The answer to your question is: No. Because God didn’t write the Bible. A whole bunch of different people did. Some of those people may have lied.
Hope that helps. 
That is complete and utter nonsense.
Asking if God lied in the bible is asking if Gandalf lied in LOTR. It doesn’t matter who wrote it.
But this is a question about God as depicted in the bible. I don’t believe He exists, but I can post in a thread without fighting the premise. Can’t you do the same?
A nonsensical claim, regardless of whether it’s dogma or not. Especially since Catholics don’t have some sort of lock on defining God. And since the OP asks if God lied in the Bible, what matters is what God is said to have done in the Bible, not the extra-Biblical dogma of any particular sect.
And yes, answers like “God doesn’t exist so he didn’t say anything” are irrelevant as well.
Is that biblically established? I was under the impression Adam and Even were as ignorant of sin as animals, until they gained the knowledge of good and evil, and one of the punishments for Eve was that her labour pains would be greatly increased, suggesting she was already capable of labour (and reproduction generally).
Nope. The other tree they hadn’t yet eaten from would have given them eternal life.
A good example of “Bible Tennis”. One can find anything in the Bible (except science). Its a 2600 year old pastiche. It is goofy to compare OT and NT passages as though the Hebrew culture were static in between. (And, yes, a lot of people do.) You can get wisdom from the Bible and you can get “gotcha points”. Just depends what you want.
It is certainly established in the New Testament, but AFAIK that is also the Jewish take on it.
That depends on how you define sin. They were told not to disobey God and eat the fruit, so to that extent they clearly knew that they *could *disobey God. The standard definition of sin is breaking the laws of God. So I think it’s safe to say that they were not *ignorant *of sin, simply that they had *not *sinned.
Whether she was capable we don’t know. AFAIK all Abrahamic faiths accept that God had always *intended *humans to reproduce at some stage, which is why he made them male and female, just as he had the animals. It s not in any way clear from the Bible that they were capable of reproduction prior to their expulsion. It’s entirely possible that they were under some form of divine birth control, or that being physically perfect they also had perfect control over their own reproduction and were waiting for God’s go ahead before they started.
The effects of the the expulsion, which were never portrayed as punishments in the OT, included a need to labour to obtain food, aging, disease and painful childbirth. Of those effects, painful childbirth is frankly the least of them.
They were also instructed to populate the Earth, rather than being confined to Eden, but once again there’s no implication that they were incapable of reproduction in Eden.
What a charmer! Hi!
LotR was written by one person. The Bible is a collection of stories by many.
One expects that the former be consistent. One expects that the latter would not.
Sure, if said book were a single text presenting I’ve view if the character. It’s not. It’s many texts presenting many views. There’s therefore nothing to be considered definitive. The concept of a character represented differently by different authors “lying” because those authors portrayed him differently is dumb.
Did Kirk lie if Abrahms portrayed him differently to Riddenberry? Did Holmes lie because Moffat portrays him differently to Doyle? Did Costner lie because his Robin Hood differs to Flynn’s?
I know the story of Abraham & Isaac. It was not a lie, but a way of getting Abraham out of the deal he made with the devil. Long story, but no lie by God.
Short version in what I believe was revealed:
-Abraham and Sarah wanting a child, longing a child made a offer to any god to give them a child.
-Devil takes them up on it, Ishmeile is given (slave child, land of slavery, Satan’s kingdom).
-Devil comes back for his due, wants Isaac as payment.
-Because Abraham and Sarah made the deal with the devil God could not act on their cries for Isaac. Satan would have to be the one to act on their cries, which Satan has no reason to do.
- But God could act on Isaac’s cry, as Isaac was not a willing partner in that deal, andwhich He did on the alter. But Isaac had to be brought to that point of crying to God.
- God answers Isaac’s cry, saves him and also fulfills the promise to Abraham that through Isaac would come the saviour of the people or something like that, so God does not lie, but gets them out of a deal they made with the devil.
YMMV
The bible is one object. The question is, in this book, the bible, does God lie?
If you had a bunch of Robin Hood stories by different authors in an anthology, a question could be asked, did Robin Hood have sex with Marion?
I’m sure most of the people reading this understand that the bible is a collection of different writers. In fact, the writers attributed aren’t even the actual people. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t ask, in the bible, does X happen.
This isn’t like asking, in all of fan-fiction has Picard ever kissed Riker? Because the bible is a single set of writings, bound together and given authority by the type of person who believes in that sort of thing.
I think it’s fair to say in any case that God is not to be trusted, so I would definitely ask for his ID.
I want to see God’s long form existence certificate.
God paraphrases Sarah’s response (by this time in Gn 16 she was no longer Sarai). She laughed because she did not believe she and Abraham could “have sexual pleasure” at their advanced age. God tells Abraham that she did not believe she could “bear a son” at her advanced age. Your point is well taken.
This is one of the more charming stories in the Torah. It shows an anthropomorphic concept of God and casts an intimate light on human nature, which that God clearly shares.
Yup.
I strongly disagree. The Bible is a collection of objects, in the same way that a collection of various Arthurian legends would be.
Sure, you can ask anything you want. That doesn’t mean that a sensible answer is possible. In this case, the only answer is “different authors in that collection of works claim different things about the character they describe. None of them are that character. There is no way to know - assuming, for the sake of argument, that said character exists - which, if any, are correct. But they sure do disagree in places”.
That’s the only sensible answer to the question.
MMDV. The devil does not appear in this story (Gn 22). The idea of demons and the devil seems to have been picked up during the Babylonian captivity, when the Torah was first reduced to written form.
Yeah, I believe God says later that he must punish them “before they also eat from the tree of life, and become gods like us” (or something similar). So their immortality getting stripped, only for something right there to give it back would be a bit odd. I always interpreted it as they didn’t have immortality, and they needed to eat from both trees to gain immortality and sapience, but they only got the sapience end of the deal before God got pissed off and kicked them out.
ETA:
So, were Adam and Eve having sex (or at least were they capable of doing so) before eating the fruit?
Without knowledge of good and evil, it would be boring Republican Sex™.
It wasn’t boring when H.W. Bush did it constantly to Barbara Bush.