Derf
Well-known member
That's why everybody died? I don't see that in scripture.That's because everybody would have done the same thing our parents did under the same circumstances.
That's why everybody died? I don't see that in scripture.That's because everybody would have done the same thing our parents did under the same circumstances.
Yes.That's why everybody died?
I know.I don't see that in scripture.
That they didn't lie.What does that mean?
Your position of what constitutes a lie.What position? That the midwives lied? I thought I understood you to say that they didn't lie. I could go find it.
If you're talking about being the OP, don't you think when you start a thread about lying that it would be relevant to define what constitutes a lie?For this thread I am.
Is a strawman? How so? Usually my position wouldn't be a strawman, only my caricature of your position would be that.That they didn't lie.
Your position of what constitutes a lie.
You're welcome to offer a definition for discussion. "Half truth" was an attempt, but you didn't follow up.If you're talking about being the OP, don't you think before you start a thread about lying that it would be relevant to understand what constitutes a lie?
Specially if during the course of it examples of lying are being brought up?
Is a strawman? How so? Usually my position wouldn't be a strawman, only my caricature of your position would be that.
I followed it up with scripture.You're welcome to offer a definition for discussion. "Half truth" was an attempt, but you didn't follow up.
Here:
I followed it up with scripture.
No.Here:
Post in thread 'Can God lie?' https://theologyonline.com/threads/can-god-lie.59793/post-1887782?
My example from scripture shows that truth is never suspect.I don't see how that helps define a lie, or even a half truth. Nor did you explain what information the midwives withheld from pharaoh. They gave him information, but the information was suspect. That's not the same as your scripture example.
And? How does that apply to the question of what a lie is?No.
My example from scripture shows that truth is never suspect.
A lie has no part in truth.And? How does that apply to the question of what a lie is?
You are wrong again.Please keep in mind that there was no Law of Moses to break at the time of the midwives lies.
No Law, no sin.
That would be one of those half truths of not revealing the whole truth.Problem with that is one doesn't have a falsehood to lay at the midwives' feet.
Let's look at one of Jesus' parables.
The Parable of the Hidden Treasure
44 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Say I'm walkin' along and find something of greater value than anything I own on someone else's land.
I hide it so nobody else comes along and discovers it.
When I'm talking with them, am I telling a lie if I tell them I want their land because it is goodly, and I like it but don't tell them all the reasons I like it?
Ok, so you're taking the position that because the midwives were rewarded by God, and God has no part in lying, then they must not have lied?A lie has no part in truth.
That means it can't have a part in any part of the truth.
Whether that be half of the truth or all of it.
Adam sinned against a different law, one that was no longer in force after they left the Garden.You are wrong again.
Romans 5:13 (KJV) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Adam sinned long before the law was given.
There's a lot of truth in that.That's because everybody would have done the same thing our parents did under the same circumstances.
When God said He would destroy Nineveh, but then He didn't, was that a lie? Did this make Him untrustworthy? Isn't it exactly what Titus 1:2 said that He cannot do?So the kind of lying I proposed, where God says He doesn't lie but He really does lie, is NOT the kind of lie you say He doesn't do according to Titus 1:2. Therefore, even the kind of lie banned in Titus 1:2 is ok, since Titus 1:2 is a lie, potentially, and no longer trustworthy for determining whether God would lie in the other way.
Any lie God allows himself to do is a destroyer of his integrity/character, making him untrustworthy. Not so with humans, under threat from an evil authority, at least not always.
Cain sinned by murdering his brother before the law against murder was established.Adam sinned against a different law, one that was no longer in force after they left the Garden.
That is changing His mind due to the human response to His message being taken seriously.When God said He would destroy Nineveh, but then He didn't, was that a lie?
No, that was an implied conditional. As was Hezekiah's impending death.When God said He would destroy Nineveh, but then He didn't, was that a lie? Did this make Him untrustworthy? Isn't it exactly what Titus 1:2 said that He cannot do?
I agree, but the Adam example was not as good as Cain.Cain sinned by murdering his brother before the law against murder was established.
What do you make of Romans 5:13?
OkayI agree, but the Adam example was not as good as Cain.