(August 9, 2012 at 8:01 pm)cato123 Wrote: It would have been horrible logic if I had come to that conclusion. My point here is that if there is one example of god lying, then how is anybody to be sure of the veracity of any other statement? This is not the same as saying that all other statements are false, only that we cannot know which other statements are false. At a minimum, this makes The Bible untrustworthy.

So because God didn't tell the truth in one scenario, we have good reason to think that He didn't tell the truth in other scenarios?

I think I get your basic point--if we can't assume that God always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then we can't just assume that every part of the Bible is true.

But it might be knowable exactly what God's obligations are with regard to the truth, or if not exactly, then to some sufficient degree.

For example, we can't solve the roots of general polynomial equations of degree five or higher. But we can know certain classes of polynomial equations of degree five or higher that can be solved.

So while it might not be possible in general to say, "God always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", we might be able to say something like "In circumstances X, Y, and Z, God always tells the truth; since verse A is in circumstance X, we know that God is telling the truth in verse A."

(August 9, 2012 at 9:08 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: "In circumstances X, Y, and Z, God always tells the truth; since verse A is in circumstance X, we know that God is telling the truth in verse A."

This seems reasonable logically; however, to support the premise that God always tells the truth in circumstance X you are still left with testing the veracity of each verse in that cicumstance to show that God always tells the truth in circumstance X.

(August 9, 2012 at 10:05 pm)cato123 Wrote: This seems reasonable logically; however, to support the premise that God always tells the truth in circumstance X you are still left with testing the veracity of each verse in that cicumstance to show that God always tells the truth in circumstance X.

Not necessarily. You might be able to show that there is some categorical imperative at work which entails that God tells the truth in circumstance X. It doesn't have to be a proof by exhaustion.

(August 9, 2012 at 10:11 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Not necessarily. You might be able to show that there is some categorical imperative at work which entails that God tells the truth in circumstance X. It doesn't have to be a proof by exhaustion.

Wouldn't requiring the condition of X make telling the truth a hypothetical imperative and not categorical?

"In circumstances X, Y, and Z, God always tells the truth; since verse A is in circumstance X, we know that God is telling the truth in verse A."

-unless that assessment was an example circumstance B- where god does not tell the truth.

(August 9, 2012 at 9:32 am)spockrates Wrote: [quote='Godschild' pid='320892' dateline='1344454295']
@ Spockrates, I agree that the two verses are not a contradiction, I also agree that deception is not always lying, it can be a strategy. However as I've said and continue to, in Ezekiel God is not directly deceiving the prophet, God allows the prophet to be deceived by his own prophecy through his vanity. God does not reveal the true to the prophet, this is to punish the prophet because the prophet is deceiving Israel.

Spockrates Wrote:Yes, I understand what you believe, but (please forgive me for being so slow to catch on) I still don't understand why you believe. I'm having trouble seeing how these words,

"... I the LORD have deceived that prophet..."

can mean anything but the LORD had deceived the prophet. The only way this might be true would be if the biblical translators King James commissioned translated the verse wrong, I think. What do you think? Should we look at a more modern translation to see if it clears it up for me?

This is from the New American Standard, this is the translation I use when studying, it is considered the most accurate translation by most scholars. I knew I should have gone and read the verses that go along with this verse, sorry I got lazy instead of looking for the truth.
Ezekiel 14:9"But if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word, it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel.
The verse is actually saying that God urges the prophet to speak according to this translation.
The ESV uses the word deceive also and I do not know what word the NIV uses in this verse, I seldom use the NIV now.
If you read verses 1-11 I believe that verse 9 will make more sense to you. I read it this way, many in Israel were worshiping false idols (gods) and then they would go before a self proclaimed prophet, and ask that prophet what God has to say. God then urged the prophet to speak his false words to these people, so that He could punish all that were involved in idolatry. Ezekiel is one book I do need to study more, it is a book of judgement and can be difficult.

(August 9, 2012 at 8:01 pm)cato123 Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 6:06 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Your conclusion is unwarranted. My argument (more of a challenge, really, than an argument) was that God might not necessarily have all the same obligations as us. And you think it's safe to conclude, "God is under no obligation to tell people the truth"? Because of one example where His obligation to tell the truth is different from ours, He must never have any obligation to tell the truth ever?

Horrible logic.

It would have been horrible logic if I had come to that conclusion. My point here is that if there is one example of god lying, then how is anybody to be sure of the veracity of any other statement? This is not the same as saying that all other statements are false, only that we cannot know which other statements are false. At a minimum, this makes The Bible untrustworthy.

Hope you don't mind my butting in, but is there an example of God lying? We have not yet determined that deceiving is always the same as lying, and the example of Ezekiel is of God claiming to deceive--not lie.

I'm thinking this is an important distinction, for lying is usually thought of as immoral, but deceiving is sometimes admired. For example: A professional basketball player during an Olympic game deceives the player guarding him into thinking he is going for the basket. He instead passes the ball to a teammate, who then makes the shot. Such deception is in no way immoral. One watching the event on television would not reasonably get upset and shout at her TV screen, "That player is such a #*%^@ LIAR!"

Do you see, then that to get to the truth, we must first investigate when deception is telling a lie and when it is not, and when it is immoral and when it is not, and then apply what we learn to the example in Ezekiel?

---

(August 10, 2012 at 5:10 am)Godschild Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ Spockrates, I agree that the two verses are not a contradiction, I also agree that deception is not always lying, it can be a strategy. However as I've said and continue to, in Ezekiel God is not directly deceiving the prophet, God allows the prophet to be deceived by his own prophecy through his vanity. God does not reveal the true to the prophet, this is to punish the prophet because the prophet is deceiving Israel.

Spockrates Wrote:Yes, I understand what you believe, but (please forgive me for being so slow to catch on) I still don't understand why you believe. I'm having trouble seeing how these words,

"... I the LORD have deceived that prophet..."

can mean anything but the LORD had deceived the prophet. The only way this might be true would be if the biblical translators King James commissioned translated the verse wrong, I think. What do you think? Should we look at a more modern translation to see if it clears it up for me?

This is from the New American Standard, this is the translation I use when studying, it is considered the most accurate translation by most scholars. I knew I should have gone and read the verses that go along with this verse, sorry I got lazy instead of looking for the truth.
Ezekiel 14:9"But if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word, it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel.
The verse is actually saying that God urges the prophet to speak according to this translation.
The ESV uses the word deceive also and I do not know what word the NIV uses in this verse, I seldom use the NIV now.
If you read verses 1-11 I believe that verse 9 will make more sense to you. I read it this way, many in Israel were worshiping false idols (gods) and then they would go before a self proclaimed prophet, and ask that prophet what God has to say. God then urged the prophet to speak his false words to these people, so that He could punish all that were involved in idolatry. Ezekiel is one book I do need to study more, it is a book of judgement and can be difficult.

It is likely more accurate than the King James version, but the choice of words is so--19th century. Let's also consider one of the most popular versions of the 21st century--Today's New International Version:


9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.'"

(Ezekiel 14:9)

It seems, then that the deception of Ezekiel might be described as God prevailing against the one who misrepresented himself as God's spokesperson, and he prevailed by enticing the imposter in some way. Do you agree? If so, in what way did God entice the false prophet?

I'm thinking that the context of the surrounding verses paints a picture of a the fake prophet deceiving the Jewish people by assuring them that they will be able to defend themselves against the invading military forces. This contradict's God's message that they will not prevail against them. So in what way would you say God deceived, prevailed against, or enticed the false prophet?

Ah, the wonders of biblical revisions eh? Slowly but surely attempting to edit away all the questionable bits..hehehehe.

(August 10, 2012 at 8:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: Ah, the wonders of biblical revisions eh? Slowly but surely attempting to edit away all the questionable bits..hehehehe.

King James was penned in the 17th century. Revised Standard was published in the 19th century. Today's New International was published in the 21st century. A lot can come to light every two centuries. No?

(August 10, 2012 at 7:05 am)spockrates Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 5:10 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

This is from the New American Standard, this is the translation I use when studying, it is considered the most accurate translation by most scholars. I knew I should have gone and read the verses that go along with this verse, sorry I got lazy instead of looking for the truth.
Ezekiel 14:9"But if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word, it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel.
The verse is actually saying that God urges the prophet to speak according to this translation.
The ESV uses the word deceive also and I do not know what word the NIV uses in this verse, I seldom use the NIV now.
If you read verses 1-11 I believe that verse 9 will make more sense to you. I read it this way, many in Israel were worshiping false idols (gods) and then they would go before a self proclaimed prophet, and ask that prophet what God has to say. God then urged the prophet to speak his false words to these people, so that He could punish all that were involved in idolatry. Ezekiel is one book I do need to study more, it is a book of judgement and can be difficult.

---

It is likely more accurate than the King James version, but the choice of words is so--19th century. Let's also consider one of the most popular versions of the 21st century--Today's New International Version:


9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.'"

(Ezekiel 14:9)

It seems, then that the deception of Ezekiel might be described as God prevailing against the one who misrepresented himself as God's spokesperson, and he prevailed by enticing the imposter in some way. Do you agree? If so, in what way did God entice the false prophet?

I'm thinking that the context of the surrounding verses paints a picture of a the fake prophet deceiving the Jewish people by assuring them that they will be able to defend themselves against the invading military forces. This contradict's God's message that they will not prevail against them. So in what way would you say God deceived, prevailed against, or enticed the false prophet?

Yes I agree, prevail can carry the same meaning as entice and I believe in this case entice is probably the better word, it makes the verse easier to understand.

As for those who think that modern translations are there to cover up anything are showing their ignorance. They do not study the process of modern translation and that we find the meaning to words that the KJ translators did not know and had to make an intelligent guess.