Looking at the Bible as Story where Yahweh is character, did Yahweh lie to Zerbbabel and the other Jews?
"‘Who of you is left who saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Does it not seem to you like nothing? But now be strong, O Zerubbabel,’ declares the LORD. ‘Be strong, O Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land,’ declares the LORD, ‘and work. For I am with you,’ declares the LORD Almighty. ‘This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.’
“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty. ‘The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘And in this place I will grant peace,’ declares the LORD Almighty.”"
Is there any way to spin this? Is what way was this promise fufilled?
All promises to Israel of national restoration are conditional as to Israel’s faithfulness to the Covenant. Israel was restored, the Temple rebuilt, defiled,
then rededicated & later enlarged by Herod. So far, so good. And then somebody came along, declared the Temple to be made a harbor for swindlers, and foretold its destruction within a generation after his departure. That somebody is thought by many to have been held the Presence of the Lord, with authority to be bring peace or judgement to the nation and the Temple.
I don’t understand the OP. The temple was rebuilt, right? So what was the lie supposed to be?
You mean perhaps God’s claim that “in this place, I will grant peace”? Certainly there hasn’t been uninterupted peace around the Temple Mount since 500 B.C., but then God doesn’t promise an endless peace (if memory serves, the Jews did get a period of peace (albeit as subject people) for several hundred years after the end of the Babylonian Captivity until after the death of Alexander the Great and the time of Maccabees ), or even state that He’s necessarily talking about a military peace.
Well, he lied to Adam and Eve. He said the fruit of knowledge would kill them.
*G.3.2. *** And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
*G.3.3. *** but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. G.3.4.And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
**G.3.5. ** *for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
So . . . God lied, while the devil told the truth.
The impression I’d always had/heard was that it was eating of the fruit that lead to the admission of death into the world. So, while the fruit didn’t kill Adam and Eve, eating from it did lead to their deaths.
Of course, God did lie to Abraham about the need to sacrifice Isaac.
Your quote does not demonstrate that God said that the fruit would kill them. He said: Leave it alone, or you will die. Like if I am an armed guard in a prison, and I tell you: Don’t step over this line, or you will die. Does the line kill you when you step over it?
Of course God didn’t lie. God never lies, because he doesn’t exist. …or, inasmuch as any fictional character in a narrative can lie, yes, he does, or at least contradicts himself quite a lot. Did God mislead? Well, if you take the bible as “the” story of the judeo-christian account, as opposed to a series of unlinked allegories added to a tome over time, I think you’d have to say yes, he misled all peoples referenced therein, to one extent or another.
You’re on firmer ground there, certainly, and a quick check on biblegateway.com supports this with several other translations. However, the day that Adam ate the fruit was the day death was let into the world, and it was only a matter of time for Adam himself - so not such a big lie after all, heh?
I’m not so certain of that. It is true that a “double expression” of dying is used in the verse. However, such double expressions are very common in Hebrew. They are used in many places (including many of the sins for which the sinner receives the death penalty). I don’t think you can read too much into the double verb.
They died in the sense that their souls and the souls of mankind would no longer be free of sin, naturally from birth. He would now need to send a savior to correct their (and the sins of man in general) sins.
It was a death of the soul, more or less.