murder not a sin? No.

Romans 5:13 KJV — (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Even if there is no law against a sin, that doesn't make it not a sin, just not imputed.

Now, answer the question, please, and don't dismiss it as moot, for it is not.

As it is written..."...for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20)
No Law, no sin.

Supra.

If men act on their own consciences, but don't have the Law's guidance or definitions, how can something be determined as evil?

Supra.

Would the people who lied to the Nazis, or the people who lied to the slavers, have sinned in doing so, as they try to protect the innocent?

 

[Hoping]

What law was Cain under that said he shouldn't murder Abel? If no law has been given, did that make murder not a sin? No.

Romans 5:13 KJV — (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Even if there is no law against a sin, that doesn't make it not a sin, just not imputed.

I can agree with that.
Though, without some rule/law against murder, how would Cain know it was forbidden?
He did know though, as he was given the same conscience we have now.

All men will be judged by their consciences, with or without laws or regulations.

 

[Hoping]

Who said anything about breaking a law?

Sin is not imputed where there is no law.

We're talking about whether something is evil or not, in other words, something that goes against God's standard of morality.

Yes, and that which goes against God's morality is sin.

Who said anything about being a law breaker?

They walk hand in hand.
Where there is no Law, no sin is imputed.

Clearly not, else I wouldn't have bothered posting the verses.

And again, thank you for that.

Including the person who lies to the Nazis or the slavers to protect the Jews or slaves, respectively.

Immorality for moral sake...
A lie is a lie, and immoral, and against God.

As Derf said:

Yep.

Now, answer the question, please, and don't dismiss it as moot, for it is not.

Lying is a sin.
Since Moses, sin is imputed.

Would the people who lied to the Nazis, or the people who lied to the slavers, have sinned in doing so, as they try to protect the innocent?

Yes.
Using one sin to preempt another is still sin.
Why not ask God to not let you be in such a position instead?
He does answer the prayers of the faithful.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sin is not imputed where there is no law.

Why did God remove the death penalty for Cain, and not require it for anyone prior to Noah, especially if there was no law?

Yes, and that which goes against God's morality is sin.

Thank you for catching up to the rest of us.

They walk hand in hand.
Where there is no Law, no sin is imputed.

Hmm, I wonder how this applies to Christians, as they are no longer under the law, who sin........ Topic for a different thread, though.

Immorality for moral sake...

Do not do evil that good may come of it.

A lie is a lie, and immoral, and against God.

So Rahab and the Hebrew midwives were sinning?

Lying is a sin.

Begging the question.

That's what we're discussing.

You cannot assume that which we are trying to determine.

Since Moses, sin is imputed.

There was a law prior to Moses.

Yes.

So you would have, had you been in Nazi Germany, told the Nazi officer who came to your home that there were Jews hiding in your house in order to avoid being killed by the Nazis.

You would have, had you lived during America's slave trade era, told the slaver who came to your house looking for his slaves that you were hiding them in a hidden compartment, because your home was part of the Underground Railroad.

Am I wrong?

Using one sin

More question begging.

We are discussing whether it IS a sin. Assuming it is a sin won't work here.

to preempt another is still sin.

You actually think that protecting the innocent is a sin!?!?

What should the Hebrew midwives have done when Pharaoh told them to kill the innocent children they were going to deliver, instead of lying to him and protecting them?

If you had been one of them, what would you have done, tell Pharaoh the truth?

Why not ask God to not let you be in such a position instead?

Because God isn't in the business of protecting people from the sins of others.

He does answer the prayers of the faithful.

Not always.

 

[Derf]

No one has ever said, "Lying wasn't evil." That's you twisting what we've said into something you can argue against. What we've said is that lying isn't always evil.

From this point forward, all I'm going to do is to keep on repeating this same exact point until you acknowledge it.

I thought that's what you were already doing.

I understand you're saying lying isn't always evil, but I've tried to get you and @JudgeRightly to clarify when it isn't. I apologize if the questions went to one or the other of you instead of both, but I think you are both trying to read through the whole thread, which I appreciate.
It seems to boil down to "when there's a greater harm that needs to be prevented, lying is not a sin, but otherwise lying is a sin." Whether you like it or not, that means the liars in that case were righteously choosing the lesser of 2 evils. And I get your point that they are choosing to do righteously--the midwives to save the male babies rather than kill them, Rahab to promote the health and safety of the whole Israelite race, and with it the Messiah. And I could understand if you were saying they were under extreme pressure, in risk of their lives and the failure of their purpose to promote the righteous causes over the reigning authorities' evil causes. And under such extreme pressure, I would certainly understand that they felt the only option was to lie to the reigning authority rather than disobey God. I think I might do exactly the same thing.

But unless there's a case where lying is ok without that extra pressure to do something more evil, I can't see lying as a good thing--most especially because.
1. God doesn't do it (at least His word says He does, though you disagree)
2. Liars are excluded from God's kingdom (it doesn't say "evil liars", or "liars who don't just tell righteous lies", just liars)
3. Satan is the father of lies or lying (not "the father of all evil lies", but just lies or the act of lying)

John 8:44 KJV
Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Let's look more closely at the midwives.
Exodus 1:15-21 KJV - And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one [was] Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see [them] upon the stools; if it [be] a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it [be] a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women [are] not as the Egyptian women; for they [are] lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

The bold text above is the reason, and the underlined text is the reward. Neither bolded portion says specifically "because they lied" they were rewarded. The second bolded portion says "because the midwives feared God", and that phrase is a reprise of an earlier statement, where the text says, "But the midwives feared God and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." This gives exactly what the did in their fear of God...they saved the babies alive. They hadn't lied yet, because they hadn't been called before Pharaoh yet.

So the text means "Because the midwives did not kill the men children," God rewarded them. God didn't condone lying in this case, but He did condone saving Hebrew lives.

What about Rahab? was she rewarded for lying? Not really. Here's the key verse:
Joshua 2:14 KJV - And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee.

Same formatting here: bold text gives the reason, underline text gives the reward. The reason is not "because you lied for us", but "if you utter not this our business." The lying had already occurred before the agreement was made. This is not to say they weren't grateful for saving them from the searchers, but you can't say she was rewarded specifically for lying, but for something she did AFTER the lying.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Immorality for moral sake...
A lie is a lie, and immoral, and against God.

Hoping, and @Derf for that matter, what does the law say?

Does it say:
A) "You shall not lie"
B) "You shall not bear false witness"

Is lying to save the innocent "bearing false witness"?

No?

Then @Hoping, your point about it being a moot point because Rahab and the Hebrew midwives were not under the law is itself a moot point, because the law doesn't say anything about lying to begin with, only bearing false witness.

 

[Derf]

I can agree with that.
Though, without some rule/law against murder, how would Cain know it was forbidden?
He did know though, as he was given the same conscience we have now.

Conscience is likely the right answer, but Lamech knew it was forbidden because of the penalty levied on Cain.
Genesis 4:23-24 KJV - And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

All men will be judged by their consciences, with or without laws or regulations.

Yes, I thinks that's correct, although all will also be judged by other things, since sometimes men's consciences are seared, and sometimes men are hypocritical:
1 Timothy 4:2 KJV - Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Interesting that 1 Tim 4:2 is also a verse about lying.

 

[Derf]

Hoping, and @Derf for that matter, what does the law say?

Does it say:
A) "You shall not lie"
B) "You shall not bear false witness"

Is lying to save the innocent "bearing false witness"?

No?

Then @Hoping, your point about it being a moot point because Rahab and the Hebrew midwives were not under the law is itself a moot point, because the law doesn't say anything about lying to begin with, only bearing false witness.

Did Rahab bear false witness? Did the midwives? I think they did. You might have a point if you finish the law statement: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." That presumes that "bearing false witness" is not equal to "lying".
Exodus 20:16 KJV - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Does this give us an out for other types of lies? I don't see that in the Revelation passage. Nor in these:
Proverbs 14:5 KJV - A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 19:5 KJV - A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall not escape.
Proverbs 19:9 KJV - A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall perish.

And this one lists both in the list of seven abominations:
Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV - These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

It seems like the false witness speaking lies is NOT the same abomination as the lying tongue. And remember that it doesn't distinguish between a good lying tongue and an evil lying tongue.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did Rahab bear false witness? Did the midwives? I think they did. You might have a point if you finish the law statement: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." That presumes that "bearing false witness" is not equal to "lying".
Exodus 20:16 KJV - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Does this give us an out for other types of lies? I don't see that in the Revelation passage. Nor in these:
Proverbs 14:5 KJV - A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 19:5 KJV - A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall not escape.
Proverbs 19:9 KJV - A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall perish.

And this one lists both in the list of seven abominations:
Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV - These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

It seems like the false witness speaking lies is NOT the same abomination as the lying tongue. And remember that it doesn't distinguish between a good lying tongue and an evil lying tongue.

Good lies in the Bible, some of which God blessed abundantly: - The Hebrew midwives lied to save innocent children - Rahab lied to save the God-fearing spies - Milcah lied to save her husband David - A Bahurim woman lied to save Jonathan and Ahimaaz - God sent a lying spirit to deceive a wicked king - God planned the ambush that deceived the men of Ai - Elisha lied to the blinded Syrian army, "Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek." But by God's power he led them to Samaria. - Moses lied to Pharaoh saying, "We will go three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God", knowing full well that the plan was for the Hebrews to leave Egypt for good and head to the Promised Land. Good lies in more recent history: - Corrie ten Boom lied to Germans who would kill the Jews - Harriet Tubman lied to Americans who would rob blacks of their freedom - The Allies deceived the Germans with fake field armies to aid the Normandy invasion - Etc. Most of the church explains why lying is wrong, but whether they realize it or not, their teaching applies generally, but not always. There are a minority of teachers, including at Denver Bible Church and here at BEL, who provide equal time, so to speak, by explaining when lying is good. Sinful lying, of course, should never be defended. The Bible accurately reports sinful untruths, such as when Aaron lied about the origin of the golden calf (Ex. 32:3-4, 22-24), when the Amalakite lied about killing Saul (2 Sam. 1:6-10), and when the false witnesses lied about Jesus (Mark 14:55-59).

Lying for God | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Was it a good thing for the people in the above list to do to lie when they did for the reasons they did?

If so, then their lies were not sinful. (Evil is not good and good is not evil.)

And it also disproves the idea that ALL lies are sinful.

 

[Derf]

- Moses lied to Pharaoh saying, "We will go three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God", knowing full well that the plan was for the Hebrews to leave Egypt for good and head to the Promised Land.

I don't have time to address all of the new ones in your list, but I will say that I don't think God lied or told Moses lie to Pharaoh in this example. If God hadn't hardened Pharaoh's heart first, and Pharaoh had granted the 3 days without caveats, then God would have found another way for the Israelites to leave for good. And if we are accepting of the premise that God lied and then are told in the bible that God doesn't lie, we are a conflicted people. And we ought to preach these passages with some acknowledgment of lack of full understanding rather than say that the bible teaches against the bible.

 

[Clete]

I thought that's what you were already doing.

That's true. At least that's what it feels like.

I understand you're saying lying isn't always evil, but I've tried to get you and @JudgeRightly to clarify when it isn't.

Well, you've done more than that, you keep making arguments that only make sense if we're saying that lying isn't ever a sin, which you now have affirmatively acknowledged that you understand not to be the case. So, why do you keep making the arguments?

I apologize if the questions went to one or the other of you instead of both, but I think you are both trying to read through the whole thread, which I appreciate.
It seems to boil down to "when there's a greater harm that needs to be prevented, lying is not a sin, but otherwise lying is a sin."

I don't think I'd agree with that phrasing. I asked you before, if lying is only okay when its the lesser of two evils, then what was the other, supposedly greater evil, that God was avoiding by telling the spirit to go cause Ahab's prophets to lie to him? There were clearly other options God could have chosen as the lying was one of several suggestions offered in the heavenly conference that was going on so how can the lie have been a forced choice between two evils?

The simplest way I know of to state what the biblical materials supports is that it is not wrong to deceive an enemy when the fight is just.

Whether you like it or not, that means the liars in that case were righteously choosing the lesser of 2 evils.

It only means that if YOUR presuppositions are true, which they are not.

And I get your point that they are choosing to do righteously--the midwives to save the male babies rather than kill them, Rahab to promote the health and safety of the whole Israelite race, and with it the Messiah. And I could understand if you were saying they were under extreme pressure, in risk of their lives and the failure of their purpose to promote the righteous causes over the reigning authorities' evil causes. And under such extreme pressure, I would certainly understand that they felt the only option was to lie to the reigning authority rather than disobey God. I think I might do exactly the same thing.

To do otherwise, would be sin.

But unless there's a case where lying is ok without that extra pressure to do something more evil, I can't see lying as a good thing--most especially because.
1. God doesn't do it (at least His word says He does, though you disagree)

Yes, actually, He does! Remember the "Go and do it." in I Kings?

2. Liars are excluded from God's kingdom (it doesn't say "evil liars", or "liars who don't just tell righteous lies", just liars)

It is not relevant whether the qualifiars are in place. People are not excluded from God's kingdom for any reason other than having done evil. In other words, the context makes the qualifiers redundant.

3. Satan is the father of lies or lying (not "the father of all evil lies", but just lies or the act of lying)
John 8:44 KJV
Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Again, just as above, the qualifier would be redundant. Satan is the father of evil and of nothing else. The lies simply being a specific sort of evil.

Let's look more closely at the midwives.
Exodus 1:15-21 KJV - And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one [was] Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see [them] upon the stools; if it [be] a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it [be] a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women [are] not as the Egyptian women; for they [are] lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

The bold text above is the reason, and the underlined text is the reward. Neither bolded portion says specifically "because they lied" they were rewarded. The second bolded portion says "because the midwives feared God", and that phrase is a reprise of an earlier statement, where the text says, "But the midwives feared God and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." This gives exactly what the did in their fear of God...they saved the babies alive. They hadn't lied yet, because they hadn't been called before Pharaoh yet.

Dance all you want, Derf. The action they took was to tell a lie which directly resulted in God rewarding them. All you've done here is talk about the motive behind the lie, which effectively concedes our side of the debate because it is precisely the motive that determines whether a lie is good or evil, as is the case with virtually every sinful act. It is, for example, the motive that turns killing someone into either an accident (amoral), self-defense (righteous) , an execution (righteousness if just) or a murder (evil). Likewise, just as killing a person is not always evil, so lying to someone is not always evil.

So the text means "Because the midwives did not kill the men children," God rewarded them. God didn't condone lying in this case, but He did condone saving Hebrew lives.

Well, Derf, as I've said repeatedly now, there is your doctrinal interpretation and then there's the plain reading of the text. The text doesn't require any interpretation. It's perfectly obvious what happened, why it was done and what the result was. In a nut shell, the midwives lied and God said "Well done! As reward, I'm going to figure it out so that the Messiah will come from your line. Keep up the good work!"

What about Rahab? was she rewarded for lying? Not really. Here's the key verse:
Joshua 2:14 KJV - And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee.

Same formatting here: bold text gives the reason, underline text gives the reward. The reason is not "because you lied for us", but "if you utter not this our business." The lying had already occurred before the agreement was made. This is not to say they weren't grateful for saving them from the searchers, but you can't say she was rewarded specifically for lying, but for something she did AFTER the lying.

Same response here at above. All you're doing here is pointing out the motive but it doesn't change the fact that the action that was rewarded was the telling of a lie. Rahab lied and in doing so, she did a good thing and was rewarded for it. The fact that the motive is what turned the lie into a good thing doesn't change the fact that it was a lie. All it changes is that it was a good lie instead of an evil one. Therefore, lying is not always evil. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Clete