Can God lie?

Derf

Well-known member
When breaching this topic in another thread, I got two opposite answers:
This is a rabbit trail but I can't resist....

Given your statement above, what do you do with the following passage...

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”​
Clete
@Derf

Titus 1:2 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
RD's response is pretty clear, it seems, and Clete's can be justified as God merely allowing a lying spirit to do what a lying spirit does. But Doug McBurney had a show where he thought God lied sometimes, and the Titus reference is sometimes translated "Who does not lie", rather than 'cannot'.

What do you think, and why?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There are, of course, times when telling anything other than the entire truth is an immoral lie, such as when one is giving testimony in court but the overall biblical teaching is that whether a lie is immoral or not has to do with the motive of the lie. It is not wrong, for example, to deceive the enemy as I Kings 22:19-23 clearly demonstrates.

Additionally, I see no biblical reason why it would be necessary, for morality's sake, to be brutally honest in every situation. It is a kindness and simply polite, for example, to act as if you've enjoyed a meal prepared for you by your host, whether you actually enjoyed it or not. Nor is it wrong to act as if the work of art that your 5 year old child has created is very much better than it is in the strictest sense of artistic quality.
 

Right Divider

Body part
When breaching this topic in another thread, I got two opposite answers:


RD's response is pretty clear, it seems, and Clete's can be justified as God merely allowing a lying spirit to do what a lying spirit does. But Doug McBurney had a show where he thought God lied sometimes, and the Titus reference is sometimes translated "Who does not lie", rather than 'cannot'.

What do you think, and why?
Are you going to try to split hairs over the difference between "cannot" and "does not"?

The only translation that I have seen so far that translates it as "does not" is the NIV, which is a piece of junk.
 

Derf

Well-known member
There are, of course, times when telling anything other than the entire truth is an immoral lie, such as when one is giving testimony in court
Only if you've sworn to tell the whole truth. The way DAs and perhaps even defense attorneys seem to work, they actually force people to violate their vow to tell the whole truth sometimes.
but the overall biblical teaching is that whether a lie is immoral or not has to do with the motive of the lie. It is not wrong, for example, to deceive the enemy as I Kings 22:19-23 clearly demonstrates.
I'm not sure that's the same thing as deception in battle, as it could be argued God was not in battle against Ahab, nor was He particularly interested in helping the enemy of Ahab, since it was also the enemy of Jehoshaphat. The deception, if it was that at all, was two-fold in purpose, it seems--to harden Ahab's heart (like Pbaraoh's in the Exodus story), and to show Ahab's prophets to be false.

As for actual battle situations, it's no secret that your ultimate intention is to win the battle, and part of that is hiding your intermediate intentions from the enemy. It's the same with football or tennis, or even the corporate world. Why, even our constitution protects the hiding of information with regard to patents.
Additionally, I see no biblical reason why it would be necessary, for morality's sake, to be brutally honest in every situation. It is a kindness and simply polite, for example, to act as if you've enjoyed a meal prepared for you by your host, whether you actually enjoyed it or not. Nor is it wrong to act as if the work of art that your 5 year old child has created is very much better than it is in the strictest sense of artistic quality.
That's called discretion. Or tact. Or diplomacy. And it certainly isn't lying.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Are you going to try to split hairs over the difference between "cannot" and "does not"?

The only translation that I have seen so far that translates it as "does not" is the NIV, which is a piece of junk.
Young's Literal Translation says the same as NIV.

It's part of the reason for starting the thread. If God cannot lie, then not lying is not a moral plus for God. If He can but does not, then He can claim moral high ground in that area.

This verse says He will not lie, but not that He cannot lie:
1 Samuel 15:29 KJV — And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Young's Literal Translation says the same as NIV.
So one translation besides the garbage one. Great find.
It's part of the reason for starting the thread. If God cannot lie, then not lying is not a moral plus for God. If He can but does not, then He can claim moral high ground in that area.
The fact that you would even use the phrase "a moral plus for God" is disgusting and probably blasphemous.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Only if you've sworn to tell the whole truth. The way DAs and perhaps even defense attorneys seem to work, they actually force people to violate their vow to tell the whole truth sometimes.
I'm not talking about American jurist prudence. I'm talking about Exodus 20:16.

Exodus 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.​

I'm not sure that's the same thing as deception in battle, as it could be argued God was not in battle against Ahab, nor was He particularly interested in helping the enemy of Ahab, since it was also the enemy of Jehoshaphat.
I didn't say anything about battle. However, there's more than one kind of battle and we are all the time fighting against the enemies of righteousness.

The deception, if it was that at all, was two-fold in purpose, it seems--to harden Ahab's heart (like Pbaraoh's in the Exodus story), and to show Ahab's prophets to be false.
I won't pick this up at all until you can explain what possible alternative there is to it being a deception. The word used is "šeqer". It's Strong's H82637
As for actual battle situations, it's no secret that your ultimate intention is to win the battle, and part of that is hiding your intermediate intentions from the enemy. It's the same with football or tennis, or even the corporate world. Why, even our constitution protects the hiding of information with regard to patents.
Quite right and there are other kinds of battle beside direct confrontation such as a military, bullets flying, bombs dropping kind of exchange.

That's called discretion. Or tact. Or diplomacy. And it certainly isn't lying.
Of course it is. If you plant false information to deceive your enemy into believing that you are somewhere you aren't or that you're going to attack in one place when you're actually going to attack somewhere else or that you have a much larger force than you actually have or that you have a new weapon that's complete fiction, these are all lies and none of it is immoral so long as the fight is just and the enemy is evil.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Young's Literal Translation says the same as NIV.

It's part of the reason for starting the thread. If God cannot lie, then not lying is not a moral plus for God. If He can but does not, then He can claim moral high ground in that area.

This verse says He will not lie, but not that He cannot lie:
1 Samuel 15:29 KJV — And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
"of evil"

God is not a man, that He should repent.....OF EVIL!

We have to remember that the bible was not written by a lawyer and that language isn't the rigid thing that some want to pretend it to be. You have to spend some effort to stay on the same page with the author of whatever it is you're reading. Depending on the context, it isn't false to say that lying is evil. In fact, it's a completely true statement in most cases and its perfectly natural to make the statement that "God cannot lie.", and, when one makes such a statement, there isn't any requirement to list all the caveats and exceptions.

Arguing over "will not" vs "cannot" is a waste of time. God is capable of doing anything He decides to do. What cannot happen is for God to be made to act against His own will. God is not willing to do evil and can't be forced to act against His will and so, in that sense, it cannot happen. Not too difficult to understand.

As for lying, it is the immoral sort of lying that God would never do. Those who put their trust in God are not ever going to discover that God is big phony or con artist or that He's just been playing some sort of sick prank on the world this whole time.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The fact that you would even use the phrase "a moral plus for God" is disgusting and probably blasphemous.
How so?

How is Derf's line of reasoning wrong there?

Is there any moral "credit" I receive for having not melted San Fransisco in a ball of nuclear fire?

I have no ability to do such a thing, right?

Not that I would do so, if I could, but what if I would but don't because I can't? Do I get credit for having not done so? I don't think so.

Isn't that the idea behind the principle of alternative possibilities?

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP): A person is morally responsible for their act only if he could have done otherwise than he does.​
If God is only truthful because He cannot lie then His telling the truth was not a moral act. If God is incapable of evil, then He is amoral. We know, however, that God is capable of evil, otherwise there is no meaning to Christ having been tempted (Matthew 4:1-11).

Clete
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
That's called discretion. Or tact. Or diplomacy. And it certainly isn't lying.

As for lying, it is the immoral sort of lying that God would never do. Those who put their trust in God are not ever going to discover that God is big phony or con artist or that He's just been playing some sort of sick prank on the world this whole time.

Two good examples I always think about whenever this topic is brought up:

It is not wrong to lie to the Nazi officer inspecting your house for where you have Jews hidden away, telling him there are no Jews anywhere in your home.

It is not wrong to lie to the slave owner looking for the slave he abused, telling him, "he isn't here," despite you hiding him directly beneath your floorboards, as you prepare to send him to the next stop on the Underground Railroad.

Oh, and another couple of examples, from the Bible...

Rahab lied to the soldiers where the spies from Israel went. She was rewarded for it by God including her in the lineage of Christ.

The Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about how quickly Hebrew women gave birth, to protect the children from being killed. God rewarded them with families of their own.
 

Derf

Well-known member
"of evil"

God is not a man, that He should repent.....OF EVIL!
My focus was more on the part talking about lying.
We have to remember that the bible was not written by a lawyer and that language isn't the rigid thing that some want to pretend it to be. You have to spend some effort to stay on the same page with the author of whatever it is you're reading. Depending on the context, it isn't false to say that lying is evil. In fact, it's a completely true statement in most cases and its perfectly natural to make the statement that "God cannot lie.", and, when one makes such a statement, there isn't any requirement to list all the caveats and exceptions.
Except that God is the epitome of absoluteness. He is all powerful, He is all knowing, He is all wise, He is all present. All of those are amoral characteristics. When you say He is all good, and then you say that He lies sometimes, those caveats and exceptions matter more than the amoral caveats and exceptions.
Arguing over "will not" vs "cannot" is a waste of time. God is capable of doing anything He decides to do. What cannot happen is for God to be made to act against His own will. God is not willing to do evil and can't be forced to act against His will and so, in that sense, it cannot happen. Not too difficult to understand.
That's a good explanation.
As for lying, it is the immoral sort of lying that God would never do. Those who put their trust in God are not ever going to discover that God is big phony or con artist or that He's just been playing some sort of sick prank on the world this whole time.
When I think of "the immoral sort of lying", it presumes a "moral sort of lying," and @JudgeRightly gave us some examples. The reason those example exist is that there is a greater power exerting pressure to do a greater evil than the lying. I can't think of any examples that wouldn't include that.

But with God, there is no greater power that can exert pressure on Him. That makes me think there's never any reason for God to lie "morally".
 
Last edited:

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Young's Literal Translation says the same as NIV.

It's part of the reason for starting the thread. If God cannot lie, then not lying is not a moral plus for God. If He can but does not, then He can claim moral high ground in that area.

This verse says He will not lie, but not that He cannot lie:
1 Samuel 15:29 KJV — And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
Why would God ever have to claim moral high ground?
Who in there right mind would accuse God of anything?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I'm not talking about American jurist prudence. I'm talking about Exodus 20:16.

Exodus 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.​


I didn't say anything about battle. However, there's more than one kind of battle and we are all the time fighting against the enemies of righteousness.


I won't pick this up at all until you can explain what possible alternative there is to it being a deception. The word used is "šeqer". It's Strong's H82637

Quite right and there are other kinds of battle beside direct confrontation such as a military, bullets flying, bombs dropping kind of exchange.


Of course it is. If you plant false information to deceive your enemy into believing that you are somewhere you aren't or that you're going to attack in one place when you're actually going to attack somewhere else or that you have a much larger force than you actually have or that you have a new weapon that's complete fiction, these are all lies and none of it is immoral so long as the fight is just and the enemy is evil.

Clete
This reminds me of something I've wondered about on occasion. In Hebrews 13:2, it is said: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." On the face, at least, it seems that that verse is reporting that an angel sometimes leads humans to believe the false proposition that it is not an angel. And the verse does not seem at all to paint the angel's so disguising itself as immoral.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Why would God ever have to claim moral high ground?
Who in there right mind would accuse God of anything?
Such a question is equally valid for any god ever dreamed up. In other words, if you were in another religion, you couldn't question Zeus, or Baal, or Ishtar, or whomever in that religion.

The one God that is beyond question is the one we are allowed to question...because He is able to withstand such questioning. His credentials to claim the moral high ground are impeccable.

Malachi 3:10 KJV — Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When breaching this topic in another thread, I got two opposite answers:


RD's response is pretty clear, it seems, and Clete's can be justified as God merely allowing a lying spirit to do what a lying spirit does. But Doug McBurney had a show where he thought God lied sometimes, and the Titus reference is sometimes translated "Who does not lie", rather than 'cannot'.

What do you think, and why?
Not only does @Clete post (I'll put it in the spoiler) show that God has no problem with lies and depending on the situation has no problem directly sending one to lie, but there is another story that may show that God lied in the sense that what He predicted did not happen.

Spoiler
This is a rabbit trail but I can't resist....

Given your statement above, what do you do with the following passage...

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”
Clete


1 Samuel 23
(10) Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.
(11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.
(12) Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.


Didn't happen.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Not only does @Clete post (I'll put it in the spoiler) show that God has no problem with lies and depending on the situation has no problem directly sending one to lie, but there is another story that may show that God lied in the sense that what He predicted did not happen.

Spoiler
This is a rabbit trail but I can't resist....

Given your statement above, what do you do with the following passage...

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”
Clete
We didn't talk much about that instance, but as it is in the form of a story, there's some question in my mind whether it actually played out in heaven the way Micaiah described. It might hav been merely a vision God gave Micaiah to illustrate what was going on. Still, it says that a lying spirit was sent forth from the Lord. Ahab didn't really need much persuasion from the lying spirit, imho.
1 Samuel 23
(10) Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.
(11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.
(12) Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.


Didn't happen.
Thanks for the example. The difference is that David was asking what would happen if he stayed in that place. God gave him a contingent result--if David stayed in Keilah, then the men of Keilah would deliver him to Saul. So David didn't stay there, and so the men didn't deliver him to Saul.

This is consistent with other messages intended to prevent disaster on a people, like Jonah's message to Nineveh. The difference is that the contingency is a little clearer in the message to David than in the message to Nineveh, where it is more implicit.

In my view, God isn't predicting as much as telling what He's going to so in situations like Nineveh, while He reads the hearts of the men of Keilah and predicts their response. God can change His mind and save people like the Ninevites if they repent.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We didn't talk much about that instance, but as it is in the form of a story, there's some question in my mind whether it actually played out in heaven the way Micaiah described. It might hav been merely a vision God gave Micaiah to illustrate what was going on. Still, it says that a lying spirit was sent forth from the Lord. Ahab didn't really need much persuasion from the lying spirit, imho.
The spirit sent by God to lie wasn't sent to Ahab, it was sent to the mouths of his prophets that persuaded Ahab to attack.
Sent by God to do God's biding.


Thanks for the example. The difference is that David was asking what would happen if he stayed in that place. God gave him a contingent result--if David stayed in Keilah, then the men of Keilah would deliver him to Saul. So David didn't stay there, and so the men didn't deliver him to Saul.

This is consistent with other messages intended to prevent disaster on a people, like Jonah's message to Nineveh. The difference is that the contingency is a little clearer in the message to David than in the message to Nineveh, where it is more implicit.

In my view, God isn't predicting as much as telling what He's going to so in situations like Nineveh, while He reads the hearts of the men of Keilah and predicts their response. God can change His mind and save people like the Ninevites if they repent.
I can see how one would want to think that, but there isn't any "if I stay" in David's questions.
He outright asks God if Saul is going to come and God's answer was "yes".
If God already knew David would leave so that Saul wouldn't come then the truthful answer would have been "no he isn't going to come".
So we are left with the dilemma that either God was mistaken about what would really happen or He didn't tell the truth in order to force David to react.
Either way, the truth wasn't told because Saul didn't come.

I don't have a problem with God working that way, and I don't believe God has a problem with lies for the right reasons (such as Rahab telling a lie to save the spies).
 

Derf

Well-known member
The spirit sent by God to lie wasn't sent to Ahab, it was sent to the mouths of his prophets that persuaded Ahab to attack.
Sent by God to do God's biding.



I can see how one would want to think that, but there isn't any "if I stay" in David's questions.
He outright asks God if Saul is going to come and God's answer was "yes".
If God already knew David would leave so that Saul wouldn't come then the truthful answer would have been "no he isn't going to come".
So we are left with the dilemma that either God was mistaken about what would really happen or He didn't tell the truth in order to force David to react.
Or He told the truth in a contingent fashion. And there were two parts:
1. Whether Saul would come
2. Whether the men of Keilah would give David up.

Both are contingent on David being there at Keilah. If he's not, there's no one to give up to Saul. And, if David isn't in Keilah, there's no reason for Saul to go there. Thus, David kept the contingent prophecy from happening.

1 Samuel 23:13 KJV — Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.

Saul wasn't a dummy. If David wasn't there, then there's no reason to waste his time going there.
Either way, the truth wasn't told because Saul didn't come.
Only if the "truth" was based on a settled future, and God just looked into His crystal ball to find out what would happen. God told the truth about what would happen if David stayed in Keilah.
I don't have a problem with God working that way, and I don't believe God has a problem with lies for the right reasons (such as Rahab telling a lie to save the spies).
But that's not the same as God lying.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
My focus was more on the part talking about lying.

Except that God is the epitome of absoluteness. He is all powerful, He is all knowing, He is all wise, He is all present. All of those are amoral characteristics. When you say He is all good, and then you say that He lies sometimes, those caveats and exceptions matter more than the amoral caveats and exceptions.
How so?

God is what He is.

What does "the epitome of absoluteness" even mean? For that matter, what does it mean to say the God is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, and all present? Are you certain that those ideas are biblical? They sound Greek to me, as in Aristotelian.

Biblically, we know that God is the fountainhead of all power but that He delegates power to others and grants them the ability to do things for themselves. We know that God can do anything doable, that He wants to do but that He cannot do the rationally absurd, like be in a place that does not exist or create a perfect cube that has only four sides or any other self-contradictory thing. Biblically, we know that God knows all that is knowable that He wants to know and that He is able to find out that which He doesn't already know. We know that God is perfectly, wise in that there can be no such thing as an error of His judgment or a flaw in His understanding. And, finally, we know that God can be present at all places at once but that He is only in those places that He chooses to be.

The typical dogma that is taught concerning these issues in most Christian circles comes from the Greek philosophy of the Classics that was imported into Christianity by Augustine and goes well beyond the biblical material, which I could establish if you feel it necessary.

That's a good explanation.
(y)

When I think of "the immoral sort of lying", it presumes a "moral sort of lying," and @JudgeRightly gave us some examples. The reason those example exist is that there is a greater power exerting pressure to do a greater evil than the lying. I can't think of any examples that wouldn't include that.
This presupposes that all lying is evil and, worse than that, that God sanctions choosing the lesser of two evils. That cannot be the case, for what is hopefully obvious reasons. The lesser of two evils is still evil. God does not sanction evil and He most certainly does not reward evil - period.

You are, however, quite correct when you observe that "the immoral sort of lying", presumes a "moral sort of lying,".
Why do you reject that premise? Isn't the biblical material compelling?

But with God, there is no greater power that can exert pressure on Him. That makes me think there's never any reason for God to lie "morally".
Well, there's what you think and then there's the plain reading of HIS word? Why do you believe your thinking over God's own testimony?

I Kings 22:20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”​

Notice that this passage quotes The Lord God Himself. "Go out and do so.", are the words that the scripture puts into God's own mouth.

Given the above passage and the others cited by JudgeRightly, I see two and only two alternatives.

1. God not only sanctions but orders his prophets to do evil and is, therefore, evil Himself, or...
2. Lying is not always evil.

Clete
 
Top