Can God lie?

[JudgeRightly]

Have you ever considered that your "integrity" is a pride issue?

Here's a hypothetical...if you don't mind. Suppose the children were being rounded up for some nefarious reason. Your children were hiding under the house in a "secure" location. When asked if there were any children there, would you think about your "integrity" or your children?

He's a legalist who won't answer the question, or at least not honestly. I've already asked him similar questions.

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?

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?

Nope, because I pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ that nothing of the sort occurs.

Nope, because I pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ that nothing of the sort occurs.

If I had been "one of them" I pray I would have acted as they did in your hypothetical scenario.

In other words, you would, at least according to your own position, sin.

Shame on you!

 

[Derf]

The sentence "This sentence is false" WAS my answer to his question.

It wasn't talking about his question. "This sentence" is referring to the sentence itself.

"This sentence is false" is a self-contradictory statement.

If it's false, then the statement itself becomes true, which makes it false, which makes it true... ad infinitum.

The sentence "This sentence is false" disproves the idea that you lose integrity by lying

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I understand your point. However, in making your point, you averted addressing @Hoping's point, imo.
He said this:

Are you telling the truth now?
How can I ever believe anything else you say after you print something like that?

after you said this:

I'm not the one who thinks all lying is sin!

It's similar to my point about integrity that you discuss more below. If lying isn't sin, and you're saying there needs to be other conditions for it to be sin, then you might be lying at any time, for some unknown righteous cause, and we can't tell the difference from you lying for an unknown unrighteous cause.

Only if lying is always wrong will doing so throw integrity out the window. In other words, once again, you're begging the question that it is.

No, because if you lie all the time, even if righteously, you're destroying your integrity, defined by:
1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
Your view maintains the string moral principles, but not the being honest part.
Here's the accompanying usage example:
"he is known to be a man of integrity"
Note that in the example, it is a characteristic that others recognize in someone, I.e., you can't just tell someone you have integrity--they have to observe you in your dealings with people over some period of time. And if you tell lies (even for righteous reasons) all the time, you WON'T be known to be a man of integrity. What if Pharaoh had heard that the midwives were commonly telling lies for righteous causes, and then asked them why they weren't killing the Hebrew infants? Would he believe their story? The answer is an emphatic no. They were able to lie successfully because they didn't lie regularly, even for righteous causes. That makes lying a bad thing except when there are extenuating circumstances, which I've defined as a potential for greater evil

But that's not the case.

You can lie, and still maintain integrity.

The Hebrew midwives did what was right by lying to Pharaoh. Had they told the truth, then Pharaoh would have gotten angry with them, and had them put to death and replaced with people he could trust, and then thousands of little children would have been slaughtered, but boy howdy, at least the midwives told the truth! /s

I'm not saying they did wrong in lying in the circumstances. My point is that the circumstances presented, as you've just pointed out, a GREATER evil that needs to be avoided.

No, what they did was the wise move, and as shown throughout the Bible, deceiving the enemies of God is not wrong, especially since God Himself does it.

I'm not sure that deception is the same thing as lying, but it might be. Deception in war is ok, for instance.

The principle is do not do evil that good may come of it. They did not do evil by lying to Pharaoh. They did good.

The principle was stated by Paul to address people that were saying, "if I sin more, then it makes grace more abundant, so the total amount of good in the world is increased by my sin."

The midwives were preserving their own lives by lying, but had already (prior to lying) preserved Hebrew lives by disobeying pharaoh.

If what they did was evil, then when God rewarded them for it, He would have been rewarding evil. God does not reward evil, and thus, you have a contradiction.

I explained this to Clete. God didn't reward them for lying, He rewarded them for saving Hebrew children.

I'm not sure where you came up with the "lying for a good cause" idea, because, as far as I can tell, neither I nor Clete have said "lying for a good cause," but rather to lie when it's the right thing to do.

Same thing.

Sure they can.

It just takes a bit of wisdom.



No, such a philosophy does not make it impossible.

God is the source of wisdom.

It takes wisdom to know when to lie, and even more so to know when NOT to lie, when doing so would not be wrong.

Legalism has a way of doing away with wisdom, and forcing people to resort to process solutions, rather than trusting God and His word, because it gives a false sense of righteousness. Doing what is right is required, even if it means violating a law.

Are you saying that lying is a violation of law?

I refer you back to the show I posted earlier, which I recommend listening to in full.

I listened to it all. It's not persuasive that lying is ever not a sin. Even the examples Bob gave pointed to extenuating circumstances when a law or commandment needed to be broken. That's ALWAYS the case when lying becomes necessary.

 

[glorydaz]

I listened to it all. It's not persuasive that lying is ever not a sin. Even the examples Bob gave pointed to extenuating circumstances when a law or commandment needed to be broken. That's ALWAYS the case when lying becomes necessary.

This may be off topic, but I've been wondering what you think of God sending a delusion so people would believe a lie?


2 These. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

On top of that, and arguably more importantly, the Bible explicitly states that the midwives delivered the male children alive. Meaning they were ipso facto delivering the children, and not "arriving late to the delivery," as what they said, that the babies pop out of their mothers' wombs "before the midwives come to them," would necessarily imply!

The passage literally does not leave any room for any other interpretation besides that they lied to Pharaoh!

I suppose that's possible, but with hundreds of thousands of women giving birth over months and maybe years, it's very unlikely they were ALWAYS late to the births. Who would continue to call the midwives at all to come help with the births?

So, the question becomes, did they lie or tell a half truth?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

You're welcome.

If lying isn't sin,

Lying being a sin is determined by the context

Lying is a sin in X circumstances.
Lying is NOT a sin in Y circumstances.

and you're saying there needs to be other conditions for it to be sin, then you might be lying at any time, for some unknown righteous cause, and we can't tell the difference from you lying for an unknown unrighteous cause.

Sure you can.

Like I said, it takes wisdom.

If you were a Hebrew observer in the time of that Pharaoh, and you observed the midwives, first in saving the male children alive, and then later, as they stand before Pharaoh, lying to him regarding their saving of the children, would you say that they maintained their integrity by lying to Pharoah?

No, because if you lie all the time, even if righteously, you're destroying your integrity,

No one is saying to lie all the time.

Or, as Paul put it:

And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. - Romans 3:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:8&version=NKJV

And:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? - Romans 6:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:1-2&version=NKJV

defined by:
1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
Your view maintains the string moral principles, but not the being honest part.

See, this is where the legalism is rearing its ugly head.

Being "honest to a fault" is NOT a good thing! (See Paul's words above)

Again, I point out, had the Hebrew midwives told Pharaoh the truth, he would have simply disposed of them for disobeying him, and put midwives in place who would obey his command. That would not be wise on their part, and if we apply your position on this matter, in not lying (lying being evil according to your position), they would have caused harm to the innocent, and brought about their deaths, those of the midwives, and those of the little baby boys who would have been born.

If you only ever speak the truth, and never lie, then the enemy will, repeat WILL take advantage of you!

Here's the accompanying usage example:
"he is known to be a man of integrity"

Being a man of integrity is more than just always telling the truth.

If telling the truth (this supposed 'you shall not tell a lie' "law" that you have set up) will get in the way of doing what is right, then which "law" is supposed to give? The law against lying, or the law requiring you to do what is right?

Let me put it this way:

Symbolic ordinances given to Israel would often come into conflict with other symbolic ordinances and even moral laws that were given to Israel.

Those symbolic ordinances were arbitrarily set up by God (as in, they do not have any foundation in the laws of morality), and because they were arbitrary, God expected the Israelites, to put it bluntly, to, in the cases where these ordinances came into conflict, use their heads, and do what was right, rather than following the law, which would have been legalism had they done so, and the result of NOT doing the right thing was often being instantly killed by God or the people. There are a few instances of this in the Bible, for example, David and his men were on the run from Saul, and came to the tabernacle of Nob, and asks for food from Ahimelech, who has nothing but the showbread, which was only supposed to be used in the Tabernacle, it being reserved specifically and exclusively for the descendants of Aaron. Ahimelech gave David the bread, in direct violation of the law. David, in eating that bread, broke the law. Was what Ahimelech did, "the right thing to do"?

Yes. UNEQUIVOCALLY, YES!

How does this apply to lying?

You (and others) have come up with a law against lying, calling it evil in any circumstance, and that you shouldn't lie no matter what, while also affirming the need to do what is right.

The problem is that your law comes up against and conflicts with the "law" (figuratively speakign) to do what is right in some circumstances. And when those circumstances arise, you would rather uphold your law against lying, and claim it's the right thing to do, when in fact, you are only bringing harm to the innocent, and dishonoring God. It's legalism, holding rigidly to laws that do not take precedence over doing what is right.

The other half of this is that moral laws NEVER conflict with each other. There is never a circumstance where you must murder in order to avoid theft. There is never a circumstance where you must commit adultery in order to avoid bearing false witness.

The moral laws DO NOT CONFLICT EVER! Thus, when it comes to whether one should lie in order to avoid killing the innocent, then CLEARLY "lying is always a sin" (a claim of absoluteness) is wrong, for God's moral commands are ABSOLUTES, and will NEVER come into conflict with each other. Thus, if the choice is to violate God's command against harming the innocent, or to lie, then the ONLY rational and moral solution is to lie! Not because "it's the lesser of two evils" but because lying isn't always a sin! If lying was alwas a sin, then the better option would be to do NOTHING, because we SHOULD NOT DO EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME OF IT!

Note that in the example, it is a characteristic that others recognize in someone, I.e., you can't just tell someone you have integrity--they have to observe you in your dealings with people over some period of time.

Did Ahimelech, in the example above, have integrity, by breaking the law to feed David and his men?

And if you tell lies (even for righteous reasons) all the time, you WON'T be known to be a man of integrity.

It's not "either you tell lies all the time or you never tell a lie," Derf!

No one is advocating that anyone become a liar.

I'm simply stating that it's sometimes okay to lie, because it's the right thing to do!

What if Pharaoh had heard that the midwives were commonly telling lies for righteous causes, and then asked them why they weren't killing the Hebrew infants? Would he believe their story? The answer is an emphatic no. They were able to lie successfully because they didn't lie regularly,

Rather, they weren't known as liars.

That's my entire point, Derf!

Lying should not be a regular occurrence, let alone to the point where someone becomes known as a liar!

But that doesn't mean it should NEVER be done!

even for righteous causes.

This is conjecture. We have no idea how many lies the midwives told prior to this.

We don't even know if Pharaoh had had any interaction with them prior to his commanding of them to slay the male children but leave the female children alive.

That makes lying a bad thing except when there are extenuating circumstances,

Hasty generalization fallacy.

Pointing out one example of a bad lie does not make all lying bad!

which I've defined as a potential for greater evil

Evil is evil, no matter how great or small.

I'm not saying they did wrong in lying in the circumstances.

You inherently do, by saying "All lying is wrong."

Just replace "lying" with "doing wrong" in your sentence!

"I'm not saying they did wrong in [doing wrong] in the circumstances."

You're literally contradicting yourself, Derf!

My point is that the circumstances presented, as you've just pointed out, a GREATER evil that needs to be avoided.

This inherently requires that there was something evil about the lie they told. It's begging the question, does it not?

DO NOT DO EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME OF IT!

I'm not sure that deception is the same thing as lying, but it might be. Deception in war is ok, for instance.

Consider:

You're the head of a country, about to go to war (a war in which you are in the right, and your enemy is the evil side). You meet in the war room with your best military advisors, but you know you have a mole within this circle of advisors, and you even know who it is, but you don't want to let the mole know that you know. So you lie to your advisors, giving them commands to do something that you have no intention of making your military do. You are LYING to the mole, and by deceiving him, you lead your enemy into the trap that you discussed with your loyal general before the meeting.

That's what the Hebrew midwives did. They deceived the enemy. The enemy, in case it wasn't obvious, was Pharaoh, because He wanted to have the innocent killed, and wanted them to do it.

The principle was stated by Paul to address people that were saying, "if I sin more, then it makes grace more abundant, so the total amount of good in the world is increased by my sin."

That's Romans 6:1-2. That's three chapters AFTER the verse I'm talking about, Romans 3:8.

The midwives were preserving their own lives by lying, but had already (prior to lying) preserved Hebrew lives by disobeying pharaoh.

And in lying to Pharaoh, they were wisely protecting their positions, so that they could CONTINUE saving lives.

I explained this to Clete. God didn't reward them for lying,

Yes, He did, Derf!

It literally says so!

And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty.And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them. - Exodus 1:19-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus1:19-21&version=NKJV

Because they feared God (and not Pharaoh), they lied to Pharaoh about why they were not killing the innocent, and kept their positions, so that they could continue saving lives!

If that's not "fearing and obeying God rather than men," I don't know what IS!

He rewarded them for saving Hebrew children.

The rewards was "because the midwives feared God," not "because the midwives saved the children alive."

Same thing.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Are you saying that lying is a violation of law?

No, I'm saying that your standard of "lying is always a sin" is legalism, the same kind that Jesus condemned!

And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. - Mark 2:27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark2:27&version=NKJV

You have placed the law that you hold to, "lying is always wrong" on the same pedestal as the Pharisees placed the Sabbath!

I listened to it all. It's not persuasive that lying is ever not a sin. Even the examples Bob gave pointed to extenuating circumstances when a law or commandment needed to be broken. That's ALWAYS the case when lying becomes necessary.

If lying is necessary EVEN ONCE, it disproves the idea that lying is always wrong.

Don't you get that?

If lying is necessary in order to defend the innocent, to do the right thing, then it CANNOT be wrong always, else Paul would NEVER condemn doing evil that good may come of it!

 

[Clete]

He's a legalist who won't answer the question, or at least not honestly. I've already asked him similar questions.

You read my mind!

 

[Derf]

This may be off topic, but I've been wondering what you think of God sending a delusion so people would believe a lie?


2 These. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

It's more on topic than most of this. The thread topic is asking whether God is able to lie. I started it with the idea that He doesn't lie, wondering if it's because He can't, or He won't. I didn't expect anyone to suggest that God actually does lie.
Titus 1:2 KJV — In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot [or "does not" in some versions] lie, promised before the world began;


Notice a few things about your citation. It starts with "and", which means there's an immediate context that needs to be considered. That context includes, at the very least, the previous verse, But here are several previous verses:
2 Thessalonians 2:8-11 KJV — And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That tells me the ones being deluded have already rejected the truth from God. If the truth has been rejected, what is left, but lies?

Notice that it is in Satan's power the wicked one comes. Satan's power is wrapped up in "lying wonders", which I take to mean miraculous-looking events designed to deceive people into believing in a false god.

Notice also that God didn't send them a lie, but a delusion so they would believe a lie. It makes me think He sent them a deluding influence, not an actual lie, so it's similar to the Ahab and Micaiah story that has been discussed already.

We know from Job that God allows Satan to bring evil on people (Job in this case) and God still takes some credit for doing it, at least He didn't blame Satan for it when talking to Job.

From all that, it seems to me that God is allowing a deluding influence of some sort, because the people aren't willing to hear the truth.

 

[Derf]

So, the question becomes, did they lie or tell a half truth?

I think it's very unlikely that what they said to pharaoh was completely true, but are you suggesting that a half truth, when meant to deceive, is less a problem than a whole lie?

 

[Derf]

You're welcome.



Lying being a sin is determined by the context

Lying is a sin in X circumstances.
Lying is NOT a sin in Y circumstances.



Sure you can.

Like I said, it takes wisdom.

If you were a Hebrew observer in the time of that Pharaoh, and you observed the midwives, first in saving the male children alive, and then later, as they stand before Pharaoh, lying to him regarding their saving of the children, would you say that they maintained their integrity by lying to Pharoah?



No one is saying to lie all the time.

Or, as Paul put it:

And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. - Romans 3:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:8&version=NKJV

And:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? - Romans 6:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:1-2&version=NKJV



See, this is where the legalism is rearing its ugly head.

Being "honest to a fault" is NOT a good thing! (See Paul's words above)

Again, I point out, had the Hebrew midwives told Pharaoh the truth, he would have simply disposed of them for disobeying him, and put midwives in place who would obey his command. That would not be wise on their part, and if we apply your position on this matter, in not lying (lying being evil according to your position), they would have caused harm to the innocent, and brought about their deaths, those of the midwives, and those of the little baby boys who would have been born.

If you only ever speak the truth, and never lie, then the enemy will, repeat WILL take advantage of you!



Being a man of integrity is more than just always telling the truth.

If telling the truth (this supposed 'you shall not tell a lie' "law" that you have set up) will get in the way of doing what is right, then which "law" is supposed to give? The law against lying, or the law requiring you to do what is right?

Let me put it this way:

Symbolic ordinances given to Israel would often come into conflict with other symbolic ordinances and even moral laws that were given to Israel.

Those symbolic ordinances were arbitrarily set up by God (as in, they do not have any foundation in the laws of morality), and because they were arbitrary, God expected the Israelites, to put it bluntly, to, in the cases where these ordinances came into conflict, use their heads, and do what was right, rather than following the law, which would have been legalism had they done so, and the result of NOT doing the right thing was often being instantly killed by God or the people. There are a few instances of this in the Bible, for example, David and his men were on the run from Saul, and came to the tabernacle of Nob, and asks for food from Ahimelech, who has nothing but the showbread, which was only supposed to be used in the Tabernacle, it being reserved specifically and exclusively for the descendants of Aaron. Ahimelech gave David the bread, in direct violation of the law. David, in eating that bread, broke the law. Was what Ahimelech did, "the right thing to do"?

Yes. UNEQUIVOCALLY, YES!

How does this apply to lying?

You (and others) have come up with a law against lying, calling it evil in any circumstance, and that you shouldn't lie no matter what, while also affirming the need to do what is right.

The problem is that your law comes up against and conflicts with the "law" (figuratively speakign) to do what is right in some circumstances. And when those circumstances arise, you would rather uphold your law against lying, and claim it's the right thing to do, when in fact, you are only bringing harm to the innocent, and dishonoring God. It's legalism, holding rigidly to laws that do not take precedence over doing what is right.

The other half of this is that moral laws NEVER conflict with each other. There is never a circumstance where you must murder in order to avoid theft. There is never a circumstance where you must commit adultery in order to avoid bearing false witness.

The moral laws DO NOT CONFLICT EVER! Thus, when it comes to whether one should lie in order to avoid killing the innocent, then CLEARLY "lying is always a sin" (a claim of absoluteness) is wrong, for God's moral commands are ABSOLUTES, and will NEVER come into conflict with each other. Thus, if the choice is to violate God's command against harming the innocent, or to lie, then the ONLY rational and moral solution is to lie! Not because "it's the lesser of two evils" but because lying isn't always a sin! If lying was alwas a sin, then the better option would be to do NOTHING, because we SHOULD NOT DO EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME OF IT!



Did Ahimelech, in the example above, have integrity, by breaking the law to feed David and his men?



It's not "either you tell lies all the time or you never tell a lie," Derf!

No one is advocating that anyone become a liar.

I'm simply stating that it's sometimes okay to lie, because it's the right thing to do!



Rather, they weren't known as liars.

That's my entire point, Derf!

Lying should not be a regular occurrence, let alone to the point where someone becomes known as a liar!

But that doesn't mean it should NEVER be done!



This is conjecture. We have no idea how many lies the midwives told prior to this.

We don't even know if Pharaoh had had any interaction with them prior to his commanding of them to slay the male children but leave the female children alive.



Hasty generalization fallacy.

Pointing out one example of a bad lie does not make all lying bad!



Evil is evil, no matter how great or small.



You inherently do, by saying "All lying is wrong."

Just replace "lying" with "doing wrong" in your sentence!

"I'm not saying they did wrong in [doing wrong] in the circumstances."

You're literally contradicting yourself, Derf!



This inherently requires that there was something evil about the lie they told. It's begging the question, does it not?

DO NOT DO EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME OF IT!



Consider:

You're the head of a country, about to go to war (a war in which you are in the right, and your enemy is the evil side). You meet in the war room with your best military advisors, but you know you have a mole within this circle of advisors, and you even know who it is, but you don't want to let the mole know that you know. So you lie to your advisors, giving them commands to do something that you have no intention of making your military do. You are LYING to the mole, and by deceiving him, you lead your enemy into the trap that you discussed with your loyal general before the meeting.

That's what the Hebrew midwives did. They deceived the enemy. The enemy, in case it wasn't obvious, was Pharaoh, because He wanted to have the innocent killed, and wanted them to do it.



That's Romans 6:1-2. That's three chapters AFTER the verse I'm talking about, Romans 3:8.



And in lying to Pharaoh, they were wisely protecting their positions, so that they could CONTINUE saving lives.



Yes, He did, Derf!

It literally says so!

And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty.And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them. - Exodus 1:19-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus1:19-21&version=NKJV

Because they feared God (and not Pharaoh), they lied to Pharaoh about why they were not killing the innocent, and kept their positions, so that they could continue saving lives!

If that's not "fearing and obeying God rather than men," I don't know what IS!



The rewards was "because the midwives feared God," not "because the midwives saved the children alive."



Saying it doesn't make it so!



No, I'm saying that your standard of "lying is always a sin" is legalism, the same kind that Jesus condemned!

And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. - Mark 2:27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark2:27&version=NKJV

You have placed the law that you hold to, "lying is always wrong" on the same pedestal as the Pharisees placed the Sabbath!



If lying is necessary EVEN ONCE, it disproves the idea that lying is always wrong.

Don't you get that?

If lying is necessary in order to defend the innocent, to do the right thing, then it CANNOT be wrong always, else Paul would NEVER condemn doing evil that good may come of it!

I never said it's unnecessary--I'm not the best judge of that. What I'm saying is that what might make it necessary are circumstances where a greater evil needs to be averted, and we humans don't have the knowledge or power to always avoid the lie. That doesn't mean that lying is a good thing, except where it is less of a bad thing than the other, and only 2 choices appear to be available. The whole circumstances are not wrong, because we need to avoid the greater evil. This is true in all the instances you've suggested.

The bible consistently portrays lying as a sin and to be avoided when using the terms "lie" and "lying". There's never a reference to a "good lie" or a "bad lie", just stories where the lying was done to save someone's life. Even Peter was guilty before Christ for denying Him...by lying to save his own life.

Notice the caveat above in bold. God DOES have the knowledge and power to avoid lying.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I think it's very unlikely that what they said to pharaoh was completely true, but are you suggesting that a half truth, when meant to deceive, is less a problem than a whole lie?

Why would one think that a half truth is a lie at all?
Considering...

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Notice also that God didn't send them a lie, but a delusion so they would believe a lie. It makes me think He sent them a deluding influence, not an actual lie, so it's similar to the Ahab and Micaiah story that has been discussed already.

This could be a good topic for another thread.
Like, what did the spirit actually do?
If the Holy Spirit agrees with our spirit that we are sons of God, did the lying spirit somehow make/coerce them to believe their own thoughts were true?
Interesting, no?

 

[Derf]

This could be a good topic for another thread.
Like, what did the spirit actually do?
If the Holy Spirit agrees with our spirit that we are sons of God, did the lying spirit somehow make/coerce them to believe their own thoughts were true?
Interesting, no?

It's ok to discuss in this thread how you feel the Holy Spirit lies or doesn't lie in that or other instances.

 

[Derf]

Why would one think that a half truth is a lie at all?
Considering...

Why does that support a half truth not being a lie? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "half truth".

 

[Tambora]

Why does that support a half truth not being a lie? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "half truth".

Reminds me of the dilemma ----- Is the glass half full or half empty.

 

[Idolater]

... in making your point, you averted addressing @Hoping's point, imo.
He said this:

after you said this:

It's similar to my point about integrity that you discuss more below. If lying isn't sin, and you're saying there needs to be other conditions for it to be sin, then you might be lying at any time, for some unknown righteous cause, and we can't tell the difference from you lying for an unknown unrighteous cause. ...

... The thread topic is asking whether God is able to lie. I started it with the idea that He doesn't lie, wondering if it's because He can't, or He won't. I didn't expect anyone to suggest that God actually does lie.
Titus 1:2 KJV — In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot [or "does not" in some versions] lie, promised before the world began;


Notice a few things about your citation. It starts with "and", which means there's an immediate context that needs to be considered. ...

Seems to me that the context suggests that the lying in Titus 1:2 is of a certain type or kind of lying. God cannot or will not say that something's going to happen, and then it doesn't happen. I'd say that's the particular kind of lying alluded to in Titus 1:2, I think that to interpret it to mean any other kind of lying is extrapolation beyond the text.

 

[Derf]

Seems to me that the context suggests that the lying in Titus 1:2 is of a certain type or kind of lying. God cannot or will not say that something's going to happen, and then it doesn't happen. I'd say that's the particular kind of lying alluded to in Titus 1:2, I think that to interpret it to mean any other kind of lying is extrapolation beyond the text.

Can you show how the context limits it to such? Doesn't it seem that a God who lies could be lying about whether He lies--all for perfectly righteous reasons, of course.

 

[Idolater]

Can you show how the context limits it to such?

The context ipso facto limits it to such, else, why even bother considering context (and I mean generally)? Isn't that what context provides? The context is that the text is talking about X, so therefore, the text is talking about X. It's straightforward, isn't it?

Doesn't it seem that a God who lies could be lying about whether He lies--all for perfectly righteous reasons, of course.

Titus 1:2 doesn't say anything at all about another kind or another type of lying, it only talks about the kind of lying where you say, "Here's what's going to happen," and then that thing does not happen. God doesn't lie in that way, is precisely what Titus 1:2 says.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Why does that support a half truth not being a lie? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "half truth".

A half-truth is still part of the truth.
The verse states that no lie, is of the truth, period.
Therefore, the midwives did not lie.

 

[way 2 go]

A half-truth is still part of the truth.

some truth to convince you of the lie

The verse states that no lie, is of the truth, period.
Therefore, the midwives did not lie.

midwives lied and babies didn't die.

 

[Hoping]

Have you ever considered that your "integrity" is a pride issue?

No.

Here's a hypothetical...if you don't mind. Suppose the children were being rounded up for some nefarious reason. Your children were hiding under the house in a "secure" location. When asked if there were any children there, would you think about your "integrity" or your children?

I don't mind.
I will maintain my integrity, as my love for God far outweighs my love for anything else.
I will remember that God replaced the children Job lost at the beginning of his trials.
BTW, I will continue to pray that God keeps me from such a situation, like He has for the last many years.